Linux-Advocacy Digest #838, Volume #28            Sat, 2 Sep 00 17:13:04 EDT

Contents:
  Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
  Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Alan Baker)
  Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (T. Max 
Devlin)
  Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools (Steve Hix)
  Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
  Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools (Steve Hix)
  Re: philosophy is better than science (Richard)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: 
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2000 16:23:46 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Said Chad Irby in comp.os.linux.advocacy; 
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> All I want to know is, if its illegal to *monopolize*, and its illegal
>> to *attempt to monopolize*, just how is it legal to have a monopoly?
>
>Because even though they have the same root and derivation, they have 
>different meanings in a legal sense.

Strictly speaking, you have a minor point.  But primarily because, at
least in the last few decades, 'monopoly' has not been considered to
have a legal sense.  In the earliest cases, such as the 1897 E.C.Knight
case, the court did use that term:

"[2] The monopoly and restraint denounced by the act are the monopoly
and restraint of interstate and international trade or
commerce,"

In recent years, deconstructionist arguments have made it more feasible
to use the term "monopoly power".  The fact that having the ability to
execute anti-competitive strategies may or may not be 'monopolizing',
depending whether such anti-competitive strategies have been pursued, is
why so many misunderstood precedents seem to allow for 'legal
monopolization'.  These are considered, in the precedent, however, as
ways to prove you do not have or can not exercise (which means you don't
have) monopoly power.  From the Microsoft case:

"At trial, Microsoft attempted to rebut the presumption of monopoly
power with evidence of both putative constraints on its ability to
exercise such power and behavior of its own that is supposedly
inconsistent with the possession of monopoly power. None of the
purported constraints, however, actually deprive Microsoft of "the
ability (1) to price substantially above the competitive level and (2)
to persist in doing so for a significant period without erosion by new
entry or expansion." IIA Phillip E. Areeda, Herbert Hovenkamp & John L.
Solow, Antitrust Law ¶ 501, at 86 (1995) (emphasis in original); see
Findings ¶¶ 57-60. Furthermore, neither Microsoft's efforts at technical
innovation nor its pricing behavior is inconsistent with the possession
of monopoly power."

So the only legal way to have a monopoly is to not be in possession of
monopoly power.  Which I would suppose means you aren't a monopoly, but
merely have large market share, without the ability to control prices or
exclude competition.

>We've explained it to you a good fifteen or twenty times, but you just 
>don't seem to have the mental flexibility to understand it.

When you can demonstrate your own mental flexibility by understanding
and being able to discuss the following text (from the original 1895
E.C. Knight decision), then you'll be ready to try it a sixteenth or
twenty-first time.

"First. The text of the act and its meaning.

[15] There can be no doubt that the sole subject with which the 1st
section deals is restraint of trade as therein contemplated, and that
the attempt to monopolize and monopolization is the subject with which
the 2d section is concerned. It is certain that those terms, at least in
their rudimentary meaning, took their origin in the common law, and were
also familiar in the law of this country prior to and at the time of the
adoption of the act in question. 

[16] We shall endeavor, then first, to seek their meaning by making a
very brief reference to the elementary and indisputable conceptions of
both the English and American law on the subject prior to the passage of
the antitrust act. 

[17] a. It is certain that at a very remote period the words "contract
in restraint of trade" in England came to refer to some voluntary
restraint put by contract by an individual on his right to carry on his
trade or calling. Originally all such contracts were considered to be
illegal, because it was deemed they were injurious to the public as well
as to the individuals who made them. In the interest of the freedom of
individuals to contract, this doctrine was modified so that it was only
when a restraint by contract was so general as to be coterminos with the
kingdom that it was treated as void. That is to say, if the restraint
was partial in its operation, and was otherwise reasonable, the contract
was held to be valid. 

[18] b. Monopolies were defined as follows: 

     "`A monopoly is an allowance by the King to a particular person or
persons of the sole buying, selling, making, working,      or using of
anything whereby any person is sought to be restrained from any freedom
of manufacturing or trading which      he had before.'"

[19] The frequent granting of monopolies and the struggle which led to a
denial of the power to create them, that is to say, to the establishment
that they were incompatible with the English Constitution, is known to
all and need not be reviewed. The evils which led to the public outcry
against monopolies and to the final denial of the power to make them may
be thus summarily stated: (1) The power which the monopoly gave to the
one who enjoyed it, to fix the price and thereby injure the public; (2)
The power which it engendered of enabling a limitation on production;
and (3) The danger of deterioration in quality of the monopolized
article which it was deemed was the inevitable resultant of the
monopolistic control over its production and sale. As monopoly, as thus
conceived, embraced only a consequence arising from an exertion of
sovereign power, no express restrictions or prohibitions obtained
against the creation by an individual of a monopoly as such. But as it
was considered, at least, so far as the necessaries of life were
concerned, that individuals, by the abuse of their right to contract,
might be able to usurp the power arbitrarily to enhance prices (one of
the wrongs arising from monopoly), it came to be that laws were passed
relating to offenses such as forestalling, regrating, and engrossing by
which prohibitions were placed upon the power of individuals to deal
under such circumstances and conditions as, according to the conception
of the times, created a presumption that the dealings were not simply
the honest exertion of one's right to contract for his own benefit,
unaccompanied by a wrongful motive to injure others, but were the
consequence of a contract or course of dealing of such a character as to
give rise to the presumption of an intent to injure others through the
means, for instance, of a monopolistic increase of prices. 

[20] As the principal wrong which it was deemed would result from
monopoly, that is, an enhancement of the price, was the same wrong to
which it was thought the prohibited engrossment would give rise, it came
to pass that monopoly and engrossing were regarded as virtually one and
the same thing. In other words, the prohibited act of engrossing,
because of its inevitable accomplishment of one of the evils deemed to
be engendered by monopoly, came to be referred to as being a monopoly or
constituting an attempt to monopolize. And by operation of the mental
process which led to considering as a monopoly acts which, although they
did not constitute a monopoly, were thought to produce some of its
baneful effects, so also because of the impediment or burden to the due
course of trade which they produced, such acts came to be referred to as
in restraint of trade. This is illustrated by the definition of monopoly
wherein it is said that the effect of monopoly is to restrain the
citizen "from the freedom of manufacturing or trading which he had
before." 

[21] From the development of more accurate economic conceptions and the
changes in conditions of society, it came to be recognized that the acts
prohibited by the engrossing, forestalling, etc., statutes did not have
the harmful tendency which they were presumed to have when the
legislation concerning them was enacted, and therefore did not justify
the presumption which had previously been deduced from them, but, on the
contrary, such acts tended to fructify and develop trade. It is
remarkable that nowhere at common law can there be found a prohibition
against the creation of monopoly by an individual. This would seem to
manifest, either consciously or intuitively, a profound conception as to
the inevitable operation of economic forces and the equipoise or balance
in favor of the protection of the rights of individuals which resulted.
That is to say, as it was deemed that monopoly in the concrete could
only arise from an act of sovereign power, and, such sovereign power
being restrained, prohibitions as to individuals were directed not
against the creation of monopoly, but were only applied to such acts in
relation to particular subjects as to which it was deemed, if not
restrained, some of the consequences of monopoly might result. After
all, this was but an instinctive recognition of the truisms that the
course of trade could not be made free by obstructing it, and that an
individual's right to trade could not be protected by destroying such
right. 

[22] From the review just made it clearly results that outside of the
restrictions resulting from the want of power in an individual to
voluntarily and unreasonably restrain his right to carry on his trade or
business, and outside of the want of right to restrain the free course
of trade by contracts or acts which implied a wrongful purpose, freedom
to contract and to abstain from contracting, and to exercise every
reasonable right incident thereto, became the rule in the English law. 

[23] In this country also the acts from which it was deemed there
resulted a part, if not all, of the injurious consequences ascribed to
monopoly, came to be referred to as a monopoly itself. It is also true
that it came to pass that contracts or acts which it was considered had
a monopolistic tendency, especially those which were thought to unduly
diminish competition and hence to enhance prices - in other words, to
monopolize - came also in a generic sense to be spoken of and treated as
they had been in England, as restricting the due course of trade, and
therefore as being in restraint of trade. The dread of monopoly as an
emanation of governmental power, while it passed at an early date out of
mind in this country, as a result of the structure of our government,
did not serve to assuage the fear as to the evil consequences which
might arise from the acts of individuals producing or tending to produce
the consequences of monopoly. 

[24] Without going into detail, and but very briefly surveying the whole
field, it may be with accuracy said that the dread of enhancement of
prices and of other wrongs which it was thought would flow from the
undue limitation on competitive conditions caused by contracts or other
acts of individuals or corporations led, as a matter of public policy,
to the prohibition or treating as illegal all contracts or acts which
were unreasonably restrictive of competitive conditions, either from the
nature or character of the contract or act, or where the surrounding
circumstances were such as to justify the conclusion that they had not
been entered into or performed with the legitimate purpose of reasonably
forwarding personal interest and developing, trade, but, on the
contrary, were of such a character as to give rise to the inference or
presumption that they had been entered into or done with the intent to
do wrong to the general public and to limit the right of individuals,
thus restraining the free flow of commerce and tending to bring about
the evils, such as enhancement of prices, which were considered to be
against public policy. 

[25] In view of the common law and the law in this country as to
restraint of trade, which we have reviewed, and the illuminating effect
which that history must have under the rule to which we have referred,
we think it results: 

[26] a. That the context manifests that the statute was drawn in the
light of the existing practical conception of the law of restraint of
trade, because it groups as within that class, not only contracts which
were in restraint of trade in the subjective sense, but all contracts or
acts which theoretically were attempts to monopolize yet which in
practice had come to be considered as in restraint of trade in a broad
sense. 

[27] b. That in view of the many new forms of contracts and combinations
which were being evolved from existing economic conditions, it was
deemed essential by an all-embracing enumeration to make sure that no
form of contract or combination by which an undue restraint of
interstate or foreign commerce was brought about could save such
restraint from condemnation. The statute under this view evidenced the
intent not to restrain the right to make and enforce contracts, whether
resulting from combinations or otherwise, which did not unduly restrain
interstate or foreign commerce, but to protect that commerce from being
restrained by methods, whether old or new, which would constitute an
interference, - that is, an undue restraint. 

[28] c. And as the contracts or acts embraced in the provision were not
expressly defined, since the enumeration addressed itself simply to
classes of acts, those classes being broad enough to embrace every
conceivable contract or combination which could be made concerning trade
or commerce or the subjects of such commerce, and thus caused any act
done by any of the enumerated methods anywhere in the whole field of
human activity to be illegal if in restraint of trade, it inevitably
follows that the provision necessarily called for the exercise of
judgment which required that some standard should be resorted to for the
purpose of determining whether the prohibition contained in the statute
had or had not in any given case been violated. Thus not specifying, but
indubitably contemplating and requiring a standard, it follows that it
was intended that the standard of reason which had been applied at the
common law and in this country in dealing with subjects of the character
embraced by the statute was intended to be the measure used for the
purpose of determining whether, in a given case, a particular act had or
had not brought about the wrong against which the statute provided. 

[29] And a consideration of the text of the 2d section serves to
establish that it was intended to supplement the 1st, and to make sure
that by no possible guise could the public policy embodied in the 1st
section be frustrated or evaded. 

[30] Undoubtedly, the words "to monopolize" and "monopolize," as used in
the section, reach every act bringing about the prohibited results. The
ambiguity, if any, is involved in determining what is intended by
monopolize. But this ambiguity is readily dispelled in the light of the
previous history of the law of restraint of trade to which we have
referred and the indication which it gives of the practical evolution by
which monopoly and the acts which produce the same result as monopoly,
that is, an undue restraint of the course of trade, all came to be
spoken of as, and to be indeed synonymous with, restraint of trade. In
other words, having by the 1st section forbidden all means of
monopolizing trade, that is, unduly restraining it by means of every
contract, combination, etc., the 2d section seeks, if possible, to make
the prohibitions of the act all the more complete and perfect by
embracing all attempts to reach the end prohibited by the 1st section,
that is, restraints of trade, by any attempt to monopolize, or
monopolization thereof, even although the acts by which such results are
attempted to be brought about or are brought about be not embraced
within the general enumeration of the 1st section. And, of course, when
the 2d section is thus harmonized with and made, as it was intended to
be, the complement of the 1st, it becomes obvious that the criteria to
be resorted to in any given case for the purpose of ascertaining whether
violations of the section have been committed is the rule of reason
guided by the established law and by the plain duty to enforce the
prohibitions of the act, and thus the public policy which its
restrictions were obviously enacted to subserve. And it is worthy of
observation, as we have previously remarked concerning the common law,
that although the statute, by the comprehensiveness of the enumerations
embodied in both the 1st and 2d sections, makes it certain that its
purpose was to prevent undue restraints of every kind or nature,
nevertheless by the omission of any direct prohibition against monopoly
in the concrete, it indicates a consciousness that the freedom of the
individual right to contract, when not unduly or improperly exercised,
was the most efficient means for the prevention of monopoly, since the
operation of the centrifugal and centripetal forces resulting from the
right to freely contract was the means by which monopoly would be
inevitably prevented if no extraneous or sovereign power imposed it and
no right to make unlawful contracts having a monopolistic tendency were
permitted. In other words, that freedom to contract was the essence of
freedom from undue restraint on the right to contract."

Let's try a little game, to make sure everyone understands what Justice
Fuller meant when he wrote this.  Why don't you pick out the one
statement that you think is 'most important' in the text, and I'll do
the same.  Then, we can post our choices and discuss them, to clarify
our mutual understanding of the term "monopolize", OK?

I'll even give you an advantage.  Presuming you skipped over the
material the first time (who could get past the first three sentences
and not wish to dismiss the whole thing as legal wrangling and
obfuscation?), I'll tell you my choice before you even begin trying to
find yours.  Its in the middle of that big last paragraph, [30], and it
says:

"the most efficient means for the prevention of monopoly, since the
operation of the centrifugal and centripetal forces resulting from the
right to freely contract was the means by which monopoly would be
inevitably prevented"

It means "a free market will inevitably prevent a monopoly to begin
with, so a 'legal monopoly' is not possible, since one must willfully
monopolize in order to overcome the market forces (described, bizarrely
enough, as 'centrifugal and centripetal', meaning, I think, that both
greater competition from the market and lesser competitiveness from the
monopolist) which prevent monopoly.  So to have a monopoly is to have
broken the law by monopolizing, because there is no other way to achieve
monopoly in a free market.  All directly anti-competitive acts are
outlawed by the combination of sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, as a
class; anything that *results* in restraint of trade *is* restraint of
trade, regardless of any putative business motivation.  Any intentional
action which *may result* in monopoly is monopolization, or attempted
monopolization, regardless of any putative business motivation, or any
property rights or copyright or patent or accident of history.

Having a monopoly is illegal, regardless of what you do with it, or what
you 'use' it for.  The only thing you are allowed to do with monopoly
power is to let free market forces take it away from you.  Even
attempting to try to hold onto it is a crime.

-- 
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: Alan Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: 
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2000 13:24:14 -0700

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 
Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>In article <39b121af$2$yrgbherq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 09/02/00 
>>    at 12:40 PM, "Joe R." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> 
>> >In article <39b06554$1$yrgbherq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 
>> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> 
>> >> "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> >> 
>> >> 
>> >> >Max arguing from a position of research is a very rare thing.  This
>> >> >anti-trust discussion he is in is the first time I've ever seen it, 
>> >> >and 
>> >> >is
>> >> >fueled more by his irrational hatred of Microsoft rather than any 
>> >> >inherent
>> >> >character traits.  That doesn't stop him drawing just plain wrong
>> >> >conclusions, however.
>> >> 
>> >> 
>> >> NO the problem is YOUR constant M$ cheerleading pea brain that can't 
>> >> see 
>> >> how
>> >> that you are squirming around with a wish that M$ will get away with 
>> >> breaking
>> >> the law.  
>> 
>> >I think it's only fair to point out that Max has been nearly 
>> >universally 
>> >flamed by both Mac advocates and Windows advocates because he posts 
>> >what 
>> > is
>> >probably the worst drivel on this group -- ever (sorry EdLOSE, you've  
>> >been
>> >replaced).
>> 
>> 
>> I've been replaced?    Listen up you asshole, I've seen some pretty 
>> heavy
>> drivel here, but you're largely ignored because they are about as wacko 
>> as
>> anything, anywhere by anyone. 
>
>He wasn't talking about you.  He was talking about Edwin Thorne, aka 
>"EdWIN".


Unless this is just another EdWinality? <G>

-- 
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall to that
wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you sit in the 
bottom of that cupboard."

------------------------------

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: Sat, 02 Sep 2000 16:41:25 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Said Courageous in comp.os.linux.advocacy; 
>
>> >My screen name is Courageous.
>> Sorry, 'Courageous'; I misread it.
>> 
>> I, personally, would prefer that you
>> not post under a pseudonym.  When you consider my preferences,
>> 'Courageous', I will consider yours.
>
>It's generally considered impolite to express preferences to
>what someone calls themselves. 

I don't have any preference one way or the other what you call yourself,
'Courageous', merely whether you use a pseudonym when posting to
advocacy groups.  I'm afraid I consider it impolite, and worse,
regardless of what pseudonym you choose to use.

>> >Given that the original statements were made some time back, it
>> >should not surprise you that I was misquoting him.
>> 
>> I didn't say it surprised me.  I said I wanted to make it clear.  As far
>> as I know, there's no statute of limitations on honesty.
>
>You are continuing to be rude. Is this a habit of yours?

I don't consider it rude to point out that misquoting someone in order
to provide a basis for your argument is dishonest.  The question isn't
whether rudeness is a habit of mine; the question is whether dishonesty
is a habit of yours.

>> Funny, it sure looked like you were saying "if you can't prove it to me,
>> its not true".
>
>We've already covered this ground. If he can't proffer some example,
>then he doesn't have an argument.

If you cannot refute his statement, you don't have an argument; that is
as far as it goes.  Its certainly appropriate for you to question
whether such a mechanism exists, but if you can't give us any more
reason to believe it doesn't than the fact that you can ask the
question, and the fact that he has not explained the mechanics in
detail, yours is an argument from ignorance.  Which is not a proper
argument at all 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: Steve Hix <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: 
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools
Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2000 13:43:57 -0700

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Rick 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> > >At the present time, public schools are massively under-funded. Class
> > 
> >         Yet those private schools seem to do more with less.
> > 
> 
> No, they dont. Private schools have MORE $/student than public schools.
> Public schools have always done more eith less, especially K-12.

Having actually been on school boards I have to say that you're
not correct, at least not all the time. Probably not most of the
time.

One thing at least ought to be done, and that is to shake up the
way that public school systems are organized.

There is something very wrong with a system that puts the majority
of its money into administrative overhead, rather than into the
classroom. Too many public school systems run with oversized
upper management, and a good deal of that is a result of federal
mandates for reporting and other paperwork.

-- 
 -- 
Steve Hix <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

------------------------------

From: T. Max Devlin <[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, 02 Sep 2000 16:47:36 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Said James A. Robertson in comp.os.linux.advocacy; 
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>> >> Microsoft's been convicted.  Get used to it.
>> >
>> >Conviction is one thing.  Guilt will be determined at the end of litigation.
>> 
>> Still not used to it, huh?
>
>It's pretty hard to get used to lawyers running amok, especially when
>they are government lawyers.

I wouldn't call enforcement of anti-trust law 'lawyers running amok',
but then, I'm not generally ignorant of the law, as so many people seem
to be.

-- 
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: Steve Hix <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: 
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools
Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2000 13:48:06 -0700

> Rick wrote:
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:

> > > Why do you need *extra* taxes for vouchers, when you have just
> > > stated above that the per-pupil costs of private schools are LOWER
> > > than that of public schools (Primarily to lower salaries, reduced
> > > red-tape and significantly smaller bureacracy).
> > 
> > First, private schools charge "more" per student.

I don't know where you live, here in Sillycon Valley, nearly half the
private schools charge the same or less than what is supposed to be
going per student in the local public districts. This was a couple
years back when my kids were still in k-12 range, and there are more
private schools operating in the area than then.

You *really* need to catch on that there is a *huge* range in 
what private schools offer and what they charge.

-- 
 -- 
Steve Hix <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

------------------------------

From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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: Sat, 02 Sep 2000 20:53:38 GMT

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Phillip Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >        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.
> 
> Among whom is that a cliche?  Please define "really important advances".

Sewers and penicilin.

> >We have no real evidence that the current importance that we place on
> >science now is justified.
>
> Do you have children?  Have you ever had pneumonia?  Do you like your
> computer?

Penicilin isn't exactly a new invention. As for computers,

"It is very easy to be blinded to the essential uselessness of them by
the sense of achievement you get from getting them to work at all." -HG

Wheeeee, look at the whirlee things!

------------------------------


** 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
******************************

Reply via email to