Linux-Advocacy Digest #895, Volume #28 Mon, 4 Sep 00 17:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools (Charles Kooy)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. (Roberto
Alsina)
Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools (T. Max Devlin)
Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools (T. Max Devlin)
Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised.... (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Why I hate Windows... (Slip Gun)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised.... (T. Max Devlin)
Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools (Rick)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: businesses are psychopaths (Christopher Browne)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (Donovan Rebbechi)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 20:38:59 +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:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > 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
>
> Natural fluctuation...In other words, a NON-ISSUE.
Please read what I wrote. I wrote 'MAY'. It isn't definite either way.
We need more data.
> Do you know *WHY* the ozone-layer thins over the south pole during
> the southern-hemisphere winter?
Yes, I do.
> 1) Ozone is produced by ultraviolet rays interacting with oxygen
> atoms in the upper atmosphere
Amongs other things
> 2) Ozone breaks down over time
Accelerated by a number of artificially introduced chemicals
> 3) Any airmasss which doesn't get exposed to ultraviolet light
> experiences a decrease in ozone levels
True
> 4) Each polar region experiences a 90-day "night" during that
> hemisphere's winter.
True
> QED.
>
Actually, I suspect that the factors are rather more complex than that,
and I'd rather get an atmospheric scientist's opinion on this.
>
>
> > 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?
>
> No such thing is happening. A 2-mile hole in the cap was cleared by
> ice-breakers as a PUBLICITY STUNT. If this were a GENUINE process,
> then the whole ice cap would have been broken up....not PACKED LIKE
> A GLACIER as shown in the publicity-stunt photograph.
Please read what I wrote. I wrote 'WHEN that ice starts melting'.
However, icebergs are being seen earlier and in larger quantities than
in the past. That suggests that something is causing the ice to break
up.
I've not heard of Icebreakers being used for a publicity stunt. And if
they had they'd have wandered about bits of frozen sea, not the cap
itself, because it is several miles thick. Not something that any
Icebreaker can take on, and it will take an awfully long of time for
that to melt.
> >
> > >
> > > 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.
>
> Fuck you, racist pig. Religion has nothing to do with it...Plutocratic
> behavior does.
Thank you. You are most charming. One would have to be warped indeed to
interpret what I wrote as racist, while it is easy for an impartial
reader to do so with your words of wisdom.
>
> > Do you have a problem with them, or were they just the
> > first to come to mind?
>
> They are the best known wealthy-assholes in these parts. They are
> all known for pandering to the poor by promoting legislation that
> is harmful to anybody trying to improve their own personal economic
> situation.
>
> Socialism is merely a way for the "kings of the mountain" to
> a) install underground refrigeration to freeze the mountain side, and
> b) hose down the mountain side with water until it's covered with
> a sheet of ice...
>
> All at the expense of those on the bottom
>
> The quicker you and your friends figure this out, the sooner you
> will be allowed to KEEP YOUR OWN MONEY.
I should make clear that I am a capitalist. A gentle one, admittedly,
but a capitalist nonetheless. And I've plenty of money. Thanks for your
concern, though.
> >
> > > 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. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> ^^^^^^^
>
> That corresponds QUITE WELL with Reagan's initiatives to reduce
> socialism
This would be the same Reagan who cranked up the US deficit to a quite
astonishing degree, no? But I was actually thinking of many countries
around the western world - you know, the Scandinavian ones, Germany, The
Benelux, France, heck, even Italy and Spain. Not just the US.
Of course, having seen your posts around Usenet (and some of your
outlandish claims) I know that you consider all of Europe to employ a
more extreme form of Stalinism as its favoured political system, but
hey, it doesn't seem to have done them much harm.
Excuse me, I've just got to go off and polish up my black helicopter and
get me some running dog capitalist lackeys! ;-)
ck
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E.
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 16:46:13 -0300
"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
>
> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
> >>
> >> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
> >> [...]
> >> >If your trouble is, as it seems, that it makes it hard for you
> >> >to clone Qt, that's your problem, not TT's, not mine, not
> >> >KDE's. Yours.
> >>
> >> How does having the code open make it harder to clone? Why would a
> >> clean-room process even be necessary?
> >
> >A clean-room is used normally to prove you are not copying the
> >code, since copying the code is illegal.
> >
> >Jedi's contention is that since the code is available, it's harder
> >to prove that you are not copying.
>
> I should think it would be easier to prove you aren't copying, because
> it would be easier to get the job done without copying. If you were
> supporting a certain function, and you had a specification of the
> necessary inputs and outputs, wouldn't it be a whole lot easier to write
> a program to do that if you'd already seen another program that did
> that?
Yes, and that's the problem. Often there is only one way to do
something.
If you have to prove you didn't look at a piece of code, you can do it
easier if it's impossible for you to have seen that code.
To use an analogy: it's easier to prove you designed an airplane in
1820 than in 1920.
> Is the contention that it makes it too easy to use someone else's code,
> or it makes it too hard to use their ideas? Because if copying their
> code is, literally, the only feasible way to copy the ideas, the courts
> say you're allowed to do that.
I think so. However, there may be more than one way to do it but
only one efficient way.
> I know this is just theory, as no courts have tested much of this at
> all, due to that ubiquitous 'threat of a claim' which naturally prevents
> testing the issues. The reason I go on about this sort of stuff is
> because it seems to me to be an effective way to whittle away people's
> general concern for their own rights. We voluntarily give them up, in
> order to prevent them being taken away. A gradual process makes this a
> slippery slope.
>
> I'm not a programmer, so maybe I can't say, but it seems to me a
> programmer, if he's going to expect his work to deserve copyright, is
> going to be able to put a little imagination into *improving* someone
> else's code by using their ideas but doing it better, and that process
> should certainly not include intentional ignorance in order to make the
> process as inefficient as possible. Perhaps there's a bit of the ol'
> chinese wall in there, too.
There's no need to "deserve" copyright protection. You write code, you
didn't copy it from some place else, it's copyrighted.
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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 15:42:32 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Bob Germer in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>On 09/03/2000 at 08:31 PM,
> "Joe R." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
>> >
>> > The cost per student for the private schools is the tuition. They get no
>> > other funding.
>> >
>
>> Not true.
>
>> Religious schools receive large amounts of money from their affiliated
>> church.
>
>That is far, far, far, far, far from a universal truth. In SOME Roman
>Catholic dioceses, the diocese provides some funding. In others, not a
>cent. There is NO hierarchy for the Quakers. Each Meeting is totally
>independent and there is no central organization which provides funding of
>any sort to Quaker schools. Ditto for the plethora of indpendent Christian
>schools which are only related to a single church.
Yes, "church". As in "single church". Local church. Parish church.
Congregation. I think these are what Joe's been trying to say all
along, Bob. Others have mentioned it as well. Private schools have
non-tuition funding, quite often. Some of them quite a bit of it, in
fact. I wonder if anyone's thought to look for a correlation with
*that*, rather than the per-student expenditures and/or income?
--
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.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 15:51:39 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Joe R. in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>wrote:
[...]
>> I see that as the reason vouchers are bad on the very face of it. They
>> are, inherently, skimming the cream of the crop away from the community
>> schools.
>
>As usual, you're presenting your left wing beliefs as if they were some
>sort of gospel truth.
I'm presenting my opinion. Deal with it. You were supposed to take the
"I see that as..." and extend it as necessary to recognize that I don't
ever present *anything* I say as 'gospel truth'. Generally, I consider
it true, and gospels false, to begin with. But what moron wouldn't
consider their own opinion to be true?
>There are an equal number of people who claim that vouchers make it
>_more_ likely for a lower income person to get a good education.
And I think they're wrong. And you're supposed to provide some reason
for me to change your opinion, or some way for me to change yours, not
just repeat what someone elses' opinions may be.
>After
>all, the wealthy can afford tuition even without a tax break. Vouchers
>might be the only way for some lower income people to get to the private
>school.
That seems apparently a rationalization of vouchers, without anything
but conjecture in terms of the value proposition of vouchers. If you
don't like public schools, you improve the public schools. You can't
make private schools public schools, and you shouldn't try to make
private schools out of public schools, either. If there's things to be
learned from how private schools run thing, fine. Run public schools
that way. But the only way to ensure an equal basis for opportunity for
all citizens is to ensure that all citizens have the opportunity for an
equal education, and that means public schools; I can't see any way
around it.
Vouchers are good for those kids that benefit from them, sure. That's
not an argument for them, IMHO. You might even say that all kids would
benefit from vouchers, and all kids should, but then you're just putting
a nightmare in place of a problem. Public education isn't improved by
skimming the cream of the crop, which is what any voucher system will
do.
>What a voucher system does is separate those people who care about their
>kids' education from those who don't.
Well, unless you're going to insist on punishing a child for their
parent's neglect...
I can't go on. That thought by itself is just *so* reprehensible. Give
me a moment....
What a voucher system does is benefit those who are in the best position
at the cost of those who are in the worst.
>If demand for private schools exceeds available space, more schools will
>be created.
If demand for private schools exceeds available space, then they should
be shut down and the money diverted to public schools. If better public
schools are needed, better public schools will be created.
--
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: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised....
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 15:56:16 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said sfcybear in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>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>????
Go get 'em, dude. You the man.
--
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: Slip Gun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why I hate Windows...
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 20:54:14 +0000
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "Slip Gun" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > > And you
> don't consider vi to be a basic and non-descript tool?
> >
> > At least vi leaves me free to do *exactly* what I want. And I can always
> > use something more fancy if I want to - there are plenty of
> > configuration tools out there. Windoze ran my computer as Bill wanted
> > it, not as I wanted it.
>
> Just because you don't know how to configure you Windows system doesn't mean
> that nobody else does either. I'd venture that 99% of the people that use
> Windows couldn't figure out how to configure a Linux system either.
What makes you assume I don't know how to configure a Windows system?
I've been using M$ products since 1990 . I spent two years trying to
keep my win95 (and later win98) system from crashing, and trying to get
it to run smoothly. Nothing I did would get it to even approach the
stability of linux. Perhaps if I had started running debug on some of
those exe's....
I have many friends still in the windows world, some of them with a
v.good knowledge of the OS and one who did installations/repairs for
part of a living (he uses linux too, now). All of them agree it has crap
stability, control, etc. Are you saying that none of these people know
how to configure a windows system either?
Windows is the product of a very thorough monopoly - it has been since
Win95 (Win 3.11 was their last good product, IMHO).
Ed
--
Those who trade away their privacy in favour of security will soon find
that they have neither.
------------------------------
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 20:16:38 GMT
On Mon, 4 Sep 2000 10:42:40 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> So, you are blaming TT for something they have not done yet? That's not
>> fair.
>
>Are you claiming that Trolltech has not employed FUD?
I'd claim that. The only "FUD" I've seen here is from Max.
In any case, it doesn't look like the "F" had much effect on
anyone, because the only people who seem scared enough to stop
development are people such as Max who aren't willing or able
to contribute anything useful to the community anyway.
Harmony continued inspite of these so called "threats", and stopped
shortly after the QPL announcement, due to lack of interest.
>
>> > Of couse this many soon all become a moot point with the release of
>Qt/Unix
>> > 2.2 under teh GPL. Although this message does reinforces point of
>> > centention. A possible true reason for KDE to have used Qt instead of
>> > somethine else, since Matthias Ettrich, founder of the KDE project is a
>> > Trolltech employee.
>>
>> What is a possible reason?
>
>Conflict of interest?
How so ?
>Have you forgotten about the people who have usenet access but do not have
>internet access?
huh ? How many people are in this category ?
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised....
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 16:18:49 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Stuart Fox in alt.destroy.microsoft;
>In article <8p0fst$2qb$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > 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!
>>
>
>Well a good Unix admin knows about things called
><drevil>"scripts"</drevil>. [...]
A competent admin of anything knows that hand-waving something by saying
"oh, just use a script" is the height of idiocy.
--
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: Rick <[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 16:13:14 -0400
"Joe R." wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Courageous
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > 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.
>
> If you believe that class size is the only thing wrong with the schools,
> of course.
>
It is by no means the only thng wrong, but is a large part in some
areas.
--
Rick
* To email me remove theobvious from my address *
------------------------------
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 20:23:11 GMT
On Mon, 4 Sep 2000 09:33:22 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> The statement you proposed it cited above for everyone to read.
>> This statement implies that anyone could make an illegal ripoff
>> of Qt, and Troll Tech would guarantee not to sue him. This is
>> a completely stupid statement, so they did not make it.
>
>As I have said before, those were various examples of how the question
>could have been handled to avoid ambiguity.
Sure, if you do a post mortem and spend a week disecting the statement,
you could probably find a better way to word it ( even though this is
questionable. For example, your attempt was a dismal failure )
> However, precise wording would
>have been determined by company policy.
Troll Tech are not a law firm. They are in the business of making
development tools. It seems that there was not a "company policy" in
place sufficient to make a decisive legal statement.
>knowing ou Qt, realize that Trolltech IS a multinational company which means
>that it has to deal with legal issues of operating under the laws of
>multiple nations, at least the three nations that they have offices in.
Well, they do deal with legal issues. Dealing with legal issues does not
require drafting detailed legal policies in advance. It's much easier to
assess this kind of thing on a case by case basis.
Personally, I think it's extraordinary to demand such detail. Is there
evidence that Harmony were dissatisfied with the TT response, or sought
further clarification ? You and Max seem to be the only people who feel
"threatened" by the statement.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Crossposted-To:
comp.infosystems.gis,comp.infosystems.www.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: businesses are psychopaths
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 20:23:05 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Perry Pip would say:
>On Mon, 04 Sep 2000 02:52:54 GMT,
>Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Note: humans are programmed by selfish genes to act in a selfless
>>manner
>
>That's the most optimistic thing I've heard you say. But how evolved
>are we, really?? People can certainly get along altruisticly in small
>communal societies, where people know on another personally and share
>values and ideologies. But in a larger society, where most people are
>strangers, and values and ideologies differ, things tend to become
>more impersonal and altruistic human behaviour seems to break down.
Actually, the "small communal society" thing does _not_ prove the
presence of selflessness so strongly as you might initially think.
If individuals are strongly tied to a "small communal society," then
the result is that the "health" (loosely speaking) of the individual
is dependent on the "health" of the society. Thus, doing good for the
society represents doing good for self.
Ayn Rand may have been pretty flakey, but did correctly observe that acts
in favor of family/descendants can indeed occur for "selfish" reasons.
A mother may give up a meal to her child, and whilst it appears "selfless"
in that it benefits another, it can also be "selfish" in that she (for
whatever reasons) valued her child being fed more than she valued being
fed herself.
Thus, I'd think that all that the "selflessness out of selfish genes"
demonstrates is that it's easy to construct sentences that juxtapose
things that _appear_ to be opposites whilst proving nothing of the
sort...
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/linux.html>
"Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?"
------------------------------
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 20:24:06 GMT
On Mon, 4 Sep 2000 09:17:10 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Mon, 04 Sep 2000 00:15:53 -0400, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>
>> >It would appear he didn't intend to threaten anyone, certainly. The
>> >question isn't whether he intended to threaten anyone, but whether his
>> >action inhibited competition.
>>
>> Harmony died due to lack of interest. So if your concern is the actual
>> effect of his actions, then no, he didn't "inhibit competition".
>
>But, what was the source of the lack of interest?
QPL. See my other post for details.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
