Linux-Advocacy Digest #699, Volume #28 Mon, 28 Aug 00 02:13:09 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux, XML, and assalting Windows ("paul snow")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux, XML, and assalting Windows ("paul snow")
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 ...) (ZnU)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (ZnU)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (ZnU)
Re: Linux, XML, and assalting Windows ("paul snow")
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Jim
Richardson)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Jim
Richardson)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "paul snow" <[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: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 05:26:10 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8o9s07$c3b$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> paul snow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:mZTp5.18778$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > Today we have Java VMs and Adobe Acrobat viewers, and browsers, and
> browser
> > plug-ins, word processing packages, and stock tickers, Internet based
> games,
> > etc. Never mind that we are going to be configuring systems to connect
> with
> > other systems, and use databases, and database clients, and we need to
set
> > up security, and down load the new versions of our clients, etc.
> >
> > It isn't going to be simple in the future. It is going to get worse.
In
> > another post I list a set of requirements we are going to need from a
> > package manager. Not want, need. Typewriters are out for good. And
> > Redmond may be at fault to some degree, but if so they only pushed us
> ahead
> > in time a bit. It was going to happen to us anyway.
> >
> > We have to have package managers, but they need to be based on open
> > standards.
>
> Are you saying that the Linux package managers are not open?
No. But I don't have an open standard for describing software so that I can
express that software onto any platform its description claims it supports.
> > And they need to operate in an environment outside the execution
> > environment of the supported computer systems. They need to be able to
> > manage cross platform, distributed applications.
> Just what do you mean by that? It sound like a lot of empty talk devoid
of
> real meaning.
Distributed applications mean that to get the distributed application to
run, I have to get a number of applications installed and configured,
usually across a range of platforms, and integrated with firewalls, etc.
Today I do that with sometimes great programs (like the RPM) and sometimes
with less great facilities (like Install Shield). But I have to manually
install and configure each component, often in an exact order. I have
databases, database clients, compilers, web servers, object request brokers
of various sorts, etc. that all have their own sets of needed tweaks based
on the topology we are setting up.
All of that just to get the right abstractions up and running so we can
begin to talk about setting up and configuring the actual application.
That is what I mean when I say we need to be able to manage cross platform
distributed applications. Today we have given up on client side
distributed applications. Involving the client in all of this seems like it
is just too difficult. But look at the promises! Many of the applications
we are predicting require client side intelligence. And even the ones that
don't are passing up on lots of CPU cycles that would greatly improve their
performance. All because we can't deliver and manage software.
>
> > Why? Because we are on
> > the Internet already!
>
> What does that have to do with software installation procedures?
The Internet means distributed applications. And internet delivered
software. Transient software (applications that install, you use for a
while, then they go away.)
Take one of many examples:
Say that I want to be able, as an Application Service Provider (ASP), to
deliver native code to my clients. But today I can't because I can't manage
all the combinations of possible configuration issues that my customers are
going to encounter if I deliver software the way we do today. As an ASP I
become responsible. If I try to push this responsibility off onto the
specific Application Developer, they are simply going blame the problem on
one or more of the other venders that delivered software to this customer.
But if instead I am providing XML described software, then this
responsibility to deal with these combinations shifts to the vender of the
Software Rendering Facility the customer is using. But unlike the ASP, the
Facility vender deals with this day in and day out for all their customers
(a set much larger than the ASPs). And doing so is part of their value add.
Furthermore, part of their value add is assuring the customer they can
cleanly remove the new software if no repair for the installation is forth
comming.
That is why the Internet changes things.
> > We want to bank, we want to order hamburgers on the
> > Interstate Hwy so I don't wait for my order! I want to use my PDA to
> adjust
> > my lights in my hotel (cause I don't know where the switches are, but I
> have
> > my PDA), I want to listen to my MP3 files on the rental car's stereo,
from
> > the station I programmed on the Internet.
>
> Speak of your desires and do not attribute them to others. Still I ask,
> what does that have to do with software installation procedures?
We are at the breaking edge when it comes to delivering and deploying these
technologies. System upgrades? Replacing a busted server? Reconfiguring to
use the next release of a database? These are all very, very difficult when
they must be done manually, system by system.
What is to be done if even reasonably simple applications that you happen to
desire (but I would never dare imply intersect my own) happen to require
code to be installed on your computing device? Even if we "trust" each
other, my code might not be compatible with other code you are using. This
problem may even be a known one, along with the configuration fix needed.
How do we upgrade and manage distributed applications when they do break out
of the servers and onto the Internet in peer to peer configurations?
>
> By the way, do you know what it means to program a station? I don't think
> you do, or else you would not have used, "the station I programmed on the
> Internet", since it does not belong in this discussion.
www.Sonicnet.com I am not sure why I referenced it, but I just "programmed"
my station, which delivers western music, classical, and pop. You really
haven't lived until your radio station follows Bach with Johnny Cash! No
way anyone could have followed that reference, so I am sorry for any
heartburn it caused.
>
> > We can't do all of this by coping all our files onto our bin directory.
>
> I never mentioned anythng about copying anything into bin. I never even
> mentioned bin. Further, I would never suggest putting ALL our files into
> bin let alone onto bin. The installation method has nothing to do with
what
> the software can do once it is installed.
Forget the reference to bin (a really dirt simple install method that likely
predates you a bit).
However, you nailed it on the head there! Let me repeat you:
> The installation method has nothing to do with what
> the software can do once it is installed.
So true. And my point. And it doesn't matter who did it either. And
installs are solely modifications to storage. Just changes to some data
structures (the file system). So rather than argue those points (which it
seems we now agree on them) explain why we should describe these
modifications differently for different target systems? Why the information
about how these structures are interrelated is uninteresting past install?
Why versioning of applications (and their related structural changes)
doesn't have to be explict? And why should we do installs from within the
OS? Why not outside the OS where we can manage everything, across
platforms, in the same way?
> You are begining to sound like a person how has come up with a half baked
> idea to solve a problem that does not exist and is now trying to convince
> others that they have a problem so that your can sell them your solution
for
> it. Yes sir you have trouble right here in River City!
Well, we do. You might be managing a single system, but I am not. And I am
in the position of having to explain to customers how they are going to
manage their systems after I have gone to my next job. Or explain to them
that we have spent three weeks getting an application to work, but we don't
have anything to check in to the source code control system. ("We were not
working on code. It took us three weeks to get X to talk to Y, and for Z to
come up configured to point to A through firewall B. We are documenting it,
so if something goes wrong, you will be able <cough, look at toes> to
duplicate what we had to do to make it work. We will check that docuement
in. >")
------------------------------
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 01:34:58 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Joe R. in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[...]
>Considering that:
>
>1. You've admitted you're an expert in only one thing--ignorance.
A fallacy. I've pointed out that I have a great deal of study and
skills in dealing with ignorance, so, yes, I'm "an expert in ignorance",
so to speak. I never suggested it is my only field of expertise. I
also consider myself an expert in modern network management systems and
networking, and an amateur philosopher.
>2. You've admitted that you don't use the definitions that everyone else
>uses -- you merely change meanings to fit your purposes.
No, I've pointed out that everyone does that, as it is the
characteristic of natural language. As Emerson wrote, "Every word was
once a poem.... Language is fossil poetry."
I've also endeavored both in my profession and my hobbies to provide an
accurate, consistent, and practical framework for my definitions in
order to align them with "what everyone else uses", which is more than I
can say for everyone else.
>3. You have not provided a single reference to back up a single post
>you've made.
Yet another fallacy, obviously.
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>4. You've admitted that you raise "feelings" the the level of facts.
>
>You're hardly one to talk.
I don't know where you got this "feelings" thing you've latched on to.
I guess it must have been something I said, but I don't recall using the
word 'feelings' recently in any of my posts.
--
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: "paul snow" <[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: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 05:34:22 GMT
Some of these things have to be configured together. And I need them on
platforms other than NeXT and Mac. And I need to gather all the decision
points made during installs, and perhaps coordiante them with other installs
on different machines.
Sure, it isn't clear from the list I gave you. But I could have listed
Websphere advanced, with an Oracle adaptor, MQSeries client and server, DB2
server and client, along with DB2 Everywhere for our handhelds, Version X of
the C++ compiler, the proper JDK, DCE server, and DCE clients, etc. across
four NT Boxes, the firewalls (with the proper ports punched, and the ORB
configured to use them).
Simple installs (Such as NeXT-style bundles) would be a huge improvement
over what I generally have to deal with. Still, it wouldn't resolve the
bigger picture.
Today there is a big push to establish large abstractions that simply make
computing a homogenous place. I don't think that is really the answer.
Abstractions only do their work if they are properly deployed.
Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "paul snow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> [snip about ditching "package managers" all together]
>
> > Ah those simple days of yore! But we can't and we won't go back.
> >
> > Today we have Java VMs and Adobe Acrobat viewers, and browsers, and
browser
> > plug-ins, word processing packages, and stock tickers, Internet based
games,
> > etc. Never mind that we are going to be configuring systems to connect
with
> > other systems, and use databases, and database clients, and we need to
set
> > up security, and down load the new versions of our clients, etc.
>
> ... enter NeXT-style bundles. They can handle all the above, and you
> only need to know how to use cp(1) to install them.
>
> > It isn't going to be simple in the future. It is going to get worse.
In
> > another post I list a set of requirements we are going to need from a
> > package manager. Not want, need. Typewriters are out for good. And
> > Redmond may be at fault to some degree, but if so they only pushed us
ahead
> > in time a bit. It was going to happen to us anyway.
> >
> > We have to have package managers, but they need to be based on open
> > standards. And they need to operate in an environment outside the
execution
> > environment of the supported computer systems. They need to be able to
> > manage cross platform, distributed applications. Why? Because we are
on
> > the Internet already! We want to bank, we want to order hamburgers on
the
> > Interstate Hwy so I don't wait for my order! I want to use my PDA to
adjust
> > my lights in my hotel (cause I don't know where the switches are, but I
have
> > my PDA), I want to listen to my MP3 files on the rental car's stereo,
from
> > the station I programmed on the Internet.
> >
> > We can't do all of this by coping all our files onto our bin directory.
> > Sorry.
>
> Why not? Isn't the operating system supposed to do the mundane
> things for us anyway?
> --
> 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: 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 01:36:08 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Aaron R. Kulkis in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>>
>> Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> [...]
>> >> I never said "he" is not real. I said "JS/PL" is not real, other than
>> >> as a pseudonym.
>> >
>> >You said "'JS/PL' isn't a real person." That's not saying that he's
>> >using a pseudonym.
>>
>> According to your interpretation, maybe. It is equivalent of saying
>> "'John Galt' isn't a real person", in my interpretation (and since I'm
>> the one that said it, I have slightly more say than you in its meaning.)
>> You may note that "John Galt" has posted several times to Usenet.
>>
>
>Are you alleging that the posts signed JS/PL are actually written
>by bogie-men or ghosts or demons or something?
I'm stating, quite plainly, that I have no idea who wrote them, and have
no interest in finding out. Frankly, I don't care.
--
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: ZnU <[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 05:36:55 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 27 Aug 2000 21:30:33 GMT, ZnU wrote:
> >
> > >That private school gets to pick who it accepts, right? Will it
> > >take kids with serious learning disabilities? Behavioral/emotional
> > >problems? Below average intelligence? You can't just leave these
> > >people out of the system; if you don't do your best to educate
> > >them they'll only be even more of a burden on society later.
> >
> > I'd like to develop this line of reasoning further. Kulkis seems to
> > be trying to sell us on an exclusivist system. He points out that
> > exclusive schools(1) display better performance. But his arguments
> > fall short on two counts:
> >
> > (a) Excluding certain groups will not result in a
> > better-educated
> > population. All it does is hide the less capable from view
> > of educational stats ( like SAT scores ). In short, it's a
> > stats-scam.
> >
> > (b) It's not even obvious that the more gifted students would
> > benefit
> > from exclusionist practices. You'd need to show that *the
> > same students* would have done worse under a less
> > exclusionist system.
> >
> > In short, Kulkis's exclusionist vision has an agenda of hiding the
> > less able from the statistics, rather than actually improving the
> > quality of education.
> >
> > (1) By this, I mean schools with a self-selected population.
> > This includes Catholic schools, not just snob-value schools.
>
>
> So your proposal is.... stick with the current system which is not
> merely failing, but failing catastrophically.
You admit that public education systems in other countries are much
better than ours. Why do you insist the only way to fix education in
this country is to privatize it?
--
This universe shipped by weight, not volume. Some expansion may have
occurred during shipment.
ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | <http://znu.dhs.org>
------------------------------
From: ZnU <[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 05:40:52 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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
I really hope you understand that that song is mocking you and
everything you stand for....
--
This universe shipped by weight, not volume. Some expansion may have
occurred during shipment.
ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | <http://znu.dhs.org>
------------------------------
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: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 05:48:34 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Joe
R." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "JS/PL"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> > > >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Said Aaron R. Kulkis in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> > > >> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> > > >> [...]
> > > >> >> Maybe from your perspective. Try living on $24,000 a year
> > > >> >> with a family of 3.
> > > >> >
> > > >> >It wouldn't be too much to ask to REFRAIN FROM HAVING KIDS
> > > >> >THAT YOU FUCKING CAN'T AFFORD, would it?
> > > >>
> > > >> Yes, I'm afraid it would. Certainly to the extent that you
> > > >> indicate. Every citizen has the right to have children if they
> > > >> desire, and a society which prevents them from doing so
> > > >> economically is no less unsatisfactory than one that does so
> > > >> through any other means.
> >
> > You cannot economically prevent people from having kids. They are
> > free to have as many kids as they like, the fact that society
> > doesn't feed their existing kids doesn't stop anyone from having
> > more (until being put in jail when the kids start dying of
> > starvation). How is your warped view of society economically
> > preventing anything?
>
> Actually, he could.
>
> He could, for example, insist that a woman is unable to collect
> welfare unless she submits to Norplant insertion before receiving her
> check and an examination before each subsequent check to ensure that
> it hadn't been removed.
>
> I'm not saying whether this would be a good idea or not, but it's
> certainly feasible.
It isn't feasible once you factor in public reaction.
[snip]
--
This universe shipped by weight, not volume. Some expansion may have
occurred during shipment.
ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | <http://znu.dhs.org>
------------------------------
From: "paul snow" <[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: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 05:50:27 GMT
> You do realize that is software that gives any meaning to the data on the
> storage device beyond just a collection of bytes or bits arranged as fixed
> sized records in th case of DASD devices. It is the processor that gives
> any meaning to the contents of ROMs, without interpretation the data is
just
> a random collection of whatever method is used to record the data. Just
> like writing is just a random collection of marking for someone who can
not
> read it.
>
> What do you mean by "other platforms"? It seems that you are not using
the
> same meaning that is attached to it by the reset of us.
My point is that the storage defines the software. Meaning is another
issue, related closely to Magic.
The storage exists logically outside the execution environment of the
software. Storage can be constructed for a processor with the software we
want that processor to use.
platform -- a physically different computer or a different OS or a different
processor, or smart storage. I'm pretty flexible with how you understand
the term platform. Most readings work, best I can tell. I'll even take a
virtual machine or two.
BTW, Does it hurt to be reset ? ;-)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
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: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 20:01:10 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 28 Aug 2000 00:12:37 GMT,
Donovan Rebbechi, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>On Sun, 27 Aug 2000 21:30:33 GMT, ZnU wrote:
>
>>That private school gets to pick who it accepts, right? Will it take
>>kids with serious learning disabilities? Behavioral/emotional problems?
>>Below average intelligence? You can't just leave these people out of the
>>system; if you don't do your best to educate them they'll only be even
>>more of a burden on society later.
>
>I'd like to develop this line of reasoning further. Kulkis seems to be
>trying to sell us on an exclusivist system. He points out that
>exclusive schools(1) display better performance. But his arguments
>fall short on two counts:
>
>(a) Excluding certain groups will not result in a better-educated
> population. All it does is hide the less capable from view of
> educational stats ( like SAT scores ). In short, it's a stats-scam.
>
>(b) It's not even obvious that the more gifted students would benefit
> from exclusionist practices. You'd need to show that *the same
> students* would have done worse under a less exclusionist system.
>
>In short, Kulkis's exclusionist vision has an agenda of hiding the less
>able from the statistics, rather than actually improving the quality of
>education.
>
>(1) By this, I mean schools with a self-selected population. This includes
>Catholic schools, not just snob-value schools.
Do you have some evidence that private schools are rejecting students based
on something other that monetary considerations?
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
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: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 20:05:19 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 28 Aug 2000 01:34:19 +0100,
C Lund, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > You've never heard of the "working poor", have you? Look it up.
>> Any body in the United States who "works hard" and has even the
>> slightest clue about
>> a) saving money vs. spending habits
>> and
>> b) the fluidity of the job market (i.e. you can always go get a
>> NEW job if don't like what you're getting paid.).
>> Those who are the working poor are either
>> a) too stupid to save money (they blow it on shit they can't afford)
>> and/or
>> b) too lazy to find a better paying job.
>
>Another republican living in an ivory tower.
>When you work a full-time job and *still* can't afford to pay the rent,
>you're among the working poor. Some even have *two* full-time jobs and are
>barely capable of making ends meet. Not because of laziness. Not because
>they have expencive habits or do drugs or buy crap they can't afford, but
>simply because they don't get paid very much. When you have two full-time
>jobs, you don't have the time to go looking for a better job. In fact,
>those one or two jobs might be the only ones you could get. Not everybody
>has a rich daddy who could pay for college. Not everybody qualifies for a
>scholarship. And not everybody had a life situation that allowed them to
>get a proper education. Life is tough on some people whetehr they deserve
>it or not.
>
>You need to get out more.
>
>--
>
Since the biggest cost to the poor is taxation of one sort or another,
why do you think the poor have such a tough time?
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
