Linux-Advocacy Digest #840, Volume #28 Sat, 2 Sep 00 18:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Chris Wenham)
Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools (david raoul derbes)
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: How low can they go...? ("Simon Cooke")
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Courageous)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 17:28:49 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said D'Arcy Smith in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> If you aren't at liberty to choose then a technical
>> viewpoint is quite meaningless actually.
>
>You are able to choose - license the technology... if cost is prohibitive
>to you then so be it.
>
[obviously inappropriate sig delimiter snipped]
>
>That said yes I am all for having a revered engineered GPL system
>for DVDs.
Huh?
--
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! ======
------------------------------
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?
From: Chris Wenham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2000 21:39:39 GMT
>>>>> "Joe" == Joe R <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> 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 then you go ahead and post several hundred lines showing that you
> don't grasp the concept at all.
Why don't you show why he doesn't grasp the concept, instead of just
being lazy and saying so?
Regards,
Chris Wenham
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (david raoul derbes)
Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2000 21:41:39 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Forrest Gehrke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>david raoul derbes wrote:
>
>> Finally, vouchers. As many of you may have seen, there are now studies
>> from three states indicating that minority students, particularly
>> Hispanic and African-American, do better in private schools. I think
>> vouchers are a great idea, *provided* that *extra* taxes are implemented
>> to pay for them. The bad thing about vouchers is that the money for
>> them, at present, comes out of public school budgets (so far as I
>> know.) Competition is good, but I don't want to hamstring the public
>> schools by stealing money from them.
>
>"stealing"? David, let's take just an example. Assume a school district has
>10,000 students and vouchers take away 2000. Are you saying that whatever
>budget this district had is now to continue unchanged? Wouldn't a smaller
>student population require, for example, fewer teachers? Your bias as a
>school teacher is showing.
Bias it may be, Forrest, but for the record I teach in a *private* school.
You'd think I'd be strongly in favor of vouchers, and screw the public
schools, right? Nope.
OK, "stealing" was a bad choice of words. How about "diverting"?
Let's continue with your example. What is likely to happen is not
that you could drop twenty percent of your faculty, but that lots of
classes would simply get smaller (not a bad thing, of course.) That is,
you might well be able to dismiss an English teacher and a math teacher
or two, but you probably are not going to be able to dump the shop
teacher and the Latin teacher, because not all that many students
take these classes. My guess is that you might be able to shuck off
seven or eight percent of the faculty should the student population
drop. You might also get the shop teacher to start teaching physics,
which isn't always successful. (And God help my students if I had
to start teaching phys. ed.)
>
>Recognizing that the district is still stuck with the same bricks and mortar
>and other overhead, the voucher usually offered is about a third of
>the per student cost of the district.
OK. Now, the tuition at my ritzy school is about 13.4K in the high school.
Let's say that the voucher is for even 5K. That still means that the
family has to come up with 8.4K, no joke, especially if the family has
two or three kids. We have some scholarship (not nearly enough), but
vouchers really aren't going to give a whole lot of kids the lift both
you and I would like.
I am going to try to take a completely objective view on vouchers, as
Forrest suggests, neither Democratic nor Republican, and maybe not even
liberal or conservative.
Premise: it is in this country's best interest to produce the best
educated population we can.
Method: educate the children as best we can with a reasonable
expenditure of money, public and/or private.
Fact: many public schools are not working. Many children, especially in
the inner cities, are not learning at a level necessary to succeed in
this society.
Fact: private schools seem, in general, to be doing a better job than
most (but certainly not all) public schools.
Suggestion 1: get more (all?) kids into private schools.
Vouchers may provide a way to do this. Some parents may in fact be able
to carry the rest of the financial responsibility, and could then manage
to put their child into a private school.
Benefits: evidence now suggests that many kids who change from public
to private schools improve on various standardized tests, and by all
objective measures learn more. A smaller public school population
would certainly be easier to administer, and cheaper.
Deficits: private schools may choose who they will take. What happens
to the students nobody wants? If the voucher money comes from public
school budgets, the public schools may lose out on "economies of scale",
and their per-pupil costs may rise. (It would be cheaper to run a school
of 8000 as opposed to 10,000, but the cost per kid might be more, so
that with 80% of the money, maybe they couldn't provide the same
level of service as before, so you have to cut art, or music or something
else judged non-essential.) The private school network isn't large
enough to absorb the public school population. Many families, even
with a voucher, may not be able to afford the rest of the private
school tuition, so those kids are out of luck. It is likely that
just those kids whose parents care about their kids' education will
flee, if they can. The remainder may not have the interest or the
political skills to maintain even the low level of function a school
may now have. One outcome is that some kids would benefit greatly
from vouchers, but other kids would be condemned to an even lousier
education than they are now getting. The worst possible outcome would
be if the public schools became a dumping ground for the misfits, the
genuinely ineducable, and the criminal.
Suggestion 2: make the public schools more like the private schools.
This can be done, but a big part (in my opinion) is educating the
parents to take a more active role at home in their kid's education.
You could take the best teachers at my school, throw them into a
terrible school in any major city, and within a year, you'd be likely
to have a bunch of very burned-out teachers. The schools can be made
better, but money isn't sufficient. The schools have to be made
safer, the teachers have to have more autonomy, the classes ought
to be smaller (I'd keep them at 18 or below), and the parents have
to believe that education is the most valuable thing their kids could
obtain. It wouldn't hurt to improve teacher training and get rid of
the dumb courses in place of courses in English, mathematics, and
other old-fashioned subjects.
Wonderful public schools exist. There is no reason why other public
schools cannot follow the models of these schools. I really believe
that the parents are the key.
>Here in New Jersey the city of Newark's
>per student expense is more than $9000 (and Newark's tax collection is well
>short of that--so the rest of us pay most of that--and we hear of school
>district
>administrators riding around in limosines and attending seminars in Hawaii).
>It got so bad the state had to take over the Newark school district.
>BTW that student expense exceeds nearly every school district in NJ, including
>that of Mountain Lakes, one of the more affluent towns in the state where I
>pay
>a hefty real estate tax.
>
>This voucher controversy concerns schools in the ghettos of our major cities.
>Their school dropout rate generally is in the range of 80% . This is an awful
>waste, not only of resources but more of all these failed students who will
>not represent job employment at decent wages. Their very high unemployment
You and I are in complete agreement here. I don't see this as a liberal
or conservative or Democratic or Republican issue. The methods of these
groups may differ, but the vast majority of the country wants these kids
to get a good education. It isn't too surprising (as the Wall Street
Journal is fond of pointing out) that more and more support for vouchers
is coming from the African-American and Hispanic communities.
Frankly, I really don't care if the education is public or private, so
long as it is attainable (i.e., available to all, or damn near all) and
it is a good education.
>rates in the midst of rates for the rest of country at 4% attests to this
>waste. It is time the adamant stand of the NEA teachers union is not allowed
>to override this serious national problem. I don't see this as a
>Liberal/Conservative
>controversy, which it has become. What's liberal about this? It's a labor
>union
>dispute by a rich union that has taken over the Democrat party, no less.
I think you would be surprised by the relative non-unanimity on this issue.
Not every teacher who is a member of a teacher's union, me f'rinstance,
is opposed to vouchers as a matter of principle. My concern is that
many more kids may be hurt than helped. I recognize that some teachers
(especially in public schools) are fearful that they'll lose their jobs
if their clientele shrinks, and they may not be able to find a job at
an enlarged public school (for one thing, experienced teachers demand
more salary than newcomers.) I think that as Forrest suggests, some (and
perhaps many) teachers are more concerned about their own jobs than
the country's welfare and the kids' education. That's human nature. But
a number of people, including me, worry that the public schools may be
very seriously damaged by vouchers, *if* the voucher money comes from
their budgets. Look, if vouchers came into wide use in Chicago, my
salary would probably increase, so my short-term interest is vouchers
now!! But I ain't convinced that it is in the best interest of the
country. Not every union member is opposed to vouchers out of selfishness.
Some are, no doubt. But not all. (I believe that the official position
of the NEA and the AFT is anti-voucher.)
The country's kids have got to be educated much better than they are now.
So long as a good education is within reach by essentially all of our
kids, it is largely immaterial to me how it's accomplished.
Sorry this is so long; I didn't have the time to make it shorter.
(stolen, in sense, from Voltaire.)
David Derbes [[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 17:55:41 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> OK, POSIX and OpenGL. Keep going. We'll lick this monopoly yet. What
>> do you have for distributed computing applications and clustering?
No, no, I meant "them", 'mjcr'. I'm trying to be responsive, here.
>RPC?
Don't make me laugh. A standard that says "insert standard here" isn't
much of a standard. RPC + CORBA, maybe, as I understand it... Even
then, RPC is a horribly *unoptimized* method, IMHO.
>The Beowulf Project? http://www.beowulf.org/
A 'killer app', when it comes to 'big iron' scale.
--
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.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 17:56:06 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Zenin in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>:> OK, POSIX and OpenGL. Keep going. We'll lick this monopoly yet. What
>:> do you have for distributed computing applications and clustering?
>:
>: RPC?
>
> Yuck. A better modern argument would be CORBA, which is what Gnome
> and KDE have used with much success so far.
>
> It's ashame that CORBA is so complex, but nonetheless I'd still
> advocate it over things like RMI. Language dependent APIs are no
> better then platform dependent APIs.
What's RMI?
--
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: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[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 17:49:21 -0400
Rick wrote:
>
> "Joe R." wrote:
> >
> > 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 $/student than public schools.
> > > Public schools have always done more eith less, especially K-12.
> >
> > I think you'd have to back that up.
> >
>
> Well... Im not going to go do all the research for you... but I'll tell
> you what to look for.
>
> Check the tuition prices for the private schools. Then check your local
> schoolboard budget. You will see that the private schools have more
> money.
Has anybody informed you that your are full of shit...
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
J: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Simon Cooke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2000 21:58:30 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8oref8$fgr$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
`>` The law should be passed that no computer or harddrive can be sold with
a
>preinstalled OS or be bundled with and OS or software.
Thus effectively killing the newbie computer user market. Or making CompUSA
make a killing on installing OSes for people.
> No hardware
> manufacturer, OS producer, or application software producer can be operate
> in any of the other fields and may not form stratigic agreements with any
> one operating in one of the prohibited fields.
Why, precisely? That's a pretty blanket ban. Sure, apply it to Microsoft.
Heck, apply it to Apple (whom it more directly applies to) or Sun. But
everyone?
> This would be much like the
> division of banks, insurance, and security brokerages after the crash of
> 1929.
>
> If a computer hardware firm wants to provide copies of an OS's
> "preinstalled", they would have to sell the OS as a sepperate purchase
with
> the installation media preconfigured with all needed drivers to
> automatically install to OS onto the precise computer model for which they
> would have other wise install it on to. The customized OS packages and
> media should be marked with a message like:
>
> "Warning this copy of GeeWizOS version 3.5 has been customized
> for use on Supercomp model 20X3.Y revision 30.1 computers only.
> This copy of GeeWizOS and may not operate on any other computers
> including on a Supercomp model 20X3.Y revision 30.1 computers if
> modified in any way from the factory configuration.".
>
> Any violation of the rules should be punishable under RICO. I am certain
> that I have left some loop holes in this discription, but you get the
> general idea.
Oh, so you don't want to ban preload. You just want to force people to
install it. Well, fair enough. How do you propose that hardware test and
diagnostic suites are run on the machine? Install, run, format?
Si
------------------------------
From: Courageous <[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 22:00:23 GMT
> >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.
If the basis of your argument is that I'm anonymous, I'm afraid
you're lack of awareness is showing. I'm hardly anonymous. My
last name and the city I'm from are in my email address. I'm
less anonymous than you.
> >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.
No, the question is indeed whether or not rudeness is a habit of
yours. You assert that my misquote was deliberate, in spite of the
fact that I corrected the misquote by reviewing the thread when it
was made an issue of, and inspite of the fact that I indicated that
it was an error induced by time.
KNOCK IT OFF!
> >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;
It is not my responsibility to refute what he says; that's not
how debate works. One does not put the responsibility of proving
a negative to the other party.
But supposing that we disregarded that for a moment. What argument
is it that I do not have?
C//
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
