Linux-Advocacy Digest #776, Volume #28 Thu, 31 Aug 00 17:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?] ("Aaron R.
Kulkis")
Y2K bug (was: The dusty Linux shelves at CompUSA) (Jacques Guy)
Re: Can you believe this??? (was Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$
Voluntary Split ...)) ("Joe R.")
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Gary Hallock)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Gary Hallock)
Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?] ("Joe R.")
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. (Roberto
Alsina)
Re: Whats a good starting point? (A transfinite number of monkeys)
Re: Why doesnt SuSE and RedHat wait until later this autum? (A transfinite number of
monkeys)
Re: HOTMAIL Hacked? (abraxas)
Re: HOTMAIL Hacked? (abraxas)
Re: How low can they go...? (Terry Sikes)
Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform (abraxas)
Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform (abraxas)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (C Lund)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (C Lund)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (C Lund)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (C Lund)
Re: How low can they go...? ("Robert Moir")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[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: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 15:40:10 -0400
"Joe R." wrote:
>
> In article <8om2mm$p7u$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Steve Mading
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > In comp.os.linux.advocacy T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > : Acquiring or maintaining monopoly power by legal means is not possible,
> > : by definition. Normal growth or development as a consequence of "legal
> > : means" (superior product, business acumen, or accident of history) is
> > : not monopoly power. It is *distinguished from* the willful acquisition
> > : or maintenance of monopoly power.
> >
> > False. Monopoly power exists as soon as you have enough of a majority
> > that dirty tricks ala Microsoft would work *if* you tried them. You
> > do not actually have to engage in using those dirty tricks to have
> > monopoly power. You just have to have a large enough majority of
> > the market that you COULD bully others if you wanted. This is still
> > perfectly legal if you have the integrity (or enough fear of the DOJ)
> > to refrain from making use of this bully power. The problem is that
> > you are equating "monopoly power" with "USE of monopoly power". It's
> > possible to have it and not use it. Hint: the Sherman act is not
> > the definition of a monopoly. It's the definition of an *ILLEGAL*
> > monopoly.
> >
> > It's like you are equating the capacity to commit murder (like owning
> > a weapon of some sort or being a martial arts master) with actually
> > committing murder.
> >
>
> You have to forgive Max. He's easily confused.
>
> Someone gave an example. What if you discover a previously undiscovered
> mineral and build a mine to recover that mineral. You then sell it.
> Since no one else has a mine for that mineral, you have a monopoly.
>
> There's nothing illegal about it.
>
> Or, another example. You invent a new device that does something no one
> else has ever accomplished. You put it on the market and millions of
> people buy it, but a competitor can't duplicate it either because it's
> too hard to copy or because of patent protection.
>
> Again, a legal monopoly -- until you do something illegal to keep others
> out.
In fact, the whole patent system is designed to ASSURE true innovators
of having a short-term monopoly in exchange for revealing their
techniques and methods.
--
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.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 19:49:22 +0000
From: Jacques Guy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Y2K bug (was: The dusty Linux shelves at CompUSA)
Steve Martin wrote:
.
> Guess it [Y2K bug] doesn't matter now, right?
At Monash University next door (the door
being Melbourne, Australia), their catalogue
now shows periodical holdings going right up
to the year 9999. I thought of borrowing the
Wall Street Journal and making a killing,
but:
1. they don't subscribe to the Wall Street Journal
2. I can't wait until 9999 to cash in my chips --
I'm not Mathuselah, and if I were, I still could
only hope to reach 2600AD or thereabouts.
*sigh*
------------------------------
From: "Joe R." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Can you believe this??? (was Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re:
Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...))
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 19:49:46 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > Perhaps if you understood just how important it is for some public
> > debt to be out there you wouldn't be so quick to say pay off all
> > the debt.
> >
> > for starters, us bonds are considered a risk free investment. Now
>
> Only by idiots. Considering that if you buy government bonds, you
> forfeit the *routine* capital growth in the stock market. A
> well diversified stock portfolio is MUCH less risky than government
> bonds.
Depends on your definition of risk, I assume, as well as your time frame.
But regardless of how you define it, a portfolio with both stocks and
bonds is less risky than 100% of either one.
>
> Government bonds are dollar denominated.
> In contrast, stocks are backed by hard assets. If inflation
> wipes out 50% of the purchasing power of the dollar, the
> government bond has lost 50% of it's value. Meanwhile, the
> stock doubles in price...thereby keeping it's real value.
Unless you buy inflation-indexed government bonds -- which may be the
lowest risk option of all.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 15:50:54 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> Said Gary Hallock in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> [...]
> >NO, but it is obvious that you have nothing useful to say. You just like to
> >spread lies. Around here that's called FUD.
> [...]
>
> Yada, yada, yada. Speaking of having nothing useful to say, where's
> yours? I looked through that whole post, and all I found was whining
> because you don't like what I said last week, which isn't even what I
> said in the post you're responding to, anyway. Don't give me this
> 'spreading lies' baloney; I don't buy it. I'm not going to become so
> terrified of being mistaken that I stop posting things you don't like,
> no matter how many times you call anytime I'm trivially mistaken "a
> lie". And let's not bother shouting and jumping up and down about how
> calling KDE a commercial enterprise was not trivial. That was the
> 'mistake' part (a common one, I'm told), not the trivial part.
Yada, yada, yada. Wow, what an intelligent response! You know, you could have
simply asked about KDE and Qt. SOmething like:
"I'm unclear on the licensing issues for KDE and Qt. Could someone give a short
description?" .
You would have gotten a polite response answering your questions. Instead, you
make things up, lie, and use personal attacks. And then you get angry when
someone corrects you.
Gary
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 15:52:52 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
>
> I attempted to elicit information, you were reticent. Your problem, not
> mine.
>
Nope. Roberto answered your questions. But they weren't the answers you
wanted to hear, so you chose to ignore them.
Gary
------------------------------
From: "Joe R." <[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: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 19:54:04 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Aug 2000 18:37:55 GMT, Joe R. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 31 Aug 2000 12:57:47 GMT, Joe R. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> wrote:
> >> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> >wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Said Aaron R. Kulkis in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >> >> [...]
> >> >> >A monopoly which doesn't abuse it's position in the marketplace is
> >> >> >legal.
> >> >> >A monopoly which obstructs trade IS illegal.
> >> >>
> >> >> The definition of monopoly is one who obstructs trade, Aaron. What
> >> >> you're thinking of is "large market share".
> >> >
> >> >Yet another of Max's convenient definitions which suit his inane
> >> >arguments but which don't coincide with any other definition used
> >> >anywhere else in the world.
> >>
> >> Nope.
> >>
> >> He could have gotten that straight out of Black's Law dictionary
> >> with legal citations and everything...
> >
> >He could have, but he didn't.
>
> That's rather arrogant of you considering that I have infact posted
> that defintion straight out of Black's Law in this very forum.
Fine. Provide the exact quote.
I guarantee that "monopoly is one who obstructs trade" is not the
definition.
Otherwise, a person who cuts in front of you in the grocery store is a
monopoly.
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E.
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 17:04:42 -0300
[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
>
> On Thu, 31 Aug 2000 15:20:14 -0300, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
> >>
> >> On Thu, 31 Aug 2000 13:51:57 -0300, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
> >> >>
> >> >> On 31 Aug 2000 04:45:50 GMT, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >> >On Wed, 30 Aug 2000 23:24:16 -0400, T. Max Devlin wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>No, competition *on* their API, from other products from other companies
> >> >> >>that support the *same* API.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Nothing is stopping someone cloning QT ( unless you count lack of interest ).
> >> >> No, Trolltech has made legal threats.
> >> >
> >> >Terrible legal threat: "we can't guarntee we eill not sue".
> >>
> >> ...which individuals who don't have the financial resources
> >> to deal with a lawsuit must take into consideration.
> >
> >Of course. What they shouldn't be is surprised. Noone will ever
> >guarantee they will not sue anyone else.
> >
> >It's not a threat, it's a statement of the obvious.
>
> ....yes, that Troll is a greedy corporate entity that operates
> under the same charter that any other for-profit corporation
> does: screw everyone else.
I bet you work for a non-profit, right?
> This is why it's a BAD idea to allow them to own an interface.
Oh, yeah, let's accept companies, except where they bother jedi.
Really practical.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (A transfinite number of monkeys)
Subject: Re: Whats a good starting point?
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 20:09:22 GMT
On Tue, 29 Aug 2000 14:57:25 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: I hear Corel sucks. I install about 2 RedHat 6.2 systems per week now.
: Average install time is now less then 50 minutes - then EVERYTHING is
: installed, and configured.
50 minutes? I'm surprised it takes you that long. If you're installing
two a week, why aren't you using kickstart???
--
Jason Costomiris <>< | Technologist, geek, human.
jcostom {at} jasons {dot} org | http://www.jasons.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (A transfinite number of monkeys)
Subject: Re: Why doesnt SuSE and RedHat wait until later this autum?
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 20:21:08 GMT
On Wed, 30 Aug 2000 10:48:54 GMT, Grega Bremec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: See above. The way things were going in every single software company
: I worked in so far was that major versions were to indicate major
: changes, which is kind of logical, if you think about it for a minute.
: Of course, really radical changes (or project forks) can sometimes
: justify even big leaps in version numbers, like Slackware did with
: their libc5/glibc2 release fork (5.0 vs. 7.0, IIRC).
Well, to justify the RHAT move to 7.0, rather than 6.3, consider how
much they're going to be doing in the 7.0 release:
* Move to glibc 2.2/gcc 2.96 - This WILL break C++ programs that were
compiled using egcs, as they will not be binary compatible.
* Move to XFree86 4.0.1 - This breaks existing XF86Config files, and
uses a fundamentally different X Server architecture.
* Move toward better FHS compliance - some directory structures are
incompatible with RH 6.x (ie. /usr/share/man, rather than /usr/man
and /var/www, rather than /home/httpd/html).
* Complete readiness for kernel 2.4 (proper binutils/modutils/etc)
* Changing the initscripts to support things like USB
* Moving to other incompatible subsystems, like LPRng.
* Moving to newer GNOME, KDE
: If you see it that way, then I guess it does make them seem a bit
: greedy, doesn't it?
Not really.. The 7.0 release will be substantially different in ways
that make it incompatible with 6.x, hence the new version numbers...
--
Jason Costomiris <>< | Technologist, geek, human.
jcostom {at} jasons {dot} org | http://www.jasons.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Subject: Re: HOTMAIL Hacked?
Date: 31 Aug 2000 20:33:47 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> These types of things are not usually a hacking of the site itself so much
> as a hacking of the DNS entries. We would have read about any such major
> hack, so it was likely a DNS hack.
>
Which are still the direct responsibility of the site itself. If you cannot
protect yourself against such 'hacks', you need to be doing something else.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Subject: Re: HOTMAIL Hacked?
Date: 31 Aug 2000 20:34:24 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In article <lwor5.8293$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> These types of things are not usually a hacking of the site itself so
> much
>> as a hacking of the DNS entries. We would have read about any such
> major
>> hack, so it was likely a DNS hack.
>>
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8ol2rq$n5o$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > Tried to access Hotmail from 0900 to 1000 SA Time - got redirected
> to a
>> > porn site. Did anybody else pick this up?
>> >
>> >
>> > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>> > Before you buy.
>>
>>
>
> So it was - the problem was at my ISP...
>
Not just yours. This was a pretty good one.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Sikes)
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: 31 Aug 2000 20:34:25 GMT
In article <8om9ra$ohq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Simon Cooke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Terry Sikes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8om774$59r$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <FCwr5.42307$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> Simon Cooke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >The two are incomparable; look at Linux. It was done *for free*.
>>
>> Exactly. No for-profit company in its right mind would have attacked
>> Microsoft on the OS front (no comment about Be;). Apple has stayed
>> the course, and is now about to jump on the Unix bandwagon also.
>>
>> Linux never would have existed without the decades-long industry
>> investment in Unix...so I think this argument is a non-starter.
Glad to see you agree here... ;-)
>> >There are plenty of apps, if you can stomach the bad UI.
>>
>> How many apps written by for-profit companies (granted this list is
>> growing fast lately - but also remember that many of these titles are
>> ports from other Unix flavors).
>
>Linux is a difficult target for for-profit companies, because it doesn't
>have as much market-share as Apple, and it's perceived that if it's not
>free, people won't use it.
It probably has as much or more marketshare than Apple, but I'd agree
that Apple owners probably have more dollars on average to spend on
apps (desktop market).
Regardless, lack of certain commercial apps (Office, Photoshop, 3DS,
various CAD packages) is hurting Linux desktop acceptance, and the
same would apply to any hypothetical new OS.
>> >What are the barriers to entry? Please describe them.
>>
>> Virtually all new Intel compatible computers sold ship with Microsoft
>> operating systems. Investors are (understandably) nervous about
>> taking on a company with 95%+ marketshare. Microsoft also has a long
>> track record of rapaciously attacking new competitors using
>> underhanded tactics.
>>
>> Is that enough for now?
>
>No. How is this a barrier to entry? Because VC companies aren't interested?
>That's not a barrier.
Not a barrier in _your_ eyes. Anyhow, you conveniently ignored the
other issues...
>> >Currently all you seem to be able to do is say "Look over there!
>> >Phone network!" and then you fold your arms smugly as if saying that
>> >is enough to win you a standing ovation. Where are the barriers?
>>
>> See above.
>>
>> >Writing an OS requires a hell of a lot less resources than building a
>> >phone network. Phone systems cost trillions over hundreds of
>> >years. OS's? Maybe a couple of thousand. Maybe less. Maybe
>> >more. Depends on the scope.
>>
>> "A couple of thousand"?!? You mean person-years, right? ;-)
>>
>> Don't forget about device support, the hardest part.
>
>Support ATA. Support SVGA. Support SCSI. Support keyboard/mouse drivers.
>Support SoundBlaster. Support USB. Support NE2000 compatible ethernet cards.
>Hey presto -- you have 99% of the hardware out there.
I started to write a detailed reply to this, but you're so far off
base I'm not going to bother. You're trivializing something on which
the industry spends hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars a
year. Even to support your (pathetically insufficient) list would be
a _major_ undertaking. Certain other things you left out (such as
hardware 3D support) are critical, and very time consuming.
Terry
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
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: 31 Aug 2000 20:40:36 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "abraxas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8ohi5v$1la$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> Measuring 'telnet servers' and 'sockets' running in kernel space
> against
>> >> video drivers running in kernel space betrays your extreme inexperience
>> >> in this area. You've just argued against yourself.
>> >
>> > Please explain the difference then. I doubt you can.
>>
>> /oversimplifiedforeaseofunderstanding:
>>
>> Socket operations are *much* littler.
>
> Are they? The standard vga driver for NT is 15k. How big is the typical
> TCP/IP stack and sockets libraries (not to mention telnet code) for unix?
>
The typical TCP/IP stack is larger than 15k, but generally smaller than the
one included with NT 4.0, which is somewhere in the neighborhood of 315k.
Sockets libs do not exist in the kernel, and therefore have no bearing on
this line of reasoning.
>> >> > Actually, I believe the Mac design is clearly inferior. The apple
>> > design
>> >> > forces you to move the mouse to the top of the screen everytime you
> want
>> > to
>> >> > use a menu.
>> >>
>> >> You are misinformed. When was the last time you used MacOS? (or read
> the
>> >> instructions?)
>> >
>> > Gee.. I don't know what having a menu at the top of the screen means
>> > otherwise.
>>
>> You can get there with keyboard shortcuts, and you have been able to since
>> at least 7.0.1 (when I started regularly using macos)
>
> We're not talking about keyboard shortcuts. We're talking about where the
> menu is situated and how that is more or less difficult to use *WITH THE
> MOUSE*.
>
>> >> > Actually, I believe the Mac design is clearly inferior. The apple
>> > design
>> >> > forces you to move the mouse to the top of the screen everytime you
And no, it doesnt. It doesnt force you to do anything at all. You can
get there however you like, including by not touching the mouse at all.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
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: 31 Aug 2000 20:41:37 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Joe R. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <0y2r5.8168$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik Funkenbusch"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> "abraxas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:8ohi5v$1la$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > >> Measuring 'telnet servers' and 'sockets' running in kernel space
>> against
>> > >> video drivers running in kernel space betrays your extreme
>> > >> inexperience
>> > >> in this area. You've just argued against yourself.
>> > >
>> > > Please explain the difference then. I doubt you can.
>> >
>> > /oversimplifiedforeaseofunderstanding:
>> >
>> > Socket operations are *much* littler.
>>
>> Are they? The standard vga driver for NT is 15k. How big is the typical
>> TCP/IP stack and sockets libraries (not to mention telnet code) for unix?
>
> Why are you comparing a graphics driver to an entire TCP/IP stack and
> libraries?
>
> That seems a little bit lame even for you.
One more point would be this:
No matter how big ANY video driver for linux is, it does not exist inside
the kernel. Thats the point.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (C Lund)
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: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 23:03:14 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > > Note, here is another demonstration that Aaron is not a Republican. How
> > > many Republicans have you seen encouraging abortion?
> > You have a point there. But was he really encouraging it or was he just
> > being flip?
> What do you think.
I'm leaning towards flip.
--
C Lund
http://www.notam.uio.no/~clund/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (C Lund)
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: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 23:06:13 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hmm... the working poor? I don't know which specific jobs they have. My
> > guess it's the ones that pay minimal wage. Or less.
> Please name ONE individual who is:
> A) Working *AT LEAST* 40 hours/week
> B) Is living within his means. (*)
> and
> C) is "trapped" in poverty
Since there aren't really any working poor in Norway, there's no way I
could know a member of that class.
> (*) Having children you can't afford is NOT "living within your means"
Bollocks.
--
C Lund
http://www.notam.uio.no/~clund/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (C Lund)
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: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 23:09:10 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > What should someone do if he could, at the time, afford a child
> > and later can't? Suggestions? Infanticide doesn't count as one.
> How many non-disabled adults does this apply to?
How about a high-ranking engineer who got laid off because his company was
in trouble or because there was a general recession? If you suddenly find
yourself without a job and a paycheck, it won't take long until your bills
pile up on you and you end up on the street with your wife and three kids.
--
C Lund
http://www.notam.uio.no/~clund/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (C Lund)
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: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 23:09:45 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In a recession? hundreds of thousands. You know, policies are
> > no good if they only work in economic booms.
>
> And if people's money isn't being STOLEN from them by the
> government, then they have sufficient sums of money set aside
> precisely for this purpose.
Stolen? What do you mean?
--
C Lund
http://www.notam.uio.no/~clund/
------------------------------
From: "Robert Moir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 22:10:36 +0100
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Thu, 31 Aug 2000 19:04:32 +0100, Robert Moir
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> On Thu, 31 Aug 2000 04:32:45 GMT, Mike Byrns
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >wrote:
> >
> >> >The feasability of your argument is your concern. You shouldn't
assert
> >that which you
> >> >have no idea how to back up. Personal experience is fine although
> >anecdotal unless you
> >>
> >> So? Where is your original OS install disk?
> >>
> >> Would it even fit in your current machine if you managed
> >> to find it? Mine wont.
> >
> >Thats not what you claimed at the start. You were implying that you could
>
> No, you are just too wet behind the ears to consider that someone's
> qualifying media might be obsolete or deteriorated.
You were saying that you can not install windows "upgrade" software onto a
bare machine. Not that there may be problems under some circumstances with
this (which is a sensible point of view that I don't think anyone in here
would even blink at, let alone actually bother posting to disagree with),
but that it cannot be done.
Now if thats not what you meant then fine, why not actually apologise for
muddying the water here, after all if I can apologise for my typo why can't
you also admit you are just a little bit in the wrong? Its not my fault you
cannot communicate clearly is it? Its obviously a waste of my time talking
to you if you want to suddenly change the terms of a debate halfway though
by trying to make people's failure to realise your communication problem the
subject of the debate.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
