Linux-Advocacy Digest #814, Volume #28 Fri, 1 Sep 00 19:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: How low can they go...?
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Re: How low can they go...? ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. (Gary Hallock)
Re: SmartShip needs multiple platforms (Was: Am I the only one that finds this just
a little scary? (Perry Pip)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Re: How low can they go...? ("Christopher Smith")
Re: How low can they go...? ("Christopher Smith")
Re: How low can they go...? ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Re: How low can they go...? ("Christopher Smith")
Re: philosophy is better than science (Perry Pip)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <[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: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 14:39:42 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Christophe Ochal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:tILr5.469$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schreef in berichtnieuws
> 8omhem$d08$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> <cut>
>
> > > I *would* have posted from my linux box, but X11 doesn't like my ATI
> > > XPERT2000 AGP card :(
> >
> > I didn't hear anything to the contray from you so I thought may last
> > information to you helped you to get XFree86 to work with your XPERT2000
> AGP
> > card. Since as I mentioned in my other message to you on this subject,
> > XFree86's SVGA server does have accelerated support for your video
card's
> > chipset and has had it since at least version 3.3.6.
>
> Thx for the tip :) i'll try it when i have some time :)
>
> > But if the SVGA driver does not work for you, you could use the frame
> buffer
> > server. Use the VESA framebuffer in your kernel and then use the
> XFree86's
> > frame buffer X server. I know this works well for anyone who has a
video
> > card that has a VESA bios version 2 or 3 or newer in firmware.
>
> I'll try :)
>
You are welcome.
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 15:02:40 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> They don't. And anyone can clone it. And if they sue the cloner,
> as long as the cloner didn't do anything illegal, the cloner will
> win. Big deal.
Unless the cloner does not have enough money to fight back. Then the one
who is in the right would lose and possibly be made destitute in the
process.
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[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: Sat, 2 Sep 2000 08:32:35 +1000
"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> > >"Christophe Ochal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > [...]
> > >Apple liscenses the MacOS based on the ROMS. MacOS will not install to
a
> > >machine without ROMS.
> >
> > Every purchaser of a Macintosh gets a license to run the MacOS *free of
> > charge*, literally. MacOS *will* install on a machine without ROMs.
> > You just can't buy a Macintosh from Apple without ROMs, and part of the
> > OS is in the ROMs, not the disks.
> >
> > According to the current legal precedent as I read it, Apple would not
> > have a claim should someone reverse engineer their ROMs in order to
> > produce Mac clone computers. This disassembly (though possibly not
> > direct decompiling) would probably be covered by the copyright issues
> > discussed in Vault v. Quaid and Sega v. Accolade, allowing for anyone
> > who has a reasonable justification for reverse engineering and even
> > copying software (whether in ROM or disk file) in order to compete on
> > production of a non-protected work (the Mac 'platform').
>
> This is all moot anyway; MacOS X does not use ROMs anymore.
AFAIK, no MacOS since 8.0 has required ROMs. At least, not physically.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E.
Ballard says Linux growth stagnating
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 22:10:53 GMT
On 1 Sep 2000 21:11:07 GMT, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Fri, 01 Sep 2000 19:50:32 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>On Fri, 01 Sep 2000 16:45:42 -0300, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, 31 Aug 2000 17:04:42 -0300, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
>>>> >>
>
>> You are still quite dellusional.
>>
>> Or is english a second language for you.
>
>If you want to criticise his English, at least learn to spell first.
Pedantry is less relevant than comprehension.
Or are you a machine?
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E.
Ballard says Linux growth stagnating
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 22:09:55 GMT
On Fri, 01 Sep 2000 18:26:53 -0300, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
>>
>> On Fri, 01 Sep 2000 17:12:59 -0300, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
>> >>
>> >> On 1 Sep 2000 02:02:42 GMT, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >On Thu, 31 Aug 2000 19:14:35 -0400, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>> >> >>Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >> >>>"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >
>> >> >>So just how does that jibe with "we can't guarantee we won't sue"
>> >> >>(assuming this was an accurate quote)? I don't expect anyone would ask
>> >> >>for any such guarantee to begin with.
>> >> >
>> >> >Wrong, Max. Your house of cards is collapsing under its own weight and
>> >> >it's not the first time.
>> >>
>> >> Not quite.
>> >>
>> >> Troll gave a particular scenario in which they would sue.
>> >> That scenario sounds rather like the GNOME Foundation.
>> >
>> >No "they would sue", but "they might consider suing".
>> >And how is it similar? Just curious.
>>
>> This is just quibbling.
>
>Hell no. What you said made it sound as a threat.
Such comments exist in an enviroment where the subjects of the
comments are in a considerably weaker position than those making
the comments.
>
>> >> You just may gloss over it due to hostility towards M$.
>> >>
>> >> BTW, the quote in question was somewhat gibberish. You cannot
>> >> "embrace and extend" a GPL or LGPL licence. That is rather the
>> >> whole point of both of those licences.
>> >
>> >What a lack of imagination. Imagine Sun develops StarOffice using
>> >a slightly different and incompatible version of Bonobo, and puts
>> >money in advancing that incompatible bonobo until it's better than
>> >plain bonobo. They just embraced and extended Bonobo. They then
>> >rule the bonobo development.
>>
>> No they didn't. Everything they coded just came under a Free
>> Software licence and is the derivative work of a GNU project.
>
>So what? They effectively own the code, and decide it's development.
No more so than anyone else.
The only way they can in any honest manner be said to 'own
the code' is if all copyrights have been assigned to them
or if they were theirs to begin with.
That doesn't tend to happen in Free Software unless the entity
in question is the Free Software Foundation.
>The position would be roughly the same as with Qt.
Not in the slightest.
One cannot merely hijack Free Software for the purposes of
embrace and extend. Furthemore, GNOME is a GNU project so
the FSF will be quite motivated in defending it from such
assaults.
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 18:21:07 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E.
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> I don't "insist that you are lying". ( would you care to give me an example
> of a post where I say that you are "lying" as opposed to "wrong" ? )
> It's not necessary that you are
> intentionally posting false information to be guilty of defamation.
>
> For example, if I post allegations that you're a sex offender in a
> public forum, I'm not "lying", because I don't know that you aren't.
> But that doesn't mean that such allegations would not be defamatory.
>
Max seems to think that if he wraps himself in ignorance, he can say anything he
wants. That would explain why he absolutely refuses to do any research on a
subject before posting, or afterwards, for that matter. Max lives in his own
strange little world.
Gary
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: SmartShip needs multiple platforms (Was: Am I the only one that finds
this just a little scary?
Date: 1 Sep 2000 22:21:15 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 1 Sep 2000 19:16:25 GMT,
Anthony D. Tribelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Perry Pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Anthony D. Tribelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>>>>>>> Three *consective* paragraphs directly quoted from the article:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ron Redman, deputy technical director of the Fleet Introduction
>>>>>>>> Division of the Aegis Program Executive Office, said there have been
>>>>>>>> numerous software failures associated with NT aboard the Yorktown.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Refining that is an ongoing process," Redman said. "Unix is a better
>>>>>>>> system for control of equipment and machinery, whereas NT is a better
>>>>>>>> system for the transfer of information and data. NT has never been
>>>>>>>> fully refined and there are times when we have had shutdowns that
>>>>>>>> resulted from NT."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The Yorktown has been towed into port several times because of the
>>>>>>>> systems failures, he said.
>>>>>>>>
>>>There is no
>>>specific information here,
>>
>> Just that NY caused failures and the Yorktown has been towed into port
>> several as a result.
>
>No, that is your misinterpretation. Being towed to port was blamed on
>"systems failures". A "system" is much more than an OS.
No, not "systems failures", but "the systems failures". That is "the
systems failures" in the context of the two previous paragraphs
refering to failures caused by NT.
>>>Your interpretation of conjecture is self serving
>>
>> Pot, kettle, black.
>
>Not really, you are making assumptions and guessing as to meaning.
No, I am just re-quoting what he says in plain english. You are the
one pouring out all the conjecture.
>>>I am not saying
>>>that general purpose computers have no place on ship.
>>
>> So then we agree multiple platforms are needed for Smartship.
>
>General purpose computers for non-essential tasks are fine, with rare
>exceptions for things like a database or server. Defintely not for the
>primary control or monitoring of equipment, local or remote.
So then provide a URL to what you think they should use (hardware and
software) to develop custom GUI screens for the command and control of
machinery.
>I only advocate the more embedded approach for the primary control and
>monitoring of equipment, both at the equipment's location and remotely. I
>think this is the wrong area to cut costs.
They don't "cut costs". They have fixed budget and realize that to
stay within it they have to use COTS where possible. I am currently
working on a manned spacecraft project using 90% COTS. If COTS can be
used in manned spacecraft applications, the Navy can use it in the
Yorktown. Now provide a URL to what you think they should use
(hardware and software) to develop custom GUI screens for the command
and control of machinery.
>I fear you are thinking I am suggesting VxWorks at the server/database
>end, I am not. I am only referring to control and monitoring stations,
>both local and remote. I am suggesting that local and remote stations be
>the same and have the same capabilities, the only difference being that
>local stations have a ROM with the app for control of local equipment in
>case the LAN is down. With the LAN being up any control/monitoring app
>could be downloaded from the server.
So then provide a URL to what you think they should use (hardware and
software) to develop custom GUI screens for the command and control of
machinery.
>>>> ... Embedded OS's like Lynx
>>>> and VxWorks simply can't support high level GUI's to well ...
>>>
>>>No, for example:
>>
>> One narrow example does not disqualify my statement "can't support too
>> well"
>
>A consumer device managing a GUI does suggest that the Navy might be able
>to come up with one also.
>From the VxWorks 5.4 Programmers manual, chapter 1.3
"UNIX and Windows hosts are excellent systems for program development
and for many interactive applications. However, they are not
appropriate for real-time applications. On the other hand, traditional
real-time operating systems provide poor environments for application
development or for non-real-time components of an application, such as
graphical user interfaces (GUIs)."
"Rather than trying to create a single operating system that "does
it all, the Wind River philosophy is to utilize two complementary and
cooperating operating systems (VxWorks and UNIX, or VxWorks and
Windows) and let each do what it does best."
>>> http://www.wrs.com/html/esec.html
>>>
>>> The Sharp Ipmera is a VxWorks-powered device, implements PIM,
>>> E-mail, and Web-browsing features, and includes personality
>>> modules for the whole family. Furthermore, it has a built-in
>>> printer, making it truly a standalone appliance device.
>>
>> You aren't recommending this for the Yorktown, are you? This is not
>> even rugged hardware, it's just a personal internet device ...
>
>It's an example of a capable GUI in a VxWorks based device.
A personal internet device is not a Smartship. Did it even occur to
you a Smartship needs to be multiuser, so that poeple don't have
access to things they shouldn't have access to, and so it is known who
has done what.
>Again, my argument is that developer convenience is a secondary
>consideration.
It's obvious you haven't done any development work for VxWorks, and
understand nothing about it's architecture. VxWorks uses a single
process, multiple task paradigm. In other words, all tasks have access
to the same memory space, so that one task an inadvertantly clobber
another's data, or even it's execution stack. File descriptors in
VxWorks are global in scope. So instead of getting an error from a
write() or select() call, you may inadvertantly write to another
processes file, pipe, or socket. System calls in VxWorks run in user
mode and can be preempted at any time, meaning you are not guaranteed
atomic writes. Many system calls in VxWorks are not reentrant.
Application code has direct access to hardware. Not being multiuser,
everybody in VxWorks is basically 'root'. These features are great for
the hard realtime performance VxWorks but are a disaster for complex
GUI's. It's not a matter of developer convinience, it's a matter of
system integrety and reliability.
>A control/monitoring station implemented with VxWorks can
>have a capable GUI.
So then provide a URL to what you think they should use (hardware and
software) to develop custom GUI screens for the command and control of
machinery.
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 15:13:41 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "T. Max Devlin" escribió:
> > Yes, because you'd still be broke when they're done, whether you're
> > doing anything illegal or not.
>
> Not if the lawsuit takes place here. The losing party pays the legal
> fees (to a reasonable amount).
It depend on the jurisdiction. Also, by the time that you recover those
fees to reimburse your legal fees, your home and your and your family's
lifestyle may have already been lost.
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[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: Sat, 2 Sep 2000 08:35:38 +1000
"Terry Sikes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8oou80$rah$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Don't you think it's telling that Apple, a much more innovative
> multimedia company than Microsoft, made OpenGL it's primary 3D API
> last year?
The only reason Apple did that, is because they know they don't have enough
market oomph to push their own proprietry version. Apple are the best
example of Not Invented Here syndrome around, if you think they chose OpenGL
because it was open, or the promote open standards, you're very naive.
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[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: Sat, 2 Sep 2000 08:36:11 +1000
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8oov7p$sp1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > On Fri, 1 Sep 2000 09:28:06 +0200, Christophe Ochal
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schreef in berichtnieuws
> > >[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> > ><cut>
> > >
> > >> Plus, since 'no one can get away with not buying Windows' anyways,
> > >> there's really no compelling reason to put barriers in place of
> > >> those of us that actually know what they're doing.
> > >
> > >What, you think everyone should *buy* winblows? With what use? A
cupboard
> > >holder?
> >
> > No, I'm just saying that the intallation media should be less
> > user hostile for those of us capable of doing system wipes
> > and building our own machines.
> >
> > A Quarterly driver update would be a good idea two.
> >
> > A Quarterly OS update would be even better, but that's not
> > something I would ever expect a megacorp like Microsoft to
> > ever do.
>
> Careful of what you ask for! Do you really want Windows 2000 Quarter 1,
> Windows 2000 Quarter 2, Windows 2000 Quarter 3, Windows 2000 Quarter 3,
> Windows 2001 Quarter 1, ... ?
Have you people never heard of Service Packs ?
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[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: Sat, 2 Sep 2000 08:36:56 +1000
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8op64i$o23$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > >Careful of what you ask for! Do you really want Windows 2000 Quarter
1,
> > >Windows 2000 Quarter 2, Windows 2000 Quarter 3, Windows 2000 Quarter 3,
> > >Windows 2001 Quarter 1, ... ?
> >
> > ...better than a random collection of system libraries installed
> > by a random collection of end user applications.
>
> Granted that it would be more ordered, but would you want to have to
> purchase an upgrade fro Microsoft every three months paying them from
around
> $80.00 to about $300.00 each time for each Windows computer you are
> responsible for?
Service packs are the "quarterly updates" you're asking for, and they're
free.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 22:15:48 GMT
On 1 Sep 2000 21:14:04 GMT, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Fri, 01 Sep 2000 19:46:44 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> Not quite.
>>
>> Troll gave a particular scenario in which they would sue.
>> That scenario sounds rather like the GNOME Foundation.
>
>No it doesn't. "GNOME" is not even close to being a "clone" of QT.
Yes it does.
large infusion of money
larger corporate interests
the spectre of embrace & extend
The only thing different is the names.
"rather like" != "identical"
>
>> BTW, the quote in question was somewhat gibberish. You cannot
>> "embrace and extend" a GPL or LGPL licence. That is rather the
>> whole point of both of those licences.
>
>Sure you can. For example, make proprietary libraries that only link
>to the existing GNOME libraries. Or fork your own version ( of course,
Sounds like KDE actually.
>you'd have to keep it free, but you could certainly keep your own
>rogue version )
Although building on top of free software (without modifying
it) & calling that embrace and extend might be pushing
definitions a bit.
Is Quake III embrace and extend? Howabout Applixware? Oracle?
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[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: Sat, 2 Sep 2000 08:40:05 +1000
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Stuart Fox in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >"Shane Phelps" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>
> >> Alright, I'll bite...
> >>
> >> Do you mean the ones that demand a previous version of Windows?????
> >> or is this perhaps a case of installing the upgrade on one disk while
> >> retaining the previous version of Windows on the other?
> >>
> >> The only Microsoft upgrade disks I've ever seen since about Windows
> >> 3.11 and MS-DOS 5 have checked for the existence of an earlier
> >> version before allowing the installation of the later versiion.
> >
> >Win95 will ask you to insert the first floppy disk from Win3.11 before
> >proceeding - thus avoiding having to actually install Win3.11 first
>
> I'd never seen it do that, though I suppose it might be possible. But
> that simply confounds the point. I don't recall anybody saying that if
> I don't still have a readable first floppy disk from Win3.11, I don't
> have a legal license to Win3.11.
If you've lost it, and can prove you actually owned it, then ring up
Microsoft and they'll send you a replacement for media cost (or an
equivalent thereof).
> All of the ways around the 'upgrade packaging', unfortunately, are
> simply further illustrations of the problem itself. You're trying to
> justify the actions of a monopolist, and may be somewhat successful in
> an attempt to obfuscate the point that they are anti-competitive
> actions, it does not change the reality of the claim that they are
> unacceptable. If they weren't dubious to begin with, I'd certainly give
> even MS the benefit of the doubt. But they aren't; they're a
> fabrication. Microsoft's upgrade packaging is offensive and incredibly
> costly to the consumer. You aren't going to explain that away by saying
> that its possible to get around the problems, or there's some thin
> justification for the problems to begin with.
If you can think of a better way to be able to make even a token gesture at
avoiding rampant ripping-off by people buying upgrades when they don't own a
qualifying product, then please enlighten us all.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To:
comp.infosystems.gis,comp.infosystems.www.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: philosophy is better than science
Date: 1 Sep 2000 22:26:35 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 01 Sep 2000 16:21:42 +0100,
Phillip Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>> "Perry" == Perry Pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Perry> Translation: you can't find a decent job so you say
> Perry> corporations exploit people.
>
> >> Other people have only to open their eyes to verify what I say.
>
> Perry> I don't see other people defending you.
>
> Well I will. Although Richard's style of arguing leaves
>much to be desired he is correct in his assertion that corporations
>exploit people.
Some corporations at times exploit people, some people at times
expliot corporations. In general, people at times expliot people. When
someone lies on his resume, and goofs off all day on the job, that's
exploitation too. You just don't see it on the 6 o'clock news.
>This is not necessarily the fault of the individuals
>as its built into the class system by which we run our society.
There no "class system" in our society. It's a capitalist system.
>If you
>want evidence of this take the terms which has become more prevalent
>over the years which is "human resources". Similarly "human assets".
The term "human resources" is not exploitative. Manpower is a
resource. And, in fact most HR people will tell you that people are a
companie's most valued resource.
> Of course corporations are not human so can not be considered
>to be psychopathic. There again corporations are not human so, to my
>mind should have no rights to say privacy for instance. The fact that
>we do ascribe so many human rights to corporations is a sign that of
>the strangeness of our society.
A corporation is a group of humans, as have rights as such.
> Perry> The reason the general public believes in science is because
> Perry> to the tangible results produced by engineering and medicine.
>
> And the reason therefore that the general population believes
>in Creationist theory is?
Uh..mmm 45% of the general population. You must remember that 50%,
including Richard, is below median intelligence.
> Its an cliche that 99% of scientists who have ever lived are
>alive now, yet most of the really important advances that science
>produced happened a while back. We have no real evidence that the
>current importance that we place on science now is justified.
Oh...just all the advances in engineering and medicine in the last 100 years.
> Perry> For you philosophy is about justifying your hatred of the
> Perry> world.
>
> I think that this is a cheap shot.
You need to go back an read this thread and see the things that
Richard claims before you call that a cheap shot.
>Like Richard I find
>much which is unpleasant about our society.
No society is perfect. But if you want to make it better you have to
start with a positive attitude.
>I would say that this is a
>long way from hating the world.
Richard claims that people are 97% of the time wildly irrational and
that their best self interest to be assholes and act contrary to the
interests of others: http://x73.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=660110512
Richard also claims the human race will go extinct in 500 years:
http://x61.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=657641143
>Personally I like to think that I have
>a lot of joy in my soul. I tend to believe the best in people, and
>often find that this believe is well supported.
Sure. Then read a bit more of what Richard says and tell me if you'll
still defend the things he says:
http://www.deja.com/dnquery.xp?QRY=%7Ea+3prometheus%40home.com
>Its for this reason
>that I really dislike the class system by which we run our society and
There is no "class system". If their was, how is it the immigrants can
come to this country and get rich? Why is it they can and you can't??
>which prevents most people from achieving anything like their full
>potential.
Our society (the U.S.) is one of the few that strives to give everyone
the opportunity to acchieve their full pontential. The fact that many
don't is their own doing, or very often, their parents doing. What's
keeping you from achieving yours?
> Perhaps he needs to chill out a little, but I think that
>the Freudian psychobabble advances the argument little.
>
He is the one who brought all the psycho crap into the debate. In
fact, he jumped into this thread with psycho crap.
Perry
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
