Linux-Advocacy Digest #897, Volume #28 Mon, 4 Sep 00 18:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Courageous)
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: how large corporations test on the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (Dale Edgar)
Re: Windows stability(Memory Comparison) (Thomas Corriher)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Gtk+ is *L*GPL (Was: Qt goes GPL) (Mig)
Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools (Bob Germer)
Re: Computer and memory (Grega Bremec)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (Jim Richardson)
Re: businesses are psychopaths (Jim Richardson)
Re: Computer and memory (Jim Richardson)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Courageous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 21:16:39 GMT
> The tortured pretense of affront you had to don in facade
> to use the phrase "pretty arrogant" is outrageous.
It's not outrageous. I indicated a preference as to how I am
to be called, and you had the bad social graces to suggest that
I call myself something else. You then latter expressed a
preference as to how I was to call you, in the *very same
sentence* where you continued to not abide by my wishes.
C//
------------------------------
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: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 17:21:54 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said James A. Robertson in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>> Said James A. Robertson in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Said James A. Robertson in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >> >"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>> >> [...]
>> >> >Left to their own devices, markets correct themselves. Individual
>> >> >companies don't stay focused long enough to stay on top long term.
>> >
>> >That was a really nice soliloquy, but you didn't come up with an actual
>> >example
>>
>> Of course I didn't come up with an actual example; you can't see an
>> actual example of something that doesn't happen. Every company that has
>> ever made more profit than it is making now is an example.
>>
>
>I asked for a real live example of a monopoly that was not
>governmentally created (such as the old Bell system). They don't
>exist. Effective monopolies can crop up for short periods, but the
>market fixes them rapidly.
Yes, we know this. Are you trying to say that because monopolies can't
exist in a free market, there is no reason to have a law against
monopolization and attempted monopolization?
That argument, BTW, was settled almost a century ago, in 1911:
http://www.ripon.edu/Faculty/bowenj/antitrust/stdoilnj.htm
"his being true, the rulings in the case relied upon,
when rightly appreciated, were therefore this, and nothing more: That as
considering the contracts and agreements, their
necessary effect, and the character of the parties by whom they were
made, they were clearly restraints of trade within the
purview of the statute, they could not be taken out of that category by
indulging in general reasoning as to the expediency or
non-expediency of having made the contracts, or the wisdom or want of
wisdom of the statute which prohibited their being
made. "
I think that quote summarizes the context in several ways. Its a
nightmarishly dense maze of inference and syntax, like most legal text,
but it also is the summary position in terms of the idea that since real
monopolies are not possible in a free market, monopolization must be
legal. Its a fallacy; the act forbids monopolization. It makes no
difference whether by enforcement of the act we've ensured no monopolies
could be formed, nor that they should never form to begin with.
Just because having a monopoly is not outlawed, doesn't mean that having
a monopoly is legal. Monopolizing, attempting to monopolize, and
maintaining monopoly power are all illegal, and so having a monopoly is,
effectively, illegal.
The old 'sovereign grant' monopolies are called "public utilities" now.
AT&T was, at one time, a unique type of public utility. Now, its just
another would-be monopoly.
--
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: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 17:23:19 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said James A. Robertson in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>lyttlec wrote:
>>
>
>> Wheat production during the latter Roman Empire. That monopoly lasted
>> about 300 years. It was corrected when the barbarian invaders killed the
>> monopolist and almost everyone else. Not a desirable means of market
>> correction.
>
>
>How about in a republic such as the US?
Well, I'd say "du Pont", who has "a monopoly in cellophane", but the
courts have decreed that that's not a monopoly, just a patent on a
particularly useful kind of flexible wrapping material.
--
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dale Edgar)
Crossposted-To:
comp.infosystems.gis,comp.infosystems.www.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: how large corporations test on the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 21:30:33 GMT
Richard
I'm not sure I'm completely buying into the ideas in the previous
threads listed at the bottom of this post - here's why. Human beings
are only a thousand or so generations removed from our primitive
ancestors. Our whole makeup is that of a savanna ape with a thin
veneer of civilization tacked on. My feeling is that human beings have
a built in intrinsic selflessness in regards to a tribal/extended
family group of approximately 30 to 50 individuals. This would
correlate rather well with your suggestion that humans are programmed
by selfish genes to act in a selfless manner.
However, my feeling is that an internally selfless group is not
necessarily selfless when interacting with another group (selfless or
not). For example, any tribe of humans competing with another for a
scarce resource would be inherently "psychopathic" by the clinical
definition you gave. There can be no sharing, caring or cooperating -
when the resource will only support one group. The same mechanism that
has programmed in the selflessness internally to the group mandates
selfishness outside it.
This suggests the following (to me at least):
1) One group of humans competing with another group for a scarce
resource will tend to exhibit behaviour (at the group level) that
meets the definition of "psychopathy" that you gave.
2) Large groups of humans factionalise into subgroups and compete
internally which leads to dictators, revolutions and office politics.
3) The behaviour of a group of entities (human or otherwise) cannot
necessarily be predicted by looking at the individual behaviour of its
constituents. A flock of birds does not behave like a big bird - a
group of humans does not think like one big human.
4) Clinical "psychopathy" by the definition you gave is the norm for
groups of humans competing with other groups even though the people
involved are not psychopathic themselves.
5) Non "psychopathic" group behaviour tends to flourish in a relative
absence of outside competitive pressure. If things are desperate and
competition is intense the group will instinctively and subconciously
tend to adopt internal mores that are a reversion to a base type
dictated by tens of thousands of years of success.
Don't get me wrong. I don't advocate that corporations should be free
to compete in a economic jungle "red of tooth and claw". I just feel
that it should be recognized that any group will tend to behave this
way - its in the nature of the beast. Replacing them with cooperatives
would, in my opinion, just move the problem several decades further
on. The surviving cooperatives - no matter how noble an enlightened
the constituents - would be forced by intergroup competition devolve
into a state which would meet your definition of psychopathy.
So what I'm suggesting is that rather than decry the illogical and
antisocial behaviour of groups of people we recognise it for what it
is and "arrange" things so that the negative effects are mitigated and
the positive effects (there are many) are accentuated. I have some
ideas - but would welcome other thoughts on the matter.
Regards
- Dale
On Sun, 03 Sep 2000 22:37:42 GMT, Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Dale Edgar wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 Aug 2000 17:20:03 GMT, Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>> [SNIP - Stuff about corporations matching psychopathic criteria]
>>
>> I take your point about corporations being a good match to the
>> psychopathy test criteria. However, a case could be made that
>> pschopathy is the normal state of affairs and altruistic/cooperative
>> behaviour to others is not.
>
>You would be wrong; *grievously* and *dangerously* wrong. This is the
>kind of talk that sends cold chills down people's backs.
>
>Humans are programmed (by selfish /genes/) to act in a selfless manner.
>And they are so programmed because altruism and cooperation are
>absolutely necessary for any functioning society. Social dilemnas
>(like whether to contribute to public television) cannot be resolved
>by selfish people. A society composed of purely selfish people would
>immediatiely collapse because public funding of social necessities
>cannot be justified on the basis of enlightened self-interest.
>
>> For example, many other groups of entities would match the psychopathy
>> test as well. Ant hills, a pride of lions. They just don't give a damn
>> about anyone outside the group and even individual members are
>> expendable.
>
>Ants and lions do not have empathy. Humans do, so it is normal for
>humans to *not* act in a psychopathic manner.
>
>> But these are meta entities. To focus on specific individuals the
>> alpha male in a gorilla/chimpanzee/bonobo troop could also be
>> considered psychopathic by much the same criteria as a CEO.
>
>The higher primates typically raise their children in the exact
>same manner that our paleolithic incestuous, infanticidal, and
>cannibalistic ancestors did. They also don't construct complex
>societies, just like our [...] ancestors did not.
>
>> So perhaps it is possible to be psychopathic and yet still be a useful
>> member of the larger (eco)system as long as the appropriate checks and
>> balances are in place.
>
>A certain (*small*) number of psychopaths are tolerable in human society.
>Beyond a certain point, the psychopaths drain the empathy of the normals
>faster than it can regenerate and you get societal breakdown. If you have
>the choice between a psychopath and a normal then there is no contest; a
>normal human is vastly preferable.
>
>> It may even be more stable. I suspect an economy composed of
>> altruistic cooperatives would soon devolve back into the
>> "psychopathic" form as competitive pressures are applied. Perhaps the
>> litigious business environment we currently see is an example of the
>> appropriate checks and balances evolving.
>
>Cooperative networks decay over a period of *decades* and they are
>vastly preferable to dictatorial corporations. And even then, they
>decay only if there is some initial flaw in the system for it to
>decay from; the Mondragon network of cooperatives had a *huge* flaw
>in Caja Laboral Popular's charter and it's still taking decades for
>the system to break down.
>
>Litigation does not provide any checks or balances since the number
>of cases against american corporations have decreased dramatically
>over the past few decades. The only thing that's increased is ameri-
>can corporations' complaints about litigation and their (successful)
>efforts to place legislative hurdles in people's paths. Additionally,
>even /in theory/ litigation cannot provide checks and balances since
>psychopaths will try to get away with as much as possible, and they
>will succeed in enough cases for it to be profitable to spread misery.
>The fundamental problem is that the checks and balances are not
>established only by normals, psychopaths get a say in it and they
>will do all they can to remove or weaken them as much as possible.
==============
Powerful, Useful, Free Tools for Internet Explorer
Check Out MantaDB http://www.mantadb.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Corriher)
Subject: Re: Windows stability(Memory Comparison)
Date: 4 Sep 2000 21:21:00 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], abuse@[127.0.0.1]
>> Correcting my spelling makes you look a little despairate.
>You mean "desperate". The spelling correction was not intended as
>a put-down, just a correction of a mistake. I make mistakes as
>well and appreciate when people point them out.
Conversely, it appears that you do not appreciate when people
point to your mistakes. I knew you would do the same thing
again; in order to show us all how much smarter you are. I
really made it too tempting for you to correct my pour spellin.
<snicker>
I know your type. You are not here to debate. You are here
to win. Naturally you will win, since we are a bunch of
ignorant Linux using fools. Thank you for educating us about
that fact.
>> You still avoided answering: "How does Windo~1 utilize the
>> _unused_ memory?". I did not ask about how the cache is freed.
>> Also, there is a BIG difference between the words "utilize" and
>> "discard". These words are almost complete opposites. You
>> have actually proved my point without intending to.
>I thought it was obvious. But windows does the same thing (both NT and
>Win9x). The system caches increase if there is free memory available to
>cache things like files, network data, etc... These caches are at the
>lowest priority though, and are discarded when more pressing memory needs
>are requested.
Nothing was obvious. Remember, that we are not smart enough to
use Windows NT, so you must simply things for us. For people like
us, one must stay on topic. You meet these goals in the the
proceeding paragraph.
I grant that your description is close to the ideal of how memory
should be handled. "Should" does not necessarily mean "does".
Windows is definitely being improved at a respectable rate, but
none of the Windows' kernels are in the same league as the Linux
kernel. Linux does not waste or "discard" memory. A Linux kernel
is always optimizing the usage of memory. This was a point earlier
in this thread which I am glad to finally see addressed. Linux in
general does not treat the data (or the users) as disposable.
There is a big parallel difference in both the philosophy and design.
<petty bickering snipped>
>Yes. NT provides full protection as this describes. Again, you are
>confusing NT with Win9x. This discussion is about NT, not Win9x. On top of
>that, NT also provides memory scrubbing. It must make certain that memory
>it re-uses is set to 0 before handing it back to anyone else. Most modern
>Unix implementations and Linux do this as well.
>
>Again, we're talking about NT. Learn something before making
>statements like this.
Actually, if NT did a good job of user space memory protection then
it would have lost its' reputation as crashware. I do concede that
Windows NT has made dramatic improvements in stability, when compared
with previous versions. However, these improvements certainly do not
make its' kernel "just like Linux". They are not even distant cousins
yet.
>> I did not have to provide evidence. You did. Though, I do give
>> you some merit this time for describing the MS Swapping/Virtual
>> memory management standard. I underestimated your knowledge
>> concerning memory storage in Windows; but I reaffirm what was
>> said about your Unix knowledge. It is not often that I must
>> admit to someone: "I underestimated you", so it is a real
>> compliment.
>I am not a Unix expert, but I do have a pretty basic understanding
>of most subsystems. You, clearly do not even have such a basic
>knowledge of NT.
Now you are underestimating me. It is true that I am not a MCSE;
but I take pride in that fact. "Once you start down the dark path..
forever will it hold your destiny" -- Yoda (Or was it RMS that said
that?)
<more trivial spelling debate snipped>
(This is probably beginning to appear to be a pissing contest
to all of the other people reading this.)
>No, I'm saying that even under DOS, with it's 8.3 filename limit,
>the name "Windows" would not have the name mangling mechanism you
>are trying to portray. You could at least use a > 8 character word
>if you're going to do it. Additionally, the name mangling works by
>taking the first 6 characters then appending the tilde. You only
>used 5.
It is almost as bad as my spellin~1, is it not?
Just be glad U R not arguing with a kewl hack3r, or U w00d
B going KrAzi3.
"I used to be a fugitive from justice because my computer was
always making illegal errors."
--
From the desk of Thomas Corriher
The real email address is:
corriher at surfree.
com
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[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 17:28:21 -0400
Bob Hauck wrote:
>
> On 4 Sep 2000 14:58:41 GMT, Maximo Lachman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >Roberto Alsina ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) escribio:
>
> >> 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).
>
> I don't believe I've ever heard Hillary advocate infanticide.
what do you think "partial-birth abortion" is, other than
infanticide in ribbons and fancy-wrapping paper.....
'
> Perhaps
> you can provide a reference. In fact, I don't think I've heard that
> claim about Slobodan either, evildoer that he may be.
>
> >Socialists are the 1st to espouse the gov't seizure of kids from
> >their parents or guardians without due process. Remember little Elian?
>
> Yes, but as I recall the evil socialist governments involved, both of
> them, were trying to get him *returned* to his father, not *taken* from
> him. And there seemed to be an awful lot of due process going on there
> too. So I guess I don't understand what the hell you're trying to say.
>
> --
> -| Bob Hauck
> -| To Whom You Are Speaking
> -| http://www.haucks.org/
--
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: Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Gtk+ is *L*GPL (Was: Qt goes GPL)
Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2000 23:35:22 +0200
Perry Pip wrote:
> And not enough. You still can't develop closed source apps with Qt/KDE
> without paying sizable royalties to Troll Tech. With Gtk/Gnome you
> can. I can't blame the guys at Troll Tech for wanting to pay their
> bills, but others have to pay their bills as well, or have other
> reasons for not wanting to release source code.
BS... so now you want to debate about what is better - LGPL or GPL??
If you want to release closed source software then you better pay for the
tools you use.
>Thus for many,
> Gtk/Gnome is a more flexible choice.
Yeah.. if you like free beer. And maybe when its a bit more stable.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 21:38:16 GMT
On 09/04/2000 at 09:31 AM,
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> These people should be publicly pistol-whipped until unconscious.
Agreed. But the voters elect and reelect them year after year because
there is no Republican opposition worthy of the name.
--
==============================================================================================
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 14
MR/2 Ice 2.20 Registration Number 67
Finishing in 2nd place makes you first loser
=============================================================================================
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Grega Bremec)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Computer and memory
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 21:38:00 GMT
...and [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> used the keyboard:
>
>Grega Bremec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> ...and Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> used the keyboard:
>>
>> country. Besides, the mere assumption of everything non-American being
>> plain obsoleted 20th century crap tells us all a great deal about your
>> attitude, so I doubt that bothering myself any further would be in
>> place.
>
>Besides, we are all still in the 20th century, the 21st won't be here for a
>few more months.
I second that, but in dealing with Chad, I didn't want yeat another
hook to emerge that he'd be able to digress on.
--
Grega Bremec
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.gbsoft.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2000 12:07:37 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 04 Sep 2000 00:19:42 -0400,
T. Max Devlin, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>Said Donovan Rebbechi in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>On Sun, 03 Sep 2000 18:49:36 -0400, T. Max Devlin wrote:
> [...]
>>If all you want is a "statement of intent", I took his response as a
>>statement of intent not to sue unless some really unusual circumstances
>>came up. I took it as a statement that the harmony project, as it stood
>>then and there, was pretty safe.
>
>As did I. Others took it as less than reassuring, even threatening. I
>won't second-guess them.
Why not? you second guess everyone else.
>
>>We can do a lengthy post mortem, and you can spend weeks working out
>>what the "right way to say it" would have been. But you should consider
>>the fact that he didn't spend ages thinking about his response.
>
>I have considered that fact; that's what I'm debating. It was his job
>to respond better, and he should have taken more time if that's what was
>necessary. I don't fault him because nobody was there to say, "You're
>supposed to encourage competition; say no, you won't sue." I'm merely
>pointing out that this would have been the ideal.
>
No, you think it would have been ideal, but you were not in the loop.
How that oversight occured, them not ringing you up and inquiring as to
your legal opinion escapes me at the moment.
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To:
comp.infosystems.gis,comp.infosystems.www.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: businesses are psychopaths
Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2000 12:13:46 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 04 Sep 2000 02:52:54 GMT,
Richard, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>> Said Richard in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >If people did all become like Spock and remained self-interested
>> >then civilization would collapse. But I don't think that would
>> >happen, I think people would just admit that they aren't motivated
>> >by self-interest once their fundamental needs are met.
>>
>> People are motivated by a desire for physical well-being and social
>> comfort, in that order, generally. It isn't really possible to be
>> motivated by anything but self-interest, really. You simply can't
>> necessarily determine what might or might not be in yours or anybody
>> else's self-interest, ultimately. You just have to hope, and try, and
>> believe in your goal as an ultimate good.
>
>There is something quite bizarre about this picture. Most people
>try to behave in a selfless manner and, failing that, rationalize
>their selfish actions as selfless. Take Libertarians for example,
>who argue that depriving people of their liberties, human rights
>and even possessions is actually good for them (the "even the poor
>end up benefiting from the free market" arguement) or Jingoist
>propaganda where we will massacre people For Their Own Good.
Perhaps you could give an example of Libertarians advocating taking
someones property, and claiming it's good for them?
>
>So when normal, selfless, people start rationalizing their selfless
>actions as selfish, there is something pretty fucked up with that
>picture. If I needed any more proof that our societies worship and
>promote psychopathic traits then this would do it. The suggestion
>(by Dale) that psychopaths might be okay only adds another ton of
>evidence for this same thesis.
So are your posts to this newsgroup, selfish? or selfless?
>Instead of saying "Everyone's a psychopath at heart if you just
>take away their irrational emotions ..." why don't you just say
>"Most people are NOT AT ALL psychopaths ..."?
>
>Note: humans are programmed by selfish genes to act in a selfless
>manner (that this takes the form of emotions that compel us to
>act in this manner is irrelevant) and thus we could not possibly
>be anything but selfless.
Let me see if I understand what you've said. Most people attempt to act
in a selfless manner, (programmed by genes) and fail, (somehow, you
don't say why.) and then claim that their selfish acts are in fact
selfless... Did I get your opinion on this straight? 'causes it's pretty
odd looking from here.
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Computer and memory
Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2000 12:27:14 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 04 Sep 2000 15:48:45 GMT,
lyttlec, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>"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
>>
<snipped AK's annoying sig, which should have been done allready :( >
>What is the chip producing capacity of the US? Last I looked it was
>zero. All had been moved to the Philippines or Taiwan.
Didn't look very hard I suppose. I will assume that you are refering to
memory chips, not chips in general. (since that is what the thread was
discussing) and I direct your attention to Micron, a major chip foundry
with mem-factories all over the world, including the US (Boise Idaho IIRC.)
On a related note, Micron just opened a fab in Scotland as well.
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
