Linux-Advocacy Digest #698, Volume #28 Mon, 28 Aug 00 02:13:09 EDT
Contents:
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Windows stability(Memory Comparison) ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Courageous)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) ("Aaron R.
Kulkis")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("[EMAIL PROTECTED]")
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,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 00:52:53 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Joe R. in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[...]
>> Well, seeing as my wife is a student at Penn State, and the Pennsylvania
>> State Employees Credit Union told me that Penn State is not classified
>> as a public institution, because it derives too large a proportion of
>
>Actually, the reason would be that Penn State employees are employed by
>the University and not by the state--unlike the State colleges.
Well, that would mean Penn State is not a state college. All other
"public institutions" along the lines of state universities are, in
fact, included as "employed by the state", though many of them, in fact,
are not employed by the state, but their employer derives the majority
of their operating income from tax dollars.
>> its income from alumni grants, that would be one source. But it is,
>> indeed, one among many. What might be confusing you is that, since you
>> are from around these parts from what you've said, I think I recall,
>> this wasn't always the case. Several decades ago, Penn State was a
>> state college. Now, it isn't.
>
>Wrong. As usual.
>
>Penn State was never one of the state colleges. It was a "state-related"
>university.
>
>Big difference.
>
>But it's pretty obvious that facts don't mean anything to you.
Its really pathetic what an obnoxious asshole you are. Pretty stupid,
too, when it comes down to it. I doubt that Penn State was a
"state-related university", historically, as the very idea not only
sounds stupid, but doesn't quite explain the moniker "Penn State".
Chances are, it was a state college at one time, before it built the
largest alumni organization in the country. But if you have any
information (you haven't provided any, BTW; I thought you should know)
on the details of Penn States history, feel free to post them.
--
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, 28 Aug 2000 00:54:03 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Jim Richardson in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>On Sun, 27 Aug 2000 04:33:43 -0400,
> T. Max Devlin, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> brought forth the following words...:
>
>>Said Courageous in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>>
>>>> At best, this system will waste $60 billion of US tax payer money.
>>>
>>>Many incidental technologies generally flow from such efforts.
>>
>>"Star Wars" is not landing a man on the moon, I'm afraid.
>>
>>>> At worst, it will waste much more and start a another cold war.
>>>
>>>I believe this is doubtful.
>>
>>Well, if you had a background in foreign policy, and the temerity to
>>post with your real name, perhaps we might care about your belief, one
>>way or the other.
>
>Speak for yourself, I value his belief/opinion as much as I value yours...
I was speaking for myself. And anyone else who *agreed* with my
opinion. Just because you haven't sorted things out is no reason for me
to support a pretense of ignorance.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows stability(Memory Comparison)
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 00:08:29 -0500
"Ingemar Lundin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:Soiq5.2091$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> BULLSHIT!!
>
> I've have Win2k and SuSE 6.4 on my PC, IIS5 on Win2k(ftp,smtp and www
> servers),-
> on the Linux part i have Apache, WuFTP and (of course) Sendmail up and
> running + X Windows with KDE.
>
> At bootup Linux have taken 35 MB, Win2k has taken 75 MB (????)
*WORKSTATION*, not server. While technically Gnome and KDE are
applications, they provide the desktop environment you get when running
Windows, so you need to add that in when comparing similarly configured
systems. Additionally, Windows 2000 provides many services running by
default that you don't have running, such as an indexing service.
> /IL
>
> > Linux Workstations take up the same amount of memory as Windows does if
> you
> > configure them similarly (running X with applications like Netscape,
KDE,
> > etc..).
------------------------------
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, 28 Aug 2000 00:58:41 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Chad Irby in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> Said Chad Irby in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>
>> >Note that the two major US sub disasters of the last half-century
>> >occurred in deeper waters, and were over in a couple of seconds.
>>
>> Well, that's the story you heard, at least. When and where were they,
>> precisely?
>
>Start with the Thresher.
>
>It's interesting how you know so much about submarine accidents, but
>don't know about either of the two major American ones of the last
>half-century...
What made you think I knew anything specific about submarine accidents?
I posted on emotional refutation against somebody's contention that they
were, essentially, quick and painless, as I read it.
So far, all you've given me is the name of the ship, I assume, and the
fact that they occurred in the last half century. Based on that level
of knowledge, I fail to see why you consider yourself an authority.
--
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: Courageous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 04:58:15 GMT
>> ...indeed, half of them have I.Q.s under 100...
> You bring up a very good point. For those who don't believe this point
> of view...
Well, most amusingly, those who don't believe this particular
point of view will quite immediately become a serendipitous
statistic in favor of my case. :)-
(hint: the average I.Q. is 100... by *definition*)
C//
------------------------------
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, 28 Aug 2000 01:05:44 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Joe R. in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[...]
>That's nonsense. Except for a very small number of people, there are no
>magical hidden loopholes.
Yes, those would be the ones.
[...]
>And that's exactly the problem. You keep making these absolutely stupid,
>unfounded assumptions, then going on to base extended arguments on them.
>
>Why don't you point to all those deductions that a clever accountant
>could have found for you?
It certainly not a stupid and unfounded assumption to figure that hiring
an accountant would have reduced my tax bill.
[...]
>> a "shrewd tax accountant" could have no doubt provided me with more than
>> a return on investment in his services, had I arranged my finances to
>> present the least profile to the tax code.
>
>"no doubt"??
Well, you haven't refuted it except by conjecture.
[...]
>> >You're the one who said that a clever accountant could have saved you
>> >$4,000 on your taxes. YOU made the claim. Please tell us exactly which
>> >loopholes you're referring to.
>>
>> No, I didn't make any such claim, Joe. Try to improve those reading
>> skills, 'nkay?
>
>OK. You said he could have found another $4 K in deductions. Evidence?
Nope, still not right. But you're getting warm enough I'll give it to
you. I have no evidence, Joe. Merely conjecture. And your evidence to
the contrary would be, I expect, an argument from ignorance. Which
isn't quite the same as conjecture, but your apparently limited ability
to grasp abstractions would make that distinction rather difficult for
your to see, I'm sure.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 00:58:48 -0400
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > It's simple: FUCK THEM!
> >
> > They had their chance to avail themselves to an
> > education...AND THEY ****CHOSE**** not to partake.
>
> As easy as it sounds, that's not America. America was
> built by successful, hard-working, independant people.
>
> Up until the socialist democrats came into power, is
> continuing in that fashion.
>
> Now we have career welfare familys and single-parent
> households whose only source of income is having
> more children and slinging dope to buy that cadillac
> while their children starve (yes, I've seen this happen
> with my own eyes. I've seen families appear before court
> who wouldn't pay their bills, their children had been
> starving and were seized by Child Services but they had
> two pedigree dogs that they fed gourmet dog food to)
>
> They've created a society of incompetent, uneducated,
> worthless voters with which they can manipulate into
> voting for them every election because "those mean
> spirited Republicans" want to take everything away
> and actually make them productive and self-reliant
> again.
"Kill the Poor"
--Dead Kennedys
>
> -Chad
--
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, 28 Aug 2000 01:08:38 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Jim Richardson in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> T. Max Devlin, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[...]
>I know people who retire millionaires from investments, I know no-one eating
>dog-food to survive. Nor have I seen any valid examples of old folks chowing
>down on purina. Kernunos!, dog-food is more expensive than hamburger.
Nor do I.
>I would happily jump at the chance to invest rather than pay SS, I'd willingly
>give up the last 20 years of SS ripped out of my (oft times slim) paycheck
>if only I didn't have to keep getting ripped off by it.
That's why Social Security contributions aren't voluntary. They're not
there for you, and whether the people you have met need them or not, you
will only be able to get rid of the system (which I don't at all oppose)
when you're willing to forfeit every penny you "paid in", and can
convince everyone else to do the same. So far, I count three people,
including myself and you, who are willing to do that. Care to start a
movement?
--
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! ======
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 01:14:02 -0400
From: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [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?
Oooh, big words, but I hate to break it to
you, but the law is the law. It takes one
phone call to file a complaint and an
officer must be sent to take that complaint.
Once a complaint is filed, some states require
a complaint of that nature require arrest and
processing. Some dont.
And as for civil matters, well, you can sue
anyone for anything... and for him to claim
he felt threatened... well, I have watched
parking accidents where people have sued
for millions. I watched my mother get rear
ended at a red light and get sued for being
hit by a driver that failed to stop at the
light that she was the 3rd car stopped at.
That case took 2.5 years... because
irregardless of good lawyers (un)due
process allows for tons of time (months
in some cases) for interludes during
fact finding parts of proceedings. They
enter "evidence", 6 months to file a
counter claim, my mother's lawyers enter
evidence, another 6 months... of course
her side didnt take that long...but
the other side took their time.
So, lets now stop trying to act the grown up
educated man with the big words and face
reality. You are wrong. And a simple call
to your local police department will
confirm that.
Dolly
T. Max Devlin wrote:
>
> Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >T. Max Devlin wrote:
> >> >
> >> >Just as your telling him that you are going to kill him might well be
> >> >considered a threat.
> >>
> >> I never told anyone that I was going to kill anyone. Check your quotes.
> >> To save others the bother, I'll point out that said "I want to kill
> >> JS/PL."
> >>
> >> >He was justified in his action. If you feel that you've been harrassed,
> >> >feel free to take action.
> >>
> >> He was not justified in his actions, and whether or not I plan to take
> >> action, I've always been aware that I am free to do so. I've pointed
> >> out that if I do choose to do so, I won't be wasting time posting to
> >> Usenet about it. I'll go further to remind you (and readers) that you
> >> aren't a lawyer, and your assessment of whether anyone is justified in
> >> his actions is not only irrelevant but is dubious in terms of guiding
> >> wisdom.
> >
> >
> >Let me point out for you then, that in ALL states
> >of this country, your statement can be used as
> >grounds for (1) legal proceedings as "want" can be
> >construed as either (a) intent or (b) desire,
> >(2) a restraining order under the same grounds,
> >(3) a civil suit based on JS/PL's ability to
> >claim fear for her/his life or well being.
> >
> >And in some states, it is grounds for criminal
> >charges and arrest.
> >
> >Just figured I would let you know. Your defense
> >of your statement would tend to indicate either
> >that you are a very young person (child, thus
> >indicating the next), or a high level of
> >immaturity.
> >
> >Just my 50 cents worth,
> >
> >Dolly
>
> I wouldn't pay a nickle for it, Dolly. You presume that a hypothetical
> fact that the text of my words 'can' be grounds for some sort of legal
> reaction on 'JS/PL's part ignores the fact that such pathetically
> ludicrous claims he might make that I made a threat on his life, whoever
> he is, would be laughed out of court with extreme prejudice in *every*
> court in this land. Perhaps you are unaware of the lengthy interaction
> which this anonymous poster and I have had, and thus the full context of
> the exchange. My legal advisors and thus any cognizant court are under
> no such restriction. Your amateurish attempts at prognostication are
> failing you, as well. I'm quite mature and secure in my legal and
> ethical foundation on this issue.
>
> When I predicted dramatic rhetoric and outrageous posturing based on my
> "speak into the mike" bit, I had no idea people would so tenaciously
> defend ignorance and cluelessness.
>
> 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! =-----
====== 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, 28 Aug 2000 01:26:19 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Joe R. in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> [...endless ad hominem and style over substance arguments deleted...]
>> >OK. Then where's the factual evidence to back up your position. You
>> >don't have any. You merely assume that it's true.
>>
>> I presume it is true, as it fits all of the available evidence, so far
>> as I am aware. I have justified my position through reason and evidence
>
>That's only because you haven't looked for any evidence and blatantly
>ignore all the evidence you've been presented with.
I'm afraid you have no evidence but your inability to comprehend my
potentially unique viewpoint to substantiate that accusation. Note that
it is an accusation, as in ad hominem attack, rather than argument.
Your inability to refute my argument having been noted, I must also
point out that you've failed to provide any other discussion of the
matter besides your attempt to ridicule my position senselessly and
needlessly, as well.
>> (you might not have realized what all that "quoting from precedent" was
>> all about, but that's called 'backing up your position' among those less
>
>If you had done it, it might be relevant.
>
>All you seem to want to do is change the meaning of words and phrases
>and restate your feelings over and over again with no factual support.
Well, quoting from previous posts which I know you've read to "prove" to
you that I've quoted from precedent seems an exercise in foolishness.
I'll just throw out a few message id's, OK?
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[...]
>> prone to heated squabbling and more interested in reasoned discussion
>> than yourself), and still await any attempt to confront, let alone
>> refute, that position. Your protests that no argument against my
>> position is necessary is simply yet another of your logical failures.
>
>Nope. It's because you keep changing your position and haven't provided
>a shred of evidence to support it.
Funny that you see it that way. What's disturbing is that I understand
why you do. And it is, in a way, because my position is accurate,
consistent, and practical, without resorting to the popular wisdom which
you rest all your understanding on, falsely, so my 'unique perspective'
is simply beyond your ability to grasp without some good deal of
continued effort. I'm sure it must seem to you that I'm just pulling
all sorts of odd ideas together in a possibly-even dishonest fashion in
order to try to pretend my position has not been refuted. But in fact,
I've got a very strong ethic when it comes to intellectual integrity,
and I am finding a great deal of validity in both my understanding and
my arguments, I'm pleased to say. So I'm sorry if you can't figure them
out well enough to even understand them sufficiently to know that they
aren't "changing" and they are based on a bit more, at least, than a
"shred of evidence", and, indeed, I don't "support" them as much as hold
them out to falsification, in order to see if they are proved valid.
I'm sorry to say you haven't even gotten up to a rudimentary level of
being able to discuss these abstract ideas, let alone provide guidance
in our understanding.
Its my fault, of course, because I do find it incredibly difficult to
reign in my far-roving and undisciplined consideration. My apologies,
and I'll be happy to start over from the basics and go more slowly if
you will refrain from getting defensive, resorting to ad hominem
attacks, and resting all of your consideration on assumptions derived
from 'popular wisdom'.
If not, fuck off. I'm sick of you.
--
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
******************************
