Linux-Advocacy Digest #889, Volume #28 Mon, 4 Sep 00 12:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: HOTMAIL Hacked? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools (lyttlec)
Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised.... (sfcybear)
Re: Computer and memory (lyttlec)
Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised.... (sfcybear)
Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised.... (sfcybear)
Re: Computer and memory (lyttlec)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools (Charles Kooy)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: HOTMAIL Hacked?
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 11:37:29 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Milton in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>On Sun, 03 Sep 2000 04:10:03 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
>But you don't need to hack one of the root DNS servers.
I never said you did.
--
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: 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 15:36:47 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> >Rick wrote:
> >>
> >> "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Rick wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" 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
> >> > > >
> >> > > > 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.
> >> >
> >> > Yeah, there are a couple of HIGHLY SELECT blue-blood boarding
> >> > schools like Andover that cost more than the tuition at most
> >> > colleges...
> >> >
> >> > But, by and large, the OVERWHELMING majority of private schools
> >> > have lower per-pupil costs.
> >> >
> >> > Reduced management overhead is the primary reason.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Really? Do you know the typical management structure of a typical public
> >> school? Its very light. Very.
>
> >In most school districts, 30-50% of the per-pupil cost is MANAGMENT OVERHEAD.
>
> This would mean that at best, for every three teachers there is one
> non-teaching administrator. The idea is complete nonsense. I've never seen a
> public school with that kind of overhead -- and you haven't either. Now, how
> would like to refine your point.
>
> --
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -----------------------------------------------------------
In Tennessee and Dallas, Tx, the ration is more nearly 1:1 or 1.25:1. At
the Plano, Tx high school there were almost 2:1 non-teaching:teaching
staff. At the school I attended in Tennessee many years ago, the ratio
was 0:1. Every one on staff taught at least one class. That included the
custodian who taught "detention" by teaching detainees how to scrub
windows.
------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised....
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 15:32:51 GMT
> >
> > In many companies that would require a complete overhaul of DNS and
> > re-addressing of their workstations. Many places I have worked did
> _not_
> > all their MS stuff to one network, Unix and Mac to another. Poor
> design,
> > Maybe, but this is the REAL world and not everything is clean or
well
> > designed. The SysAdmin that forgets that is in for big problems
> rolling
> > out W2K's DNS.
>
> We do it with a couple of lines in the login script
> if "%OS%=="Windows_NT" cscript ntdns.vbs
> else cscript win9xdns.vbs
??? you miss understood... What if you have BOTH Unix and Windows
_already_ on the same set of IP addresses with the SAME domain
configured? A LOT of time needs to be spent RECONFIUGRING MANY installed
clients! DHCP might help IF and ONLY IF you were already setup with
DHCP! You keep talking as if you do have a large installed base that is
perfectly setup. that is NOT the case in many sites! Many sites have
WIndows AND Unix on the same IP segment, on the same Domain with ALL
info HARD CODED (no DHCP). It would be a nightmare to reconfigure the
network the way you discribe! Why should I have to worry about what OS I
am running to set up DNS??? Shouldn't DNS be STANDARD????
>
> Readdressing of workstations is a *minor* issue, and the system is
> really no more complicated than before - you just have a few extra DNS
> servers which the NT admins (typically not also the Unix admins)
manage.
>
> >
> > And what about those multi boot (linux and W2k) boxes????
> >
> What about them? Win2K box registers itself in the AD DNS, Linux is a
> static entry in the Unix DNS as normal. If they share an IP address,
> then you have for all intents and purposes an alias to it with the
> Linux hostname.
sounds like a lot of work for NOTHING! why sould I have to worry about
this at all??? shouldn't DNS be STANDARD for ALL OS's??? Why sould I
have to worry what OS I am running to configure DNS? Why when multi
booting can't I use DHCP for BOTH systems? Why do I have to reconfigure
my installed domain base to fit MS's DNS>????
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: lyttlec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Computer and memory
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 15:48:45 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> abraxas wrote:
> >
> > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Perhaps you should be writing your government then.
> > >
> > > It's not America's fault your country(ies) are behind
> > > in technology.
> > >
> >
> > There goes chad again, talking out of his ass. This actually has nothing
> > to do with being 'behind in technology', it has to do with there being no
> > one common communications tariff methodology.
> >
> > To all: Chad actually knows next to nothing about computers, and exactly
> > nothing about the way countries other than the united states work. Hes
> > probably best ignored.
>
> Wrong. Britain COULD have just as vibrant a memory-production industry
> as the US....IF THEY DESIRED to do so.
>
> It's not as if beach sand and photo-lithography and molecular beam
> epitaxy only work on the US mainland.
>
> Hell, TAIWAN has a bigger chip-making industry than Britain, and they
> didn't have ***ANY*** capacity 15 years ago.
>
> >
> > -----yttrx
>
> --
> 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.
What is the chip producing capacity of the US? Last I looked it was
zero. All had been moved to the Philippines or Taiwan.
------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised....
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 15:39:10 GMT
> >
> No problem, you want to reduce the number of DNS servers you use, use
a
> current version of BIND. Win2K will let you use that as well. DNS is
> such a minor issue.
BS! DNS is one of the MOST important parts of the network! What a joke!
This type of thinking is why I would NOT want to turn DNS over to a MS
admin!!!!!
How does what you claim here change using 2 different DNS servers on two
different OS's as _you_ suggested???
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised....
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 15:42:24 GMT
In article <8ovh4k$31i$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Stuart Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <8ou0hp$igb$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In article <8otsra$emi$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > Stuart Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > In article <39b08bbe$0$26546$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > "Chris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > I think that they have a good point when it comes to DNS. Here
is
> > > what they
> > > > have said about it:
> > > >
> > > > "We do have some questions as to what will happen to a company's
> DNS
> > > under
> > > > the Windows 2000 model. Microsoft has tied in DNS pretty heavily
> to
> > > AD. In
> > > > fact, Microsoft wants to become the DNS provider in your
> enterprise.
> > > In a
> > > > multiplatform, multihost environment, you'll need to be very
> careful
> > > with
> > > > interoperability--and with an eye toward internal politics. Most
> of
> > > the
> > > > world's DNS today does not run on Microsoft platforms--and
fouling
> > up
> > > your
> > > > customers' DNS systems will mess up their Net connectivity. You
> > don't
> > > want
> > > > to go there."
> > > >
> > > Pretty simple to design a system such that the Unix DNS can remain
> the
> > > root of the companies DNS - e.g. for the Win2K domain use
> > > nt.mydomain.com. That's exactly how we've implemented it, set the
> > > Win2K DNS up to forward to the Unix DNS, let the Unix DNS do what
> they
> > > like (forward, act as secondary - if they are running the right
> > version
> > > of BIND), no problem. I would have thought that anything that
> removes
> > > some of the maintenance from the BIND DNS would be received with
> open
> > > arms...
> >
> > In many companies that would require a complete overhaul of DNS and
> > re-addressing of their workstations. Many places I have worked did
> _not_
> > all their MS stuff to one network, Unix and Mac to another. Poor
> design,
> > Maybe, but this is the REAL world and not everything is clean or
well
> > designed. The SysAdmin that forgets that is in for big problems
> rolling
> > out W2K's DNS.
>
> We do it with a couple of lines in the login script
> if "%OS%=="Windows_NT" cscript ntdns.vbs
> else cscript win9xdns.vbs
>
> Readdressing of workstations is a *minor* issue,
Yeah if you only have 2 workstations! but what if you have THOUSANDS???
it becomes a MAJOR issue! This sort of BS is why I would NOT want to
turn DNS over to a MS admin!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: lyttlec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Computer and memory
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 15:51:21 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> Person 7 wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 7 Jun 2000 14:06:58 +0200, in comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,
> > ("Olivier Borgeaud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
> >
> > >2. Memory is actually very cheap
> >
> > Memory is NOT cheap
>
> That's strange...every probject that *I* have worked on the last
> 5 years was built on the assumption that the performance/price
> ratio of memory is significantly higher than nearly any other
> aspect of the system.
>
> In 1980, $500 would get you 16 Kilobytes of 1 micro-second read/write
> memory
>
> Now, $500 will get you about 512 MEGABYTES of 10-nanosecond read/write
> memory.
>
> --
> Aaron R. Kulkis
> Unix Systems Engineer
> ICQ # 3056642
>
And how much does the computer that will accept 512 meg of 10-nanosecond
ram cost? I have three systems running here that won't run 10-nanosecond
memory as the refresh rate is too slow. Do I need to buy a whole new
system to upgrade my OS?
> 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: [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 15:55:42 GMT
On Mon, 4 Sep 2000 00:11:04 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> 1. a malicious, false, and injurious statement spoken about a person.
>> 2. the uttering of such statements; calumny.
>> 3. [Law] false oral defamation (cf. /libel
>Examine #1 above. Accepting that deffinition what four point have to all
>be met for a statement to be slander?
>
>(a) It has to be malicious.
>(b) It has to be false.
>(c) It has to be injurious.
>(d) It has to be *spoken*.
>
>If *any* of these point are not met, it is not slander.
Well, (1) clearly requires all of the above. (3) doesn't require (a).
>For an act to be malicious means that it was perform with an evil intent.
>
>For a false statement to be a lie it has to be made by a person who *knows*
>that statement is false; so all lies by deffinition are intentional.
But nowhere does the definition of slander require that the slanderer is
lying. If I accuse Max of being a sex offender, he can still sue me for
defamation, even though I do not know that he is not a sex offender.
Ignorance is not a defence.
>So a key word describing both malicious and lie is a varation of the work
>intent. That means that according to (a) above slanderious statement has to
>be a deliberate and intentional act with full knowledge that the statement
>is false;
Again, I refer you to the above example. If I accused Max of being
a sex offender, my intention could well be malicious even though I
do not know that he isn't. Ignorance isn't a defence.
However, I'll concede that Max's comments quite possibly do not satisfy
(d), so it would probably be more correct to use the word "libel" which
covers written as well as spoken assertions.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charles Kooy)
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, 4 Sep 2000 17:02:11 +0100
Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Charles Kooy wrote:
> >
> > Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Charles Kooy wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Charles Kooy wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > > <snip>
> > > > > > > Left-wing social causes (global warming
> > > > > > > propaganda)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Uhm, what precisely is 'left wing' about global warming? I think the
> > > > > > majority of people would refer to it as an issue that concerns
> everyone.
> > > > >
> > > > > "global warming" is a NON-event that the Left is trying to use to
> > > > > weaken the economies of capitalist economies.
> > > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > > > Why would the Left want to weaken the economies of non-capitalist
> > > > countries?
> > >
> > > Spot the deliberate mis-quote.
> > >
> > > Ever notice who the non-capitalist countries which sign onto
> > > idiot-pacts like the Kyoto Accords are never called on to
> > > change THEIR production techniques (even though these same
> > > countries put FAR more C02 into the air than western countries
> > > for the same number of goods produced.)
> > >
> > The Kyoto accord was/is fatally flawed in many different ways. Many
> > third world countries consider it unfair that they, who are just
> > developing their industrial infrastructure, should be subject to the
> > same emmission controls that rich countries have set, especially when
> > those rich countries have spent the last 150 years chucking every kind
> > of crap about. That pisses them off because their development may be
> > stifled, as they may not be able to afford the cleaner equipment.
> >
> > 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.
Yet temperatures at the Poles is rising, and there is also a still
growing hole in the Ozone layer (though the latter may, admittedly, be a
natural fluctuation - difficult to judge with the very limited amount of
historical data available on that particular issue). There is a lot of
ice at the poles. What do you think will happen when that ice starts
melting. Nothing?
>
> Global warming is all about providing an excuse for removing personal
> freedoms, and implementing more socialism as an attempt to keep those
> who are rich and powerful (Kennedys, Rockefellers, Rothchilds, etc.)
Aha - I see you feel it necessary to single out a Catholic family and
two Jewish ones. Do you have a problem with them, or were they just the
first to come to mind?
> at the top by utterly destroying the means for anybody else to
> rise withing the socio-economic structure.
Really? How do you explain the increase in the number of
multi-millionaires over the last 40 or so years? They seem to have done
pretty well... Not to mention the substantial growth in the size of the
middle classes since the 1950's, and particularly since the early
1980's.
ck
>
> >
> > >
> > > [Marxist bullshit deleted]
> >
> > Tell me, Aaron, do you call everything you don't agree with bullshit?
> > That really is terrribly, well, Marxist of you.
> >
> > ck
------------------------------
** 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
******************************