Linux-Advocacy Digest #924, Volume #28 Tue, 5 Sep 00 12:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. (Roberto
Alsina)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. (Roberto
Alsina)
Re: businesses are psychopaths (Richard)
Re: how large corporations test on the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (Richard)
Re: how large corporations test on the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (Richard)
Re: Open lettor to CommyLinux Commy's, and all other commy's to. (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Why I hate Windows... (Shannon Hendrix)
Re: How low can they go...? (Seán Ó Donnchadha)
Re: How low can they go...? (Zenin)
Re: How low can they go...? (Zenin)
Re: Popular Culture (was: It's official...) (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: How low can they go...? (Zenin)
Re: Can you believe this??? (was Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$
Voluntary Split ...)) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: philosophy is better than science ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E.
Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2000 12:19:06 -0300
Donovan Rebbechi escribió:
>
> On Mon, 04 Sep 2000 22:55:33 -0400, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>
> >Note to Roberto: KDE *was* a commercial enterprise;
>
> Nonsense. Why don't you just admit that you were wrong ?
>
> > Troll Tech made it
> >so when they hired Matthias,
>
> Wrong. You may as well argue that "Linux is commercial" because
> "Transmeta hired Linus" and "Redhat hired Alan Cox".
>
> The fact remains that KDE has never been a company, and does even have
> a bank account AFAIK.
Actually, we do, for donations. There's a non-profit called
KDE e.V to take care of that. It pays for organizing the developers
meetings and some other minor stuff.
> Your claim that they are a "for profit company"
> is completely baseless. The fact that their founder works for a for profit
> company does not suddenly make KDE a for profit project.
He will never accept it, Donovan. He's hellbent on insult.
> > if Matthias didn't think it was when he
> >founded KDE on QT to begin with. Now its not anymore. Cheers. ;-)
>
> Why isn't it anymore ? Troll Tech are still as for-profit as they
> ever have been.
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E.
Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2000 12:19:42 -0300
[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
>
> Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > On Mon, 04 Sep 2000 22:55:33 -0400, T. Max Devlin wrote:
> >
> > >Note to Roberto: KDE *was* a commercial enterprise;
> >
> > Nonsense. Why don't you just admit that you were wrong ?
> >
> > > Troll Tech made it
> > >so when they hired Matthias,
> >
> > Wrong. You may as well argue that "Linux is commercial" because
> > "Transmeta hired Linus" and "Redhat hired Alan Cox".
> >
> > The fact remains that KDE has never been a company, and does even have
> > a bank account AFAIK.
>
> Does the KDE project accept cash or equivelent donations, if so were are
> they stored until used?
They are handled by a non-profit organization called KDE e.V.
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.infosystems.gis,comp.infosystems.www.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: businesses are psychopaths
Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2000 15:13:32 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> Said Richard in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >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.
>
> Is that the way you see it? Sounds pretty unfalsifiable to me. Every
> action that everybody takes, you can just retroactively apply whatever
> vaguery you want as selfish/selfless, and come to your ready-made
> conclusion. Its a false dichotomy.
On the contrary,
1) selfless; not selfish
2) selfish; what one would do if unrestricted by constraints over
which one has no control, including lack of mental plasticity
> >So when normal, selfless, people start rationalizing their selfless
> >actions as selfish, there is something pretty fucked up with that
> >picture.
>
> Really? And how many millions of years do you figure its been this
> fucked up?
0.000 01 million years.
> >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.
>
> Or anything but selfish. Whichever you want to call it.
If that were the case then the question of whether humans are
selfless or selfish would be completely meaningless. But it
isn't and we can still assign self-interest, or lack thereof,
to programmed humans because some actions objectively advance
an individual's material interests and some do not. Starving
oneself does not advance one's material interests in the typical
situation.
> Evolution doesn't make judgement calls, and referring to natural
> selection of genes as 'a selfish gene' was a prosaic bit of terminology
> by Richard Dawkins, not a metaphorical statement of morality. I feared
> when I first read it that, for all his might intellect, his well-known
> arrogance would cause just this kind of problem. He knows, probably as
> much as anyone on the planet, that using the term 'selfish' in
> consideration of evolution and natural selection is entirely
> meaningless. He would no doubt insist that since people should know
> that the concept of a 'selfish gene' is meaningless, they should be able
> to understand the actual concept he was describing, which is simply
> natural selection of individual genes examined separately from the
> evolution of species themselves. Dawkins would also be the first to
> point out, for instance, that the term 'species' is likewise
> meaningless, from a genetic perspective.
Except that it's not.
And selfish/selfless are rigorously defined as far as both
economists and social scientists are concerned. And since
genes do not have any invisible emotions to mess up the
issues, the word selfish applies to them particularly well.
> Don't let the terminology fool you. Selfish genes don't have anything
> to do with selfishness, nor does selflessness have anything to do with
> 'programming', to speak of. Evolution and humans are only 'selfless' in
> retrospect.
That's good enough for pretty much everyone.
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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: Tue, 05 Sep 2000 15:16:14 GMT
Dale Edgar wrote:
a lot of good points which I am dealing in email to save
myself the aggravation of having to deal with handwaving
"arguments" like I've gotten lately.
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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: Tue, 05 Sep 2000 15:23:30 GMT
Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
> This is a marvellous example of the danger inherent in anthropomorphism.
> Genes aren't selfish, and genes don't program. Genes carry information
> that can cause creatures to behave in a certain way across generations.
Euphemism.
> Thus, behaviour that enables the creature to reproduce better than
> a creature not carrying the gene (or combination of genes) in question
> will result in more instances of the gene (or combination) in future
> generations.
Irrelevant.
> The analogy with programming (which currently refers to the
> deterministic fashion computers execute programs) is that human
No, that is not it at all. It refers to the way humans can
cause computers to fulfill their needs.
> behaviour is dependent more on experience than on innate directives.
And of course this is relevant because ..........
[snip more irrelevancies]
Just what the fuck is it with people who think they can win an
argument by engaging in lots of handwaving?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Crossposted-To:
alt.society.anarchy,alt.atheism,talk.politics.misc,alt.christnet,alt.flame.niggers
Subject: Re: Open lettor to CommyLinux Commy's, and all other commy's to.
Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2000 15:22:23 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spoke thusly:
[snip blathering crap]
>crash and itl'l be like Y2K with no ellectrissitty and all that Capitol has
>done for uss wil be destroyed.
>
>
You make the mistaken impression that we all feel
corporate America is right to do whatever they want to do.
You also make the mistaken assumption that: farming is
evil (I've been a farmer), Indians are evil (I know a lot
of Native Americans, and evil is not a word I would use to
describe them), we all exist to make money for the
corporate machine, technology will save us all, the people
with the money are the smartest (and the most morally
upright, that's a whole other subject of debate), and that
we actually enjoy reading your completely fucked-up
spelling.
BTW, how do you manage to spell so poorly? Even
non-native English speakers don't do that poorly. (In
fact, most non-native English speakers do better than
native speakers from what I've seen.) If you've created a
'script' or 'spell-checker' program to 'correct' your
spelling in such a poor way, you have more time to waste
than I thought you did. And that is saying something.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Shannon Hendrix)
Subject: Re: Why I hate Windows...
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 00:28:00 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <WFYs5.8780$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
|"Slip Gun" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
|> WOW! You must have one hell of a PC! (Maybe a bit like the Love Bug). I
|> haven't been able to run 'doze for more than about 8 hours without
|> massive slowdown and crashing. Please tell me how you manage to achive
|> this.
|
>It's not that difficult. Just maintain your system. Always keep
>your BIOS and drivers up to date,
Why do you have to keep them up to date? Do you never get ones that
work?
Once the BIOS boots the OS, why does it (the OS) care what version it
is?
>make sure you prune your registry tree to remove cruft,
I don't have to do anything like that for my UNIX systems. On the
Mac, it's a simple keystroke on reboot for that kind of thing.
Windows is supposed to be a consumer "easy" OS, so why is this
necessary? What causes the registry to get in such a mess in the
first place? Is something wrong with this OS that causes this?
>delete your cache files every so often, clean out your temp directory
>every so often,
Why does a cluttered cache and temp directory affect the stability of
the OS? Is there something wrong with this OS?
>and don't install hundreds of crappy utilities written by some kid in
>his basement.
Isn't it the job of an operating system to keep a program from doing
that kind of thing?
ObAnalogy: I can keep an AMC Pacer with class C tires running around
Daytona's road course for 24 hours if I "maintain it properly", but at
some point I have to wonder if there isn't a better vehicle for the
job.
In my experience, the maintenance you suggest helps, but the problems
still eventually catch up with you. At the same time, the vast
majority of the Windows users I've seen have no idea how to perform
the maintenance you suggest. The machines just die and they don't
know why, and are frustrated by it. My UNIX machines never need
anything like this, so it makes you wonder which is "easier" in some
respects.
------------------------------
From: Seán Ó Donnchadha <[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: Tue, 05 Sep 2000 11:35:06 -0400
"Christophe Ochal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Me: BTW, because Windows had shipped with a componentized IE for
>> quite a while before the case went to court, MS is *ENTIRELY*
>> correct when they say that removing it is impossible without
>> damaging the product.
>
>Then how come some guy pulled it off? (i don't remember his name, i read it
>in login (french mag))
>
He didn't. He may have invented a scheme for modifying Windows so that
no part of IE remained installed, but the result was a damaged
product.
>>
>> You: That's bullshit. Its software. Nothing can "damage" it.
>
>Define demage
>
For a product like Windows (an application platform), any modification
that results in a platform that runs fewer applications than the
standard version represents damage. Applications often check the
platform's revision level in order to discover the platform's
capabilities. If the platform identifies its revision level as one
that supports a given capability, and it doesn't actually support that
capability, then it's damaged.
------------------------------
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: Tue, 05 Sep 2000 15:41:58 GMT
Christophe Ochal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Zenin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>snip<
:> Applications that run on Linux do not need to be GPLed, and may aren't
:> (Netscape, Oracle, Sybase, etc, etc).
:>
:> However, a GPLed DVD player is impossible for all practical intentions as
:> the holders of the DVD encoding algorithm patent (not copyright, AFAIK)
:> do not want the algorithm public in any way, shape, or form. See
:> www.2600.org for details of what happends to you if you attempt to make
:> said algorithm public...
:
: I know, but even if you make a close source player, you *can not* link to
: any GPL software, as this would mean that your program will be GPLed
: aswell
What GPL software are you thinking of? Most libraries (what one
would "link" to) are LGPL, not GPL (there are brain dead exceptions
such as readline, but they are few and far between). LGPL code has
no problem linking with non-GPL code.
: Also, i find it a violation of human rights that they wish to keep
: something out of the public, expecially since there are laws that say that
: reverse engeneering is allowed in order to be compatable with said
: program/data (in Belgium anyway)
The issues are mostly in the US, which has exceptionally brain
damaged ideas on computer law and IP. The US allows companies to
*patent* fundamental laws of nature and mathematics (algorithms),
which is really all the DVD encoding methods are and thus why the
MPAA can make such a big stink about it.
--
-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: 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: Tue, 05 Sep 2000 15:48:11 GMT
Christophe Ochal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: D'Arcy Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>snip<
:> > What moral ones? The 11th commandmand : "Thee shall squash small OS's"?
:>
:> So the DVD license holder is attempting to "squash small OS's"... and why
:> exactly is the DVD license holder trying to do that?
:
: How much do they ask for a licence?
It's not a question of cost, it's a question of risk. The MPAA uses
DVD encoding to artificially restrict access as they see fit. No
matter what you might offer to license their encoding, if your use
or intentions might in any way jeopardize their enforcement of such
restrictions, you will not get a license.
After all, the *ONLY* reason the encryption exists at all on DVD is
expressly to enable enforcement of restrictions the MPAA wants.
The MPAA isn't trying to "squash small OSs", that is simply a side
effect of their real goals.
--
-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] (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Subject: Re: Popular Culture (was: It's official...)
Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2000 15:54:41 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spoke thusly:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Nathaniel Jay Lee wrote:
>>mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spoke thusly:
>>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>>Nathaniel Jay Lee wrote:
>>>>Sounds like you and I would get along well in that respect. I never
>>>>fit into any 'demographic' growing up. I listened to heavy metal, but
>>>>didn't fit with the metal-heads 'cause I was too 'geeky', didn't fit
>>>>with the geeks 'cause I played guitar, didn't fit with the people that
>>>>played guitar 'cause I didn't smoke or drug myself up, didn't fit with
>>>>the . . . .
>>>>
>>>
>>>Interesting - all much the same - except I play the piano not the
>>>guitar :) (I was a major Queen fan).
>>
>>Actually i went through a lot (I mean A LOT) of musical
>>instruments before I 'settled' on guitar. A short list:
>>Violin (which stemmed into Viola and Cello), upright Bass,
>>Electric Bass, Guitar, Piano, Harmonica (OK, some would
>>say that doesn't count), Saxophone, Flute, and Drums.
>
>Yeah, that's a lot! A confess to playing (badly) the violin
>for several years (kind of school thing) and the Clarinet for
>a shorter period. Wasn't really very good at either. Wasn't
>the harmonica one of John Lennon's instruments? (I can feel
>a flame war starting from that... at least maybe in some other
>group, anyway).
Bringin up John Lennon is always a good way to create a
stir;-).
>
>>
>>I'm sure there were some others during my 'experimental'
>>years (I just experimented with musical instruments
>>instead of drugs, and probably spent just as much money as
>>the junkies did:-).
>
>Can't remember that far back, no idea how much I spent ;)
LOL
>
>>
>>
>>Lately I've been getting back into the violin (still
>>fairly portable) and occassionally pounding the keys
>>(I have a piano my great grandma gave me when I was young
>>that was manufactured in the late 1800's). I enjoyed
>>Queen a little, and I really like bands that mix styles
>>(Trans Siberian Orchestra is one of my favs at the moment).
>
>A geniune late 1800s piano should be something of a museum
>piece now, since manufacturing techniques have changed so
>much in that time - do you get it tuned? What does the
>tuner think about it?
The last person I had tune it said he thought it was a
beautiful instrument, and he doesn' see too many people
play pianos that old. He said he liked the tone of it
though (and I do too). It's an upright, but it has a lot
deeper tone than most uprights I've seen.
[snip]
>>>>I guess that's one of the reasons I levitated into the Linux/BSD/*nix
>>>>arena so easily. It wasn't unusual for me to think of things a little
>>>>differently from the 'norm'. It just fit me.
>>>>
>>>
>>>I've found over the years it's largely advantageous to be able to see
>>>things from a different/self-formed viewpoint. Helps in all sorts of
>>>ways.
>>
>>Yeah, it helps you to laugh at yourself when you realize
>>you are taking something too seriously. You see yourself
>>acting like the morons that called you an 'outcast'
>>growing up and think, "Whoah, ease up there pard."
>
>Ah, indeed - much of the time!
>
>>
>>Of course, it also helps with a lot of other things, but
>>that's one of my personal favorite things about it.
>>Zealotry can only take you so far.
>>
>>
>>
>I'm beginning to think I'm getting to old for zealotry - is
>there any truth in my feeling that zealots are typically
>young? (At least the non-biblical era ones, anyway).
>
No, I don't think you are mistaken. The problem now is
that there are so few things to really 'believe' in. A
few years back (OK, decades) there were things to get
excited about and things you could remain 'zealotous'
about without really being unreasonable. Being youthful
usually means you are uninformed (not always, no teenagers
need to find my house so they can egg it now;-). The
uninformed are the zealotous. They don't have the
information from both sides of a debate, they just have
the information from one side. As they grow older, they
begin to see how much both sides lie, and how little truth
there is other than in the 'middle-ground' arguments, and
they become slightly jaded to either side (of the
hypothetical argument). You tend to lose your zealot
stance when you realize that your leaders are just as full
of shit as the other side's leaders.
It's basically a sign that the world is pretty much
indifferent to ANY topic right now. As you grow and learn
more, you lose interest in jumping up and down on things
you think you 'know', because you realize that no matter
how much you think you know, there is always going to be
something you are missing. An end to simple times (ah,
I'm beginning to sound philosophical, better stop before I
bring the armchair philosophers running at me;-).
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
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: Tue, 05 Sep 2000 15:54:55 GMT
Christophe Ochal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Sen Donnchadha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>snip<
:> Me: BTW, because Windows had shipped with a componentized IE for
:> quite a while before the case went to court, MS is *ENTIRELY* correct
:> when they say that removing it is impossible without damaging the
:> product.
:
: Then how come some guy pulled it off? (i don't remember his name, i read
: it in login (french mag))
Removing iexplor.exe (or whatever it's called) does not an IE-free
Windows system make. If you removed all of "IE components" at this
current time, you would have no folder windows, a broken start menu,
etc. The current standard Windows desktop environment is now built
using components of IE.
:> You: That's bullshit. Its software. Nothing can "damage" it.
:
: Define demage
"Doesn't work"
--
-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]
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Can you believe this??? (was Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re:
Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...))
Date: 5 Sep 2000 15:59:36 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Eric Bennett
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>In article <8oolhi$282k$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>wrote:
>
>> In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Eric Bennett
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >In article <8olr1v$rnh$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >> Perhaps if you understood just how important it is for some public
>> >> debt
>> >> to be out
>> >> there you wouldn't be so quick to say pay off all the debt.
>> >
>> >
>> >I understand that. I also understand that some 15% of my federal tax
>> >dollars are paying interest on this stuff, and I'm getting more or less
>> >nothing in return for that expenditure every year.
>>
>> sure you are. you're enjoying stable financial markets. if you don't
>> think that's
>> important just skip over to any number of foreign countries :)
>
>I have not run across anyone who thinks that our current level of debt
>is either healthy or necessary to the stability of the financial
>markets. Mr. Greenspan, who is the one person both Republicans and
>Democrats are willing to credit for the economy, is a strong supporter
>of debt reduction, and believes it should take precedence over both tax
>cuts and more government spending. I agree with him. Fortunately
>neither major party agrees with him.
>
>> and the people getting that interest are spending it in our economy.
>> that's also a good
>> thing.
>
>It would be more efficient, don't you think, to simply let the American
>taxpayer spend it directly in our economy?
>
of course I agree with that. However, originally my point was that government
bonds play an important role in our financial markets. As the rate earned
on those bonds is considered the risk free return. Now some people went off
on a tangent worrying about inflation. I'm not saying that one should just ignore
inflation
I was making the accurate statement that govt bonds are considered a risk free
investment.
I was merely pointing out the important role the bonds play in our financial market.
and if we didn't have them there would have to be some alternative.
But even funnier. I read in our local paper a letter to the editor saying that the
budget surplus was hard earned by the American people. no the govt didn't
work very hard to earn that money at all. LOL
the ignorance cracks me up and scares me at the same time.
>--
>Eric Bennett ( http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/ )
>Cornell University / Chemistry & Chemical Biology
>
>If I return people's greetings, I do so only to give them their greeting back.
>-Karl Kraus
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.infosystems.gis,comp.infosystems.www.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: philosophy is better than science
Date: 5 Sep 2000 15:50:31 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip) writes:
>Phillip Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[]
>>This is not necessarily the fault of the individuals
>>as its built into the class system by which we run our society.
I disagree on two counts. One the behaviour of corporations is only
rarely explainable by looking at our class system, and two we (The U.S.
and to my limited knowledge, most European countries) do not run our
society using a class system.
>There no "class system" in our society. It's a capitalist system.
While our ecomonic system is largely capitalistic we do have a class
system.
[]
>>Its for this reason
>>that I really dislike the class system by which we run our society and
>
>There is no "class system". If their was, how is it the immigrants can
>come to this country and get rich? [snip]
Class systems are not uniformly rigid. You are welcome to provide
statistics showing the percentage of poor, poorly educated immigrants
who strike it rich, along with the percentage who never make out
of the second quintile.
>>which prevents most people from achieving anything like their full
>>potential.
>
>Our society (the U.S.) is one of the few that strives to give everyone
>the opportunity to acchieve their full pontential. The fact that many
>don't is their own doing,
Hey, I love the U.S., I wouldn't live anywhere else, but do try to get
some perspective. Trying to get federally mandated special help for
kids can be like pulling teeth, and if there isn't a law mandating it,
forget it. Unless you don't think those with ADHD or other inborn
problems have any potential worth developing.
>or very often, their parents doing. [snip]
And if their parent made mistakes when they were children and later
when they were young adults (or maybe they just aren't very bright)
and are now working overtime to make it to the poverty level and keep
the family in some minimal physical comfort without depending too much
on handouts ... resulting in an inability to spend enough time with
their children, how much is our society doing to help either
the parents or the children in these situations? In comparison
to other industrialized countries?
We have a class system and have always had a class system. The farther
down you start the harder it is to rise and the easier it is to fall.
Robert Morphis
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
