Linux-Advocacy Digest #888, Volume #28 Mon, 4 Sep 00 12:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (Maximo Lachman)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: How low can they go...? (Zenin)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (Maximo Lachman)
Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!! (Zenin)
Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!! (Dave Livesay)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (Maximo Lachman)
Re: The Test: Dial-up Connections (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!! (lyttlec)
Re: Would a M$ voluntary spit save it? (Maximo Lachman)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (Courageous)
Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools (Ian Davey)
Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools (Courageous)
Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools (lyttlec)
Re: Why I hate Windows...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Date: 4 Sep 2000 14:11:15 GMT
On Mon, 04 Sep 2000 00:42:14 -0400, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>So can you explain why GTK is not a "monopoly" ?
>
>If you can explain why it might be, perhaps.
I already have. Because there is only one implementation of the GTK API.
Why do you keep ignoring this question ?
FYI, here are some more "monopolies":
OWL
MFC
XForms
Tk
Motif ( Lesstif is *not* a viable alternative for most developers )
>The legal definition of the relevant market in an anti-trust examination
>is *not* "what is the product".
It's not a definition, but it's obviously necessary to properly
identify the product to identify the market.
>and say "Aha! So I'm right; GTK and QT are both available
>alternatives." Its not quite that simple.
Isn't it ? They are two toolkits with ( more or less ) precisely the
same functionality, and this is unlikely to change, since GTK can
and will implement any useful QT features in GTK.
>I'm not sure what you're babbling about. Is there any circumstance
>where a developer wouldn't have the choice between GTK and QT, but would
>need to use one or the other for some specific reason? If so, then each
>would have to be considered a separate market, tentatively.
I do not believe that such a circumstance exists. The APIs are very
similar and moving from one to the other would not be terribly
difficult. So no, I do not believe that a developer would have a
compelling reason to choose one API over the other.
>>My point is that "libraries that support the QT API" is not a valid
>>market section. The reason why I make this claim is that a "customer"
>>of QT, namely a developer that requires the functionality provided by
>>that library, could choose a different library instead.
>
>Always?
Yes. This is my assesment of the matter. The GNOME and KDE project have
shown that they quite able to "copy" each others good ideas, and the
end result is that there is not a great deal of functional difference
between the two toolkits.
If anything, GTK has an advantantage since it is easier to bind to other
languages ( so for example, if you needed/wanted to program in perl, you'd
need to go with GTK )
If there is something that QT can do and GTK can not, there's nothing
stopping the GTK guys implementing it.
>>The point is that you don't need to be a clone of QT to be a competitor.
>
>Thus making it even more non-sensible that TT didn't simply help harmony
>clone QT to begin with,
Why should they help Harmony ? It was never substantially more than
vapor. The way it's supposed to work is that you actually lay down a
working product, and then others help you.
Troll *did* help them somewhat by making available very good
documentation for their API. If I was cloning, the main kind of
"help" I would want is good and accurate documentation.
> or at least point out that they didn't need to
>do a 'clean room' implementation of the API.
What are you suggesting they should have allowed ?
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Maximo Lachman)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes
Date: 4 Sep 2000 14:15:00 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Maximo Lachman)
jragosta wrote:
>
>What he seems to be saying is that there are a very few rare
>circumstances where someone could be very wealthy (i.e, high net worth)
>and pay little or no taxes. Some of these are perfectly legitimate and
>ethical, such as when they have a family farm with high worth, but no
>income.
Actually the Wall Street Journal reported that there are 20 million people
who could file but who do not, as only taxpayers are required to file. As
you are presumed to be a non-taxpayer until found to be a taxpayer, no
non-taxpayer needs to file. That is until you or a judge with jurisdiction
puts you into the class of taxpayers. The reason that none of them are
prosecuted for tax evasion, is that the burden of proof is on the IRS to
show that they were judged taxpayers PRIOR to the prosecution AND the
filing deadline. When has ANYBODY been ruled by a judge to be a taxpayer
prior to the filing deadline for any given tax year?
Moreover, the 16th amendment and the Internal Revenue Code do not empower
Congress to collect income taxes from "whatever source at all" but only
from "whatever source derived." The meaning of "source" is as in Black's
law dictionary (i.e. it must be an entity, such as a business, whose
existence is derived from a license granted by government; so homeowners
do not have to pay employer taxes for hiring painters). Thus, income tax
must be collected as an excise tax, from an established source of the taxable
item, just like with every other excise tax. No prizes for guessing that
the Supreme Court ruled that income tax had always been laid as an excise,
interpreted by the courts as an excise, and thereby is to be enforced as
an excise.
The bottom line is: if the IRS does not get paid by the source, it cannot
go after the recipient. The same is true if a corporation pays dividends
to a foreigner, but fails to withhold: the IRS can't go after the
foreigner's US-based assets. At least in theory.
In practice, the IRS has never won any collection action against any such
recipient in any Canadian court that I know of, and certainly not from any
of David Ingram's clients. The U.S. courts are different, as the tax laws
are riddled with Swiss-cheese loopholes to enrich lawyers, accountants,
corrupt judges and IRS employees, who won't let you take advantage of them
unless they get a cut of your tax savings. Unfortunately I also know this
from personal experience, but at least the cut was reasonably small, and
since the cut was part of my lawyer's fee, I was able to deduct it from my
Canadian taxes.
ciao baby,
mAximo
Who says that Spanish fishermen have no respect for the world's fishstocks?
Spain is the only country where you can buy tuna-friendly canned dolphin!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Date: 4 Sep 2000 14:18:40 GMT
On Mon, 04 Sep 2000 00:26:52 -0400, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>No, I'm not trying to claim that it has anything to do with end users.
>I recognize the transactions involved in the commerce. The question is,
>are you deciding which API to use, or are you deciding which library to
>use, or are you, the market, stating that there is no difference because
>you want the choice to be 'tool', with each being a library and API in
>combination, such API not supported by any other tool, or would you
>rather choose which tool based on either library or API (or API or
>library based on tool), based on your preferences and market
>availability?
The point is that noone cares if there is more than one tool sharing the
same API as long as there is a different API/tool available with
comparable functionality. The reason why noone cares is because it is
in practice fairly easy to use one API instead of another for a project.
>I would think that, given the technical network effect (as opposed to
>the marketing network effect which has so despoiled the term), it may
>routinely come up that the choice of API has already been made, due to
>various market factors or conditions,
Not true at all. You are overestimating the difficulty of learning a
new API. What you probably don't know, but I'll point out, is that the
GTK and QT APIs are very similar ( the basic signal/slot design concept
is used by both toolkits ).
> and one needs a library for the QT
>API. The question is, would you like to have one choice of library for
>that need, or two or more?
If I wanted to use a different library, I wouldn't consider having to
change APIs ( to GTK for example ) to be an onerous requirement.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 14:22:16 GMT
Giuliano Colla wrote:
>
> Does anyone remember the good old times when you compared
> OS's in terms of performance or fitness for the job, and the
> "stability" issue simply didn't exist?
> Well, if you don't consider M$, the good old times are still
> here!
Oh, for RSX-11 on a good old DEC PDP-11!!!
Oh yeah, the PDP-8 we used in high school never crashed,
even with us high-school boyz trying to screw it up.
Chris
--
[X] Check here to always trust content from Chris
[ ] Check here to always trust e-mail sent using Microsoft software
------------------------------
From: Zenin <[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: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 14:24:04 GMT
Simon Cooke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: "Zenin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:> Simon Cooke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:> : "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:> >snip<
:> :> No shit. Competing is much easier said than done. Superior product is
:> :> much easer said than done. Business acumen is much easier said than
:> :> done. Deal with it.
:> :
:> : How about you write us something along the lines of photoshop... or
:> : even solitaire. Make it completely portable. And why not at the same
:> : time explain how easy or not it was to do. Because unless *YOU* do it,
:> : it looks like you've got a damn big opinion on you, and you're not
:> : going to accept anyone else's experience to the contrary.
:>
:> Hmm, Gimp anyone?
:
: Sure! In which case... please provide details of the porting effort, and how
: much work was involved, and how it was done.
:
: The point of the exercize was to do it and then report how much pain (or
: lack thereof) was experienced -- not to point at something and say "Oh yeah!
: They already did it! Ha!" without giving any kind of indication as to how
: easy (or not) it was for them.
The source is available free of charge for anyone with such an
interest to examine. The complete record of the progress is
available to for all to download.
That being said, I'm sure All The Usual Suspects of a highly
portable GNU application will show up, namely GNU autoconfig, imake,
and friends.
--
-Zenin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) From The Blue Camel we learn:
BSD: A psychoactive drug, popular in the 80s, probably developed at UC
Berkeley or thereabouts. Similar in many ways to the prescription-only
medication called "System V", but infinitely more useful. (Or, at least,
more fun.) The full chemical name is "Berkeley Standard Distribution".
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Maximo Lachman)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes
Date: 4 Sep 2000 14:32:51 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Maximo Lachman)
rj friedman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) writes:
> Aaron does have a point - and while we're at it, let's burn
> Atilla the Hun at the stake for being too liberal! You have
> to watch out for them no-good liberals - they're one step
> away from them no-good leftist radicals, and everyone knows
> that them no good leftist radicals are one step away from
> godless comm'nism.
Actually it's only in the U.S. where being a liberal does not put you into
the centre of the political spectrum. In 1996 I remember Jean ChrEtien
making fun of Bill Clinton who stated it was unfair for his critics to
call him a liberal. ChrEtien turned this to his advantage by using the
following campaign slogan : "I AM PROUD TO BE A LIBERAL ! ! !"
<elitism>
>From New Zealand to the U.K. "liberal" is synonymous w/the political
centre, except in the English speaking world that's a cultural backwater
like the U.S.
</elitism>
ciao baby,
mAximo
------------------------------
From: Zenin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.linux.sucks,comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!!
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 14:35:04 GMT
D'Arcy Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: "Zenin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:> `man rm' from 4.4BSD Lite2:
:> `man rm' from Solaris:
:> `man rm' from Unix Seventh Edition:
:> `man rm' GNU fileutils (aka Linux rm)
:
: Irix 6.2... -r only no -R.
:
: ..darcy
Exactly. As I mentioned, SysV specifies -r, as I think is still
common in most SysV derivatives and thus is more portable then
-R.
I was making light of the poster who seemed to be wanted to
"correct" the person for using -r instead of -R...when really,
-r was correct in the first place.
--
-Zenin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) From The Blue Camel we learn:
BSD: A psychoactive drug, popular in the 80s, probably developed at UC
Berkeley or thereabouts. Similar in many ways to the prescription-only
medication called "System V", but infinitely more useful. (Or, at least,
more fun.) The full chemical name is "Berkeley Standard Distribution".
------------------------------
From: Dave Livesay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
alt.linux.sucks,comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!!
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 10:45:16 -0400
lyttlec wrote:
>
> Chad Myers wrote:
> >
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Why should deleting a root-level *FILE* fuck up the ENTIRE FILESYSTEM.
> > >
> > > This is indicative of some INCREDIBLY, SERIOUSLY bad fucking
> > > programming.
> >
> > Ironically, this was a bug from back before MS bought FrontPage from VTI.
> >
> > But of course, those pesky facts wouldn't bother people like you, it's
> > all, in the end, Microsoft's fault right? Plauge, war, famine... it's all
> > Gates' fault, eh?
> >
> > -Chad
> Has MS fixed the bug? Did they not know of the bug before or after they
> bought FrontPage? What did they do for customers who got the buggy
> version?
They gave them all a free copy of Internet Explorer.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Maximo Lachman)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes
Date: 4 Sep 2000 14:58:41 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Maximo Lachman)
Roberto Alsina ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) escribio:
>>alguien escribio:
>> (*) Having children you can't afford is NOT "living within your means"
>
> What should someone do if he could, at the time, afford a child
> and later can't? Suggestions? Infanticide doesn't count as one.
It does in the minds of certain national socialists (Slobodan) or
international socialists (Hillary). But the worst are the environmental
socialists who believe in the rights of animals and trees, but not of
children. Socialists are the 1st to espouse the gov't seizure of kids from
their parents or guardians without due process. Remember little Elian?
That also goes on every day in Yankee Doodooland against poor people, in
order to keep money flowing into the child "protection" racket at taxpayers'
expense. The U.S. hypocrites make Castro look like a saint.
ciao baby,
mAximo
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: The Test: Dial-up Connections
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 15:03:10 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Mon, 04 Sep 2000 11:29:44 GMT
<8p012v$jjs$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>OK, so I finally did it... Tested two machines, one Linux and one Win98
>SE.
[snip for brevity]
>Now we fired up the FTP client, CuteFTP 2.6 in Windows and Igloo-FTP in
>Linux. We connected to a local FTP site where RH is mirrored and
>started a download.
>
>After one hour the downloads were:
>
>Linux - 18MB
>Windows - 6.5MB
>
>After two hours, the accumalated total was (and we stopped here):
>
>Linux - 32MB
>Windows - 14MB
[rest snipped]
It would be mildly interesting to see what the packets being
thrown around were. IMO this is odd behavior for a modern
TCP/IP stack, and an interesting counterpoint to the 4 100 Mb
card benchmark done by Mindcraft some months back, which showed
Windows NT to be faster than Linux under that admittedly odd
configuration which probably wouldn't be used in real life.
*shakes head and wanders off*
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 15:10:51 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Person 7
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Sun, 03 Sep 2000 10:06:27 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>On Fri, 26 May 2000 03:16:59 GMT, in comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,
> ([EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)) wrote:
>
>>If you have a sufficiently fast Internet connection and an existing OS
>>(even one as old as DOS), the only things you'd need to download for
>>RedHat is 'bootnet.img' and 'rawrite.exe'. :-) The rest is sucked
>>in later. :-)
>>
>Emphasis on "UN-metered" connection.
>You should see what I have to pay for my Internet connection.
I'm aware of various difficulties in Britain regarding connections
(and money spent thereon); admittedly, it's a problem.
Around here, were I to go ISDN some time back, I would have had
to pay $0.01/minute regardless of bandwidth during business hours.
That sort of thing irks me, and I do not have heavy requirements
for bandwidth right now. I will have to research DSL at some point,
though, mostly because I suspect the phone companies are going to
gear up and make modems obsolete in a few years. :-)
(Of course, they'll replace them with terminal adaptors and another
kind of modem, one which uses digital pulses over the phone line,
rather than analogue ones which sound like so much noise hash.)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random price here
------------------------------
From: lyttlec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!!
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 15:20:56 GMT
Stuart Fox wrote:
>
> "lyttlec" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Chad Myers wrote:
> > >
> > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > Why should deleting a root-level *FILE* fuck up the ENTIRE FILESYSTEM.
> > > >
> > > > This is indicative of some INCREDIBLY, SERIOUSLY bad fucking
> > > > programming.
> > >
> > > Ironically, this was a bug from back before MS bought FrontPage from
> VTI.
> > >
> > > But of course, those pesky facts wouldn't bother people like you, it's
> > > all, in the end, Microsoft's fault right? Plauge, war, famine... it's
> all
> > > Gates' fault, eh?
> > >
> > > -Chad
> > Has MS fixed the bug? Did they not know of the bug before or after they
> > bought FrontPage? What did they do for customers who got the buggy
> > version?
>
> They have created a knowledge base article - Q183030 - available publicly on
> the web http://www.microsoft.com/technet. For customers who bought the
> buggy version, they've provided a workaround (*don't* create Frontpage webs
> in the root of your drive - duh!), which is hardly an onerous requirement.
> It would appear the bug does not affect Frontpage 2000, as the article only
> references Frontpage 98 (although I'm not willing to test this :) )
So they haven't fixed the bug and there is no guarantee it doesn't exist
in the new product?
How many documents are on the technet site?
Why is it considered acceptable that an application could delete the
system directory?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Maximo Lachman)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ voluntary spit save it?
Date: 4 Sep 2000 15:23:28 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Maximo Lachman)
jragosta wrote:
>What he seems to be saying is that there are a very few rare
>circumstances where someone could be very wealthy (i.e, high net worth)
>and pay little or no taxes. Some of these are perfectly legitimate and
>ethical, such as when they have a family farm with high worth, but no
>income.
Actually the Wall Street Journal reported that there are 20 million people
who could file but who do not, as only taxpayers are required to file. As
you are presumed to be a non-taxpayer until found to be a taxpayer, no
non-taxpayer needs to file. That is until you or a judge with jurisdiction
puts you into the class of taxpayers. The reason that none of them are
prosecuted for tax evasion, is that the burden of proof is on the IRS to
show that they were judged taxpayers PRIOR to the prosecution AND the
filing deadline. When has ANYBODY been ruled by a judge to be a taxpayer
prior to the filing deadline for any given tax year? Leona Helmely and
Pete Rose were only convicted for fraud on their returns, not for not
filing. They would have been better off not filing in the first place.
Moreover, the 16th amendment and the Internal Revenue Code do not empower
Congress to collect income taxes from "whatever source at all" but only
from "whatever source derived." The meaning of "source" is as in Black's
law dictionary (i.e. it must be an entity, such as a business, whose
existence is derived from a license granted by government; so homeowners
do not have to pay employer taxes for hiring painters). Thus, income tax
must be collected as an excise tax, from an established source of the taxable
item, just like with every other excise tax. No prizes for guessing that
the Supreme Court ruled that income tax had always been laid as an excise,
interpreted by the courts as an excise, and thereby is to be enforced as
an excise.
The bottom line is: if the IRS does not get paid by the source, it cannot
go after the recipient. The same is true if a corporation pays dividends
to a foreigner, but fails to withhold: the IRS can't go after the
foreigner's US-based assets. At least in theory.
In practice, the IRS has never won any collection action against any such
recipient in any Canadian court that I know of, and certainly not from any
of David Ingram's clients. The U.S. courts are different, as the tax laws
are riddled with Swiss-cheese loopholes to enrich lawyers, accountants,
corrupt judges and IRS employees, who won't let you take advantage of them
unless they get a cut of your tax savings. Unfortunately I also know this
from personal experience, but at least the cut was reasonably small, and
since the cut was part of my lawyer's fee, I was able to deduct it from my
Canadian taxes.
ciao baby,
mAximo
Who says that Spanish fishermen have no respect for the world's fishstocks?
Spain is the only country where you can buy tuna-friendly canned dolphin!
------------------------------
From: Courageous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 15:25:53 GMT
> must be collected as an excise tax, from an established source of the taxable
> item, just like with every other excise tax. No prizes for guessing that
> the Supreme Court ruled that income tax had always been laid as an excise,
> interpreted by the courts as an excise, and thereby is to be enforced as
> an excise.
You are a net kook.
C//
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ian Davey)
Subject: Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 15:27:16 GMT
In article <8p095u$b17$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > Nevertheless, this does not mean that global warming does not exist
>>
>> Whether global warming exists or not (and the only data that supports
>> the conjecture is from weather stations that existed before
>> industrialization which are now buried in the middle of local
>> concrete-jungle hot-spots.
>>
>> Temperature data from RURAL weather stations shows ***NO CHANGE***
>> for the last 100 years.
>
>Of course the melting polar ice cap is obviously not because it's getting
>warmer...
>
That'll be the fault of those pesky space aliens I'm sure... the fact it's in
the interest of those who pollute the most to deny the existence of global
warming is a complete irrelevance. Global warming is probably just a socialist
conspiracy designed to send the US back to the stone age. Those pesky
socialists spend all day sitting around plotting conspiracies. I'm sure Aaron
can provide plenty of evidence to back all this up. If it wasn't for those
RURAL weather stations you never know where we might be. Why let science
and cold facts get in the way?
ian.
\ /
(@_@) http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/ (dark literature)
/(&)\ http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/libertycaptions/ (art)
| |
------------------------------
From: Courageous <[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: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 15:28:19 GMT
> But a better thing would be to make the public schools at least as
> good as the private schools. I believe, perhaps naively, that this
> can be done; and even more naively, that it isn't simply a matter of
> money.
It's much a matter of money; halving the class sizes requires doubling
the number of teachers, for example.
C//
------------------------------
From: lyttlec <[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: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 15:28:27 GMT
Steve Hix 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.
>
> 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]>
The solution is simple : opt out of all federal money. You can then
spend the remainding money as you wish. I know of a few school districts
that have done this. You can expect to take heat from the state level as
their federal money will get cut too, threatning some not-teaching
administrator jobs at state level.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Why I hate Windows...
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 15:34:15 GMT
On Sun, 3 Sep 2000 07:48:25 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Of these 5 things, only number 5 applies to a properly configured machine.
>My windows 98SE box hasn't been rebooted in almost 3 weeks with regular
>useage. My NT4 box over a month. My 2000 box I just rebooted a few days
>ago for SCSI driver update.
>
BFD
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
