Linux-Advocacy Digest #745, Volume #28 Wed, 30 Aug 00 01:13:09 EDT
Contents:
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Peter
Ammon)
Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform (D. Spider)
Re: NETCRAFT: I'm confused ("sandrews")
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: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) ("Aaron R.
Kulkis")
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) ("Aaron R.
Kulkis")
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) ("Aaron R.
Kulkis")
Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?] (T. Max Devlin)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (T. Max
Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Peter Ammon <[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 00:10:01 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Courageous wrote:
>
> > Take three cards from a straight and two cards from a flush. Does that
> > give you a good hand? Probably not.
> >
> > I find the fact that sexual reproduction is a beneficial trait to be mystifying.
>
> Perhaps because the poker analogy isn't quite right. But
> the real question is why isn't cloning preferred, given
> that (self) cloning would produce more reliable genetic
> progression. The real answer probably has something to do
> with diversity in a highly uncertain environment.
That's a good theory. There are strains of bacteria that rapidly
reproduce via cell division until they encounter some sort of
environmental stress, then begin a primitive form of sexual
reproduction, so it seems like diversity is favored in an uncertain environment.
I'm still rather blown away, though.
-Peter
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (D. Spider)
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 desktop
platform
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 04:18:02 GMT
It appears that on Tue, 29 Aug 2000 22:32:51 -0400, in
comp.os.linux.advocacy Dan Howard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
*Something I am not going to post again, even quoted.*
Dan, I understand the sentiment, I don't even personally object to the
language, but still... that was a bit much. Maybe you need to read
advocacy 101 again...
#####################################################
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.
#####################################################
------------------------------
From: "sandrews" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NETCRAFT: I'm confused
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 00:16:14 -0500
In article <BsSq5.8086$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik Funkenbusch"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "sandrews" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[snipped]
>
> Oh, of course. Because reality does not come into play in a Linux
> advocates world.
>
Reality...............It`s bg and company that needs the reality check!
>> How come when m$ pays or publishes numbers we are to take them as
>> fact, but when
>> someone publishes numbers that show real world useage the wintrolls
>> say they are not
>> representive of the true world and must be adjusted to show m$ is in
>> the lead????
>
> If you're talking about mindcraft. Everyone with any degree of
> objectivity admits that Linux did indeed have faults which were
> illustrated by the Mindcraft benchmark. Even Linus agreed. They're
> mostly fixed now. Why would you need to fix something if it wasn't
> broken?
>
I`m not talking about Mindcraft specificly, just numbers in general, the ms folks
think that ms is the fastest, greatest, best...... ad nausaum. It just isn`t true.
>> Get over it wintrolls Apache owns the web.
>
> Right.
>
>
------------------------------
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: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 04:23:52 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" 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?
>
> Sex is far more screwy than that (no pun intended). Let's compare
> people and their genes to a hand in a poker game. If our couple
> Frank and Jane survives long enough to reproduce, then they've
> probably each got a pretty decent hand, so let's say that Frank is a
> flush and Jane is a straight. Now Jane and Frank decide to have a
> kid, and the boy's hand will be composed of three cards from Jane and
> two cards from Frank (Jane gets an extra card since she has the X
> chromosome :) )
>
> Take three cards from a straight and two cards from a flush. Does
> that give you a good hand? Probably not.
>
> I find the fact that sexual reproduction is a beneficial trait to be
> mystifying.
It speeds up mutation rates, allowing a species to adapt faster, and it
creates more variation within the species, so a single
disease/predator/whatever is less likely to cause extinction. Some of
the most primitive species on the planet have stayed that way because
they reproduce too accurately.
--
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: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 04:27:47 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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?
Yes, you have to give him credit for that. He doesn't buy the
"government should stay out of your life but we're going to pass laws
forcing our religious/moral values on you" Republican hypocrisy.
--
This universe shipped by weight, not volume. Some expansion may have
occurred during shipment.
ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | <http://znu.dhs.org>
------------------------------
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: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 00:38:22 -0400
Courageous wrote:
>
> > Take three cards from a straight and two cards from a flush. Does that
> > give you a good hand? Probably not.
> >
> > I find the fact that sexual reproduction is a beneficial trait to be mystifying.
>
> Perhaps because the poker analogy isn't quite right. But
> the real question is why isn't cloning preferred, given
Because constant shifting of the genetic base is required to
stave off ravaging by parasites.
If the genetic base stays constant, then some parasite will
(through lucky random mutation) get whatever it needs to
knock out not merely one organism, but several generations.
the "mixing" process of sexual reproduction safeguards against this.
> that (self) cloning would produce more reliable genetic
> progression. The real answer probably has something to do
> with diversity in a highly uncertain environment.
>
> C//
--
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: "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: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 00:39:52 -0400
ZnU wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > 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?
>
> Yes, you have to give him credit for that. He doesn't buy the
> "government should stay out of your life but we're going to pass laws
> forcing our religious/moral values on you" Republican hypocrisy.
What part of Liberty is so difficult to digest?
--
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: "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: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 00:40:56 -0400
Peter Ammon wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" 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?
>
> Sex is far more screwy than that (no pun intended). Let's compare
> people and their genes to a hand in a poker game. If our couple Frank
> and Jane survives long enough to reproduce, then they've probably each
> got a pretty decent hand, so let's say that Frank is a flush and Jane is
> a straight. Now Jane and Frank decide to have a kid, and the boy's hand
> will be composed of three cards from Jane and two cards from Frank (Jane
> gets an extra card since she has the X chromosome :) )
>
> Take three cards from a straight and two cards from a flush. Does that
> give you a good hand? Probably not.
But since the the game is against parasites and predators...by the
time you've traded cards, flushes and straights aren't valuable
anymore, anyway.
--
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: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?]
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 01:04:12 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Bob Germer in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In a typical idiotic posting, Larry Brasfield wrote:
>
>> Plenty of people have suggested that Gates and company
>> should be locked up or worse and that they are now
>> known criminals. My point was that the law is vague
>> and Microsoft had not had proper notice that parts of
>> its business are legally a monopoly. (This was the
>> point of the poster to which I responded, so you're
>> "entire post is meangingless" (sic) is exaggeration.)
When the first cases were being prosecuted under the Sherman act back in
the 1890s, this question came up, quite strongly. The fact that the law
merely said "restraint of trade" and "monopolization" were illegal
without any enumeration of what might offend the law was argued by the
railroads to be hopelessly vague and indeterminate, and should be
naturally construed as unconstitutional, for all the reasons you've
stated here.
Working through legal findings can be tough, I know, and you need to
make a lot of inferences. But if you go back a hundred years, the
justices tended to speak a bit plainer and clearer, even while staying
fancier, than the more comprehensive and complete stuff they write
today. Much of this was summarized in US v. Joint Traffic.
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&linkurl=<%LINKURL%>&graphurl=<%GRAPHURL%>&court=US&case=/us/171/505.html
Sorry for the 'incredible url'. I'm not sure what's up with that site.
Just put "US v. Joint Traffic" into any search engine, though, and I'm
sure you'll find lots of hits.
>>> IF that were all that the Sherman Antitrust laws said, you might have a
>>> point. As it is, you might want to read them.
>
>> I have read that law. The provisions under which
>> Microsoft has been prosecuted require that it be
>> found to hold monopoly power. (There has been no
>> finding or suggestion of price fixing.) At any
>> rate, the law as written is too vague to guide a
>> company. Its meaning has been developed mainly
>> by case law and, in this case, by a (stretched)
>> extension of case law.
I'm not sure which law you've read, and where you picked up your
precedent knowledge. Yes, Sherman Act enforcement requires MS to be
found to have monopoly power. It is not necessary, however, for their
to be price fixing.
There has been much legal discussion on precisely *why* the law was
written as vaguely as it is. During the past 100 years, the Congress
has been at liberty to correct any misinterpretation in this regard that
the Court may have had. In fact, Congress not only has never decided
that the Supreme Court's understanding and definition of what the law
says was in any way erroneous or undesirable, they have clarified the
situation by providing additional anti-trust laws, such as the Clayton
Act and others, to augment anti-trust prosecution. In the opinion of
some legal scholars, all of the additional statutes, and, in fact,
section 2 of the Sherman Act itself, are entirely redundant. They
merely act to clarify (and extend, if you will, by statute without the
necessity of case law) what section 1 of the Sherman Act outlaws. And
that is "restraint of trade", which means, absence of case law, anything
which interferes in the free market.
Microsoft willfully acquired and maintained monopoly power, and that is
a crime. 'Monopoly power' indicates a company has a substantial enough
market to interfere in the forces of the marketplace and deter
competition (restrain trade). They don't even need to *use* monopoly
power; if they willfully acquired it, or if they did anything to
maintain it if they achieved it through happenstance, then they are
guilty. Microsoft built IE into Win98 specifically in order to prevent
Netscape from maintaining an installed base, regardless of what
justification they gave it; this is clearly proven by their actions and
by their internal communications. That's enough for them to be
convicted right there.
--
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: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 01:10:34 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Courageous in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>
>> A fair number of pretty wealthy Americans pay *no tax whatsoever* in this
>> country. There are all manner of tax shelters and dodges that wealthy
>> people can avail themselves of, ...
>
>You make it sound so easy.
>
>If you truly understand this to be true, you can describe,
>in simple English, the simple accounting to make this happen.
He didn't say it was easy *or* simple. Are you saying it isn't
possible?
--
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
******************************
