Linux-Advocacy Digest #743, Volume #28 Tue, 29 Aug 00 23:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (T. Max
Devlin)
Re: The Dream World of Linux Zealots (D. Spider)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Gary
Hallock)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (T. Max
Devlin)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (T. Max
Devlin)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (T. Max
Devlin)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Eric
Bennett)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Eric
Bennett)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (T. Max
Devlin)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) ("Joe R.")
Indrema L600 Linux Console Info ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a (Dan Howard)
Re: Large disks still not supported on Linux? (Grega Bremec)
Re: Open source: an idea whose time has come (Mike Byrns)
Re: NETCRAFT: I'm confused (T. Max Devlin)
Re: businesses are psychopaths (Christopher Browne)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 22:00:17 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Aaron R. Kulkis in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>Eric Bennett wrote:
[...]
>It doesn't matter when you stop Soc. Sec....there is going to be a bunch
>of pissed of "senior citizens". The only ethical thing to do is to put
>the burden on the same group who started the whole mess in the first
>place, and through their failure to responsibly supervise congress, to allow to
>grow into the beast it is today.
Wa-hait a minute. The senior citizens aren't going to be cut off. You
are. For at least some time period, *you're* going to have to keep
paying Social Security even *after* you already know that you won't,
yourself, be receiving it when you retire.
Now, you are right that SS might need to be "fixed", really bad. And
you're right that its a self-reinforcing problem, because where are you
going to get the money to be able to afford to pay SS taxes and still
save for your own retirement. (Though I trust you do that, anyway, as
anyone with a brain does.) But the "group who started the whole mess"
has been dead for a few years. The only way to clean it up is to bite
the bullet. When *you* still pay social security taxes yet *won't*
receive any benefits after you retire (based on a secure means test),
then we can replace it with something else. And this time, we can't let
any politicians start referring to it as a retirement plan.
[...]
>Look, I knew in 1975 that I would *never* see a dime of Social Security.
[...]
By the way you say that, it seems as if you didn't realize; that was the
way its supposed to work to begin with.
--
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (D. Spider)
Subject: Re: The Dream World of Linux Zealots
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 01:56:37 GMT
It appears that on Tue, 29 Aug 2000 19:29:09 GMT, in
comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathaniel Jay Lee) wrote:
>D. Spider <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spoke thusly:
>>It appears that on Mon, 14 Aug 2000 12:32:33 -0500, in
>>comp.os.linux.advocacy Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>>T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>>> That's OK. I don't really mind insults hardly at all. Particularly
>>>> ones like that, which strike me as quite humorous (more condescension,
>>>> as I chuckle while someone calls me a fuck-wit.) "Thanks for the
>>>> memories bitch?" I love it. ;-)
>>>>
>>>> No, its the ad hominem attacks I can't stand. Insults are no problem.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for your time. Hope it helps. Dipshit. ;-)
>>>>
>>>> [I'm laughing with you, Nate, I hope, not at you; honest. I promise.]
>>>>
>>>
>>>Question for the entire group:
>>>
>>>Has anyone ever wondered why they make it possible for you to ignore
>>>someone on usenet, yet they don't make it possible for you to make
>>>someone ignore you?
>>
>>
>>"They" don't make this so (whoever they are) - YOU make it so by
>>trying to use usenet without acquiring an appropriate tool to do so
>>with.
>>
>
>Thank you for adding two more insults on after the fact.
>
>If you followed the discussions to their conclusion that I
>have mentioned this in you would see that I have switched
>newsreaders (and it was Aaron Kulkis's inability to deal
>with reality which drove me to it) so that I can *plonk*
>people.
>
>And what I've read of your crap is enough to earn you spot
>#2. *PLONK*
Woo thanks!
Come back when you grow a skin... from what I've read of yours you
might be an interesting person to talk with if you could keep from a
blowing a fuse everytime anyone says anything to you.
#####################################################
My email address is posted for purposes of private
correspondence only. Consent is expressly NOT given
to receive advertisements, or bulk mailings of any
kind.
Since Deja.com will not archive my messages without
altering them for purposes of advertisement, deja.com
is barred from archiving my messages.
#####################################################
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 21:58:57 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[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 ...)
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
>
> Try repeating Jay's experiments on your own. You would be surprised.
>
> My Russian tutor (immigrant) had her own observation. It was just
> after Columbus Day, and she was telling me about the other day in the
> store, she asked people who Columbus was, and she was appalled at how
> many people couldn't give her the correct answer.
>
And your point would be? Look, I can't repeat Jay's experiments, nor can you.
That would require that I be a famous celebrity with a national TV show. Don't you
think that affects the results?
Gary
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 22:09:43 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Aaron R. Kulkis in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>Byron A Jeff wrote:
[...]
>> Absolutely. I'm also intimately familiar with families that have no
>> resources or no will to support anyone.
>
>So, what you're saying is....I am somehow obligated to support some
>old coot who is so detestable, that even his own family hates him?
Yes.
>> 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?
>
>If you can't support kids, you shouldn't be having them.
>If you do have kids, then it is your obligation to support
>them, and YOUR shame if you don't.
If, then. If, then. I bet you'd make a decent programmer, but as a
political scientist, you have a rather narrow reference.
>Don't be laying any guilt trip on *me* for refusing to pay
>for some DangerAsshole's slew of juvenile delinquent thugs.
[...]
>> And children are punished for the sins of their parents?
>
>Darwinism in action.
It appears you're unredeemable, and entirely too thickheaded to make any
sense. No, letting children starve is not an acceptable answer, Aaron.
[...]
--
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: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 22:16:28 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Aaron R. Kulkis in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
[...]
>A) I never claimed that intelligence was based "solely" on genetics.
>But...tell me, if you decide to scavange random parts from a
>1975 AMC gremlin, and a 1935 Volkwagen bug, do you really believe
>that the end result will be something that beats a Ferarri?
LOL!
Here's one I heard:
"Give a monkey a brain, and he'll swear he's the center of the
universe."
>B) Of course intelligence is not based on genetics *alone*. The son
>of a tall parents who is malnourished will probably be short. The
>son of smart parents who is brought up in a primative cave will
>probably be an illiterate idiot.
>
>BUT! Genetics determine the *POTENTIAL*, not the outcome.
A fascinatingly simplistic view, which is unfortunately all too common
in 'popular wisdom'. The reality is a bit more dialectic.
>Now...go into any ghetto, and it is quite apparent that the adults
>who are permanently living there are...at their maximum potential
>(if not exceeding it due to government subsidies).
>
>The point is... you have conceeded, that, just like EVERY OTHER HUMAN
>CHARACTERISTIC, there is genetic linkage for intelligence and
>intellectual potential.
But doesn't this pretty much put a huge gaping hole in your "if they
can't fend for themselves, screw 'em!" mentality?
--
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: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 22:18:12 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For those who've killfiled Aaron, and those who didn't bother to scroll
through another of his "complete repost" responses:
Said Aaron R. Kulkis in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>The leftists in THIS country are in collaboration with the leftists
>in the other countries. The overall goal is to weaken the US relative
>to the other countries, so that the US will become even weaker than
>them. Simply put...a large percentage of the education establishment
>should be put on trial for treason.
>
>Do you not have a brain capable of figuring this out yourself?
--
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: Eric Bennett <[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: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 22:18:19 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Aug 2000 12:51:08 GMT, Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >There's an interesting case I read about in the paper today. The
> >government siezed custody of a 3 year old kid who weighed 120 lb,
>
> I believe that was a state government, not the feds. And doctors did
> say there was a health threat.
New Mexico. And the parents say they know it is a health threat, but
the doctors they've talked to don't have any idea how to cure whatever
disorder this is. So, should children with incurable health problems
always be confiscated from their parents, simply because the parents
can't cure an incurable problem?
--
Eric Bennett ( http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/ )
Cornell University / Chemistry & Chemical Biology
Anybody that wants the presidency so much that he'll spend two years organizing
and campaigning for it is not to be trusted with the office. -David Broder
------------------------------
From: Eric Bennett <[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: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 22:19:57 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (C Lund) wrote:
> > So...if you can't afford to have a kid...
> > sit down, shut up and get an abortion.
>
> Climb down from your ivory tower.
Note, here is another demonstration that Aaron is not a Republican. How
many Republicans have you seen encouraging abortion?
--
Eric Bennett ( http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/ )
Cornell University / Chemistry & Chemical Biology
Anybody that wants the presidency so much that he'll spend two years organizing
and campaigning for it is not to be trusted with the office. -David Broder
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 22:23:36 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Eric Bennett in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...probably the best 'leprechaun I've ever seen...]
>Why, it's an air-tight case! What more proof do you need?
LOL! Cunning, Eric. I'm convinced. Damn Leftist Educators!
--
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: "Joe R." <[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: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 02:26:10 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Aug 2000 12:51:08 GMT, Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >There's an interesting case I read about in the paper today. The
> >government siezed custody of a 3 year old kid who weighed 120 lb,
>
> I believe that was a state government, not the feds. And doctors did
> say there was a health threat.
Hypothetically, perhaps at sometime in the future.
Her heart was in good condition and there was no immediate health threat.
--
Regards,
Joe R.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.games,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Indrema L600 Linux Console Info
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 02:25:13 GMT
Interview:
http://www.game-interviews.com/interviews/indrema.htm
Comments:
http://www.game-interviews.com/forums/comments/messages/10005.shtml
Hi,
Today we've got an interview with John Gildred, CEO and founder of
Indrema on their L600 Linux based console, its abilities, marketing
plans, and more.
Here's a snip:
Game-Interviews.com: At what audience is the L600 primarily aimed at?
Hardcore gamers? Casual gamers?
John Gildred: Hardcore gamers and Linux gamers/devotees.
GI: In the end the L600 will sell on the strength of its games, what
Indrema exclusive titles are in the works and what can you tell us
about them? Will there be a focus on exclusive titles rather than
enhanced ports?
JG: We plan to have a combination of mainstream, exclusive and popular
Linux titles available at launch. We will be announcing specifics at a
later date.
Thanks for reading and look out for John in the forums. He hasn't
promised to answer any questions but he's aware we're there and just
might drop by.
Derek Szeto
Editor-in-Chief, Game-Interviews.com
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Dan Howard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: these, newsgroups
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 22:32:51 -0400
Erik, shut up you cock drip.
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> I love people that put others in their killfile simply because they don't
> agree with them. That's called being closed minded and refusing to open it.
>
> I'm sure he'll figure out someday that the only people he's listening to are
> sycophants.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Grega Bremec)
Subject: Re: Large disks still not supported on Linux?
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 02:37:43 GMT
...and Tim Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> used the keyboard:
<schnupp>
>Linux 2.2.* kernel will support up to 32gb, but it won't automatically
>support more than 8 gb.
How come? I had no problems with a 13Gig Fujitsu MPE3136AH on a 2.2.16
kernel. Just threw it in, configured the jumpers and powered on the
box. Everything was automatically recognized, the only thing that
needed being done was the usual fdisk/mke2fs/fstab procedure.
Or do you mean booting? If this is the case, then you should mention
Lilo versions here, not Linux versions. But I guess Lilo issues have
already been covered above.
<schnupp>
Cheers,
--
Grega Bremec
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.gbsoft.org/
------------------------------
From: Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Open source: an idea whose time has come
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 02:55:50 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >Some recent events:
> >
> > You realize for each one of these events are are probably 1,000 closed
> > source programs being released?
> >
>
> There was an article in the NYT recently that pointed out how many of the
> estimates of program availability are vastly overstated. Some say there
> are 70,000 programs available for Windows, but others say 10,000.
There are ~24,000 programs that run on Windows NT 4.0 alone. Of those
~15,000 carry the designed for Windows NT logo. A quick look at the Merisel,
TechData and Ingram Micro catalogs will show about 280,000 products from
1,700 manufacturers with 35% of their unit sales in software (from the Ingram
Micro 1999 annual report). Given that 90% of the market is Windows that
leaves us with about 88,000 titles more or less. And that's just the
commercial stuff. Add up all the free and shareware from TUCOWS, NoNags,
etc. and strip the dupes and I'll estimate at least another 10,000. Maybe
more.
Post the article URL please. I'd like to see how they ignore Ingram alone
stocking 60+K titles.
> There really aren't many closed source programs released because it's so
> expensive to market them. Any old fool (and any old genius) can ship an
> open source program in a second. That's not exactly right, but you know
> what I mean.
Can you say "vertical markets"? The Windows world is absolutely THRIVING in
targeted applications. Case in point, SalesLogix Corporation of Scottsdale,
AZ http://www.saleslogix.com/. Started only a few years ago by Pat Sullivan,
the creator of the Act! contact manager that is not the property of
Symmantec, it has become tremendously successful in the salesforce automation
vertical market. Even the creator's of venerable shareware like WinZip and
ACDSee are making enough to support their families on their own terms. I
don't see how open source benefits the creator -- it's not like you can
really give up your day job.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NETCRAFT: I'm confused
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 22:59:40 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Rich C in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>Typical wintroll crap. "Market Share" _by definition_ means a percentage of
>total sales for the market:
>
>"Ratio of sales of company's product or product line to the total market
>sales for that product or product line. "
>
>"Expressed as a percentage. "
>
>(source: http://www.rpi.edu/~holmec/ms.html)
>
>Thus if Apache's sever count is growing faster than IIS's server count, MS's
>market share is _dwindling_, because the MS's ratio of servers to the total
>is getting smaller. (Basic 7th grade math.)
You've got a point, Rich, but you should save the ridicule, because its
a dull one.
When used in the strictest sense, of course, market share means market
share, and since the market is involved in sales, not use, any direct
reference to 'market share' should be entirely based on sales volume.
But note the "should". The term 'market share' is often used these days
in place of "installed base". The ramifications of this confabulation I
will leave for another time; it involves the definition of words kind of
directly, and legal stuff, too.
So you're probably right in your general point, and thanks for the
information and link, and don't slow down in confronting MS FUD. But
you shouldn't let your arguments resolve to dictionary definitions.
Sometimes people say "market share" when they mean installed base, and
they shouldn't, that's all.
And, of course, we can only guess at open software's installed base
statistically. So obviously, you should clarify when you mean 'market
share' versus 'installed base'. More importantly, though, you should
simply ignore any mention or discussion of "market share" to begin with.
Its counter-productive, as well as meaningless, in almost all cases.
--
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Crossposted-To:
comp.infosystems.gis,comp.infosystems.www.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: businesses are psychopaths
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 03:02:37 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when
[EMAIL PROTECTED] would say:
>Did a dejanews search to see if I missed somebody replying to me
>and decided to toss a few peanuts.
>
>Lots of unmarked chopping.
>
>Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>Perry Pip wrote:
>
>>1) if a person views other human beings merely as tools to be exploited
>> then they are a psychopath (this is the point at which bright people
>> will say to themselves "yup, businesses are psychopaths")
>>2) corporations view their employees as assets only and nothing matters
>> beyond the bottom line.
>
>The difference in behaviour between a psychopath with a long view
>and a normal person is minimal. "Good" corporations have a long view.
>
>When they become publicly traded and are pushed by share-holders and
>analysts to maximize quarterly returns ... But I would argue that it
>is the share-holders who are ultimately being psychopathic by proxy,
>not the corporation.
This brings up the critical issue, which is that corporations are
_not_ people.
Attributing human ethics, values, expectations, or expectations of
responses is just dishonest.
A "bad corporation" is not bad in and of itself; it merely shines
through the "light" of the attitudes, values, and such of those that
control it, and that ultimately represents the values and morality of
_HUMAN BEINGS_.
It is easy to lay blame at a particular person's feet when the
corporation is closely held by an owner/manager.
If a particular corporation's ownership is widely distributed, then
what blame or kudos are due go to the directors/managers of the
enterprise.
In a _really enormous_ company, it is likely that control of some
attitudes/behaviour will sit somewhere reasonably distant from the top
managers. For instance, in a company that deals with a lot of unions
(e.g. - auto makers, airlines, and such) some of the control heads
over to those that are chief negotiators in the union.
And other combinations are possible.
At any rate, it's not going to be GM (to name a Really Big Company)
that is "psychotic;" supposing GM is interpretable as such, what this
_really_ indicates is that the _HUMAN_ managers of the enterprise are
psychotic.
>>Opening your eyes to reality as it is can be disheartening. Try it if you
>>don't believe me (eg, by talking to a Libertarian for more than 5 minutes).
>
>There is a difference between the dogmatic followers of Ayn Rand and
>Libertarians in general. Many Libertarians simply believe that
>Libertarianism is the best way to run a country, some give generously
>to charity, just like some Republicans :-).
The only way that Libertarianism could _POSSIBLY_ work out to other
than being _dramatically_ awful is if people wind up _voluntarily_
being generous.
I don't think that such generosity is beyond the realm of possibility;
one of the unfortunate side-effects of the "socialized state" is that
the government takes to itself the vast realms of generosity, and
turns what was a gift given out of generosity into a "right." People
have forgotten some things about how to be generous.
>Others are selfish assholes, just like some Republicans (and some Democrats
>and some ...) :P
>
>I will grant that Randites have a greater tendancy toward selfishness.
>Often because they are ignorant. Sort of like 19 y.o. Communists
>only in the opposite direction.
The levels of hostility you can see in both "camps" have some pretty
strong parallels...
>>And it wasn't my example, I believe it was Morphis'.
>
>Yup.
>
>>Note that when a business extorts money from a desparate neighbour
>>they like
>
>Nit:
>A business can not "like" somebody.
Indeed. A _MANAGER_ may like somebody. A _sales rep_ may like
somebody. Someone in accounts receivable may like somebody. Or
hate. Or fear.
The _business_ is some legal documents and a stamp; normally inanimate
objects are not considered to be capable of love, hate, fear, or
sorrow.
>>just because they're moving on and won't deal with them again,
>>this is called "good business sense".
>
>By certain within the business community.
It is probably "good sense" to anyone that gets compensated via
metrics that don't involve any long term outlook.
That would include sales folk that get quarterly bonuses, executives
that make their millions off of how the company's stock behaves this
year and _MAYBE_ next year.
>>explain how math uses the "scientific method"
>
>It doesn't.
>
>>Rather, I define the word
>
>Narrowly, ignoring the fact that humans are irrational and therefore
>their self-interest is not definable by Spock.
Indeed. You might try asking some questions about statistical
inference to see what kinds of entertaining reactions you get.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
"Be humble. A lot happened before you were born." - Life's Little
Instruction Book
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
