Linux-Advocacy Digest #937, Volume #28 Tue, 5 Sep 00 23:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: how large corporations test on the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (Stefaan A
Eeckels)
Re: businesses are psychopaths (Stefaan A Eeckels)
Re: how large corporations test on the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (Stefaan A
Eeckels)
Re: How low can they go...? ("D'Arcy Smith")
Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!! ("D'Arcy Smith")
Re: Linux programmers dont live on this planet!
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes ("Chad Myers")
Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised.... (sfcybear)
Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!! (lyttlec)
Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!! (lyttlec)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes ("Chad Myers")
Re: Computer and memory ("Chad Myers")
Re: Computer and memory ("Chad Myers")
Re: Open lettor to CommyLinux Commy's, and all other commy's to. (Jacques Guy)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (Courageous)
Re: Computer and memory ("Otto")
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (Courageous)
Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!! (Andrew Carpenter)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stefaan A Eeckels)
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: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 01:45:04 +0200
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Just what the fuck is it with people who think they can win an
> argument by engaging in lots of handwaving?
The assertion:
>> Humans are programmed (by selfish /genes/) to act in a selfless manner.
is flawed as stated.
Your crass statement is handwaving.
--
Stefaan
--
Ninety-Ninety Rule of Project Schedules:
The first ninety percent of the task takes ninety percent of
the time, and the last ten percent takes the other ninety percent.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stefaan A Eeckels)
Crossposted-To:
comp.infosystems.gis,comp.infosystems.www.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: businesses are psychopaths
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 02:09:38 +0200
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It is perfectly sensible for genes to program their tools (humans)
> to act in a selfless manner. And propagating the genes is *not* in
> the interest of any *individual*, it's only a selfless biological
> imperative programmed into people by selfish genes.
You don't understand the first thing about genes.
--
Stefaan
--
Ninety-Ninety Rule of Project Schedules:
The first ninety percent of the task takes ninety percent of
the time, and the last ten percent takes the other ninety percent.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stefaan A Eeckels)
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: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 02:05:08 +0200
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Phillip Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>>>> "Stefaan" == Stefaan A Eeckels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Stefaan> Genes carry information that can cause creatures to behave
> Stefaan> in a certain way across generations.
>
> Possibly. The way in which behaviour is affected by genetics
> is poorly understood at the moment. This is particularly true in the
> case of humans.
Notice _can cause_.
>
> Stefaan> Thus, behaviour that enables the creature to reproduce
> Stefaan> better than a creature not carrying the gene (or
> Stefaan> combination of genes) in question will result in more
> Stefaan> instances of the gene (or combination) in future
> Stefaan> generations.
>
> Humans have an embracing society however. Most of the
> information that I use to ensure my survival comes from what I have
> been taught and not what I inherited genetically from my parents. We
> can pass down information far quicker than we can pass down genes. My
> parents were born just pre WWII. Think of how different the world was
> then. I am far from convinced that genetics has got that much to say
> about the way that our society is, except in the very broad sweep. Our
> genes probably tell us that staying alive is a good thing. However as
> many societies have shown us even that can be overcome.
Correct, and this is why most of the traits that are genetically
determined were acquired when we were still walking across the
African savannah.
My reaction was to Richard's assertion:
>> 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.
The tendency to favour genetically close individuals predates
homo (not so) sapiens. _If_ there's a genetic component to
selflessness, it is probably a lot weaker than favouring one's
siblings.
> Stefaan> even though the combination that gives us the need to
> Stefaan> classify fellow humans as closer or further removed from
> Stefaan> ourselves is as strong as in ants.
>
> I am far from convinced that we have this "need". Even if
> we do the responses that we give towards those who we have classified
> as different may well be a product of society.
>
> Stefaan> There's ample evidence that people _do_ favour their
> Stefaan> offspring, or nepotism wouldn't be a problem.
>
> No actually there isn't. Not in humans. There is ample
> evidence that people favour those who they think are their offspring,
> or those who adopt as their offspring, but this is an entirely
> different thing.
What is beyond doubt is that we do not consider all humans equally
important, and that on the whole, people favour their close relations.
It is true that we are less capable than other animals to determine
the genetic relationship to other humans, and that we can subsitute
closeness based on thought, to closeness based on genes (and this
might even be a better long-term survival strategy, explaining
why we got to keep those big brains in the first place).
But to assert that we are _not_ inclined to favour those we feel
closer to is unadulterated wishful thinking.
--
Stefaan
--
Ninety-Ninety Rule of Project Schedules:
The first ninety percent of the task takes ninety percent of
the time, and the last ten percent takes the other ninety percent.
------------------------------
From: "D'Arcy Smith" <[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: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 02:03:09 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8p47nj$o9b$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> D'Arcy Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:y3ft5.9646$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "Christophe Ochal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:7F8t5.825$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > D'Arcy Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schreef in berichtnieuws
> > > > 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?
> > The cost isn't there to stop DVD software from appearing
> > on "alternative" OS'. A side effect of the cost is that it stops
> > people from writing DVD software for small platforms.
> > You are the one claiming that the DVD license holder is attempting
> > to "squash small OS's" - what proof do you have of that? Licensing
> > fees themselves don't show such a desire. Why exactly do
> > you think that they want to "squash" any OS anyways?
> Reguardless of the reason for it, what is the cost?
Dunno... and it doesn't matter to the conversation.
..darcy
------------------------------
From: "D'Arcy Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!!
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 02:09:24 GMT
"Simon Cooke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8p40i7$onb$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Who knows? Certainly, 9X isn't going to help for remote administration.
VNC.
..darcy
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux programmers dont live on this planet!
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 19:01:49 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
by <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:8p2ecp$cke$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Hmm, I see things differently.
>
> If we're talking about copying files here, isn't it better to say 'make
> a copy of the file' instead of 'make an image of the file' ?
In the time that I have been in the computer field I have never heard or
seen the word "image" used in that context. The meaning if an image is the
context of copying data has a special meaning. If your make a copy of the
contents of a particular storage media in all reguards, not just the files,
but the entire filesystem including the bytes withing the free space not
allocated to any files into a single file, that file is contains the image
of that media.
For example: You insert a floppy disk that contains data in the drive, but
do not mount it. Lets assume that is a 1440K floppy and the drive is
/dev/fd0. You issue a command like "cat </dev/fd0 >myflopppy". The cat
command creates a file in your current directory that is named myfloppy and
is 1440K in size. That contains the entire contents of the floppy in all
details. You could even mount that file as though it were floppy in a disk
drive and manipulate its content as though it were a physical device. That
file is call a floppy image.
You can do this with a partition, a CD-Rom, a Zip disk, anything and it
would be an image of that media.
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[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: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 02:19:59 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Courageous wrote:
> >
> > > Make no mistake, partial birth abortions are infanticide and have nothing
> > > to do with a woman's right to choose.
> >
> > It has something to do with her right to choose, but what
> > right to choose is that, you ask? Answer: the right to live.
> >
> > Partial birth abortions aren't used as a form of birth control,
> > you know...
>
> Actually, NUMEROUS obstetricians testified before congress that they
> do not know of a single case where a partial-birth abortion could
> be defended on medical grounds.
>
> Not a single one.
>
> In other words...EVERY SINGLE partial-birth abortion was actually
> neo-natal murder.
Exactly. In fact, partial-birth abortions take 5-6 days in preparation
to properly dilate the cervix to deliver the baby breech far enough
to jab the device up though the chin into the base of the cranium.
I'm not trying to turn this into a life/abortion thing. There are
reasonable views on both sides of that debate, but there is NO
reasonable defense for partial birth abortions, none. It could
be argued that they would be needed in emergency situations, but
even then, a C-section would be more humane and more ethical
for reasonable obstetricians to perform.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised....
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 02:09:44 GMT
In article <8p28gs$qsg$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "sfcybear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8p1dkn$12i$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <8p0m84$993$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > You did NOT claim that bind could do it all when you stated:
> >
> >
> > "set the Win2K DNS up to forward to the Unix DNS"
>
> Because that wasn't the issue I was addressing - unlike you, I stick
to
> topic. The issue I was addressing was how to provide a Windows based
DNS
> while still allowing Unix admins to control the root level domain for
your
> company.
Liar! this is a quote from the post that you were responding to (it
questions DNS and ADS)
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."
There ARE big DNS interoperability problems or you WOULD NOT NEED TO
isolate MS dns (Using MS servers or not) to it's own domain!!!!! I am
objecting to your claim that making a seperate DNS domain for MS is a
_simple_ solution to the "interoperability" problems with MS's DNS! I
have "stayed" on the topic. The bottom line is, if you want to use AD,
you will probably end up restructuring your network. It _will_ be a lot
of work and it can cause many DNS problems. trying to set up DNS for
active directory caused MAJOR problems for the Unix servers at the last
place I worked. The MS admins assured us that the dns changes would work
and we would have NO problems. They sounded a lot like you in this
thread. Oh, its nothing, DNS is no big deal.... Well it was! This is why
I do not support letting MS admins have ANY thing to do with DNS!
I have NOT gone into what a POS Active directory is to start with.
> >
> > And WILL BIND ENABLE ALL features of Active Directory???
> >
> Yes. DNS simply provides a locator service for the Active Directory.
SRV
> records are used to locate the various Active Directory service
providers
> (such as Domain Controllers), obviously A records (dynamically created
by
> Win2K hosts) are used to locate machines.
> So as long as BIND supports
> 1. SRV records
> 2. Dynamic updates
> 3. Incremental transfers
>
> it will enable all the feature
Liar! From the BIND FAQ:
<quote>
Microsoft Windows 2000 and BIND
BIND by default checks all records to ensure that only hostnames are
used where hostnames are expected to prevent accidental interoperability
problems. Microsoft Windows 2000 uses a subzone called "_msdcs" to hold
the Active Directory data. While this subzone cannot clash with any
legal hostname it also makes it impossible to put hosts within this
subzone without using an illegal name. The use of such hostnames will be
rejected, by default, by BIND.
The Active Directory wants to have its "global catalog" server within
_msdcs (e.g. gc._msdcs.example.com) which will be rejected by default.
To work around this issue we recommend that the Active Directory be a
seperate zone (e.g. "_msdcs.example.com") configured to not check for
illegal hostnames. This should be reasonable as the Window 2000 servers
create this data and should not have interoperability problems with
other Windows 2000 machines wanting to access this data.
e.g.
zone "_msdcs.example.com" {
type master;
file "_msdcs.example.db";
check-names ignore;
allow-update { localnets; };
};
</quote>
This make it quite clear to me that MS active directory CAN NOT be
fully supported by Bind! And that you need to rebuild DNS to support
ADS.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: lyttlec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!!
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 02:20:39 GMT
Andrew Carpenter wrote:
>
> Terry Sikes wrote:
> >
> > In article <9%at5.50425$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > Simon Cooke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >The precise certification given is MEANT to be on a system which is NOT
> > >network connected. It's meant to show that the system is reasonably immune
> > >from physical attack.
> >
> > Nope, "physical attack" has nothing to do with it. Anyone with a
> > Linux floppy can walk up to an NT box and read any file on the NTFS
> > filesystem (further anyone with physical access to the system can
> > simply remove the drive and take it away to their data recovery
> > center).
>
> I'd heard that the NT security certification not only required no
> network card be present, but that no floppy drive was installed as well.
> Was that the case?
>
> (If it was, what *is* such a system good for?)
>
> Andrew
> [ opinions are my own ]
Many military computers do not have floppy drives. They come prepackaged
with a set of software that is not, under any circumstances, changed by
field operators. They come in very handy for solving some specific field
problems.
"In war all things are simple, but the simple things are very difficult
to do - von Clausewitz
------------------------------
From: lyttlec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!!
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 02:22:58 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> Paul Mindeman wrote:
> >
> > Chad Myers wrote:
> >
> > > Well, then you don't know what you're talking about. Windows 2000 is far
> > > superior in it's security infrastructure than almost all versions of
> > > Unix except special breeds created for the highest levels of the government
> > > which have special non-standard kernels and inner-workings which
> > > essentially make them non-Unix anyhow.
> > >
> > > Windows NT 4.0 has acheived C2 red and orange book security ratings from
> > > the DoD. A feat no other Unix has achieved except for special varieties
> > > which incorporate home-grown add-ons (including a DAC implementation
> > > since the DoD recognizes what a backwards and insecure method the
> > > G/U/E scheme is).
> > >
> > > Educate yourself before making wide-eyed assumptions that "Unix is
> > > better" which is simply ignorant and arrogant. Each has their pluses
> > > and minuses, but when it comes to the security implementation in Win2K
> > > (which has had major improvements in security even over NT 4.0 and
> > > incorporates all the modifications in NT4SP6 to make the orange-book
> > > C2) there's no comparision to Unix (especially Linux, which is a joke
> > > for anyone who has an impartial view of things -- e.g. non-Slashdot
> > > drones)
> > >
> > > -Chad
> >
> > I've seen you say this numerous times in this thread, but you haven't said how
> > WinNT/2k security is superior to Unix style security. In my (admittantly little)
> > experience with NTFS, the file and directory permissions look alot like Unix style
> > permissions, only with a fancy GUI. I'm curious to know what magic makes WinNT/2k
> > security so much better
> >
>
> When the OS blows up, nobody can hack your data.
>
I can.
> > Paul
>
> --
> 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: "Chad Myers" <[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: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 02:25:40 GMT
"Courageous" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > Except that by the time a partial birth abortion is done, the baby could
> > just as easily have been delivered and, in some cases, lived a normal
> > life.
>
> Just read up on this. False statement. The vast majority of "partial
> birth" abortions are done before the fetus is viable. It's quite a
> misnomer to call these "partial birth" abortions.
Read up where?
There are numerous cases where premature babies in as early as small
as 2lbs (which is a typical PBA weight) have been viable and were
able to function as human beings later in life. They are smaller
by age, some do have slight mental damage, but all in all, isn't a
slightly less-than-perfect child better than a bloody mess sitting
on the medical room floor?
Again, I'm not trying to make a statement on abortion in general,
I'm speaking strictly of PBAs and other 3rd trimester means of
murd-- abortion.
Although, I will say this: I'm pro choice. A man and a woman have the
right to choose to have intercourse or not. After that, they must
live with the consequences of their actions.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Computer and memory
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 02:33:17 GMT
"Christophe Ochal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:Z26t5.782$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> It's not us European's fault that M$ *NEEDS* such big patches & SP's.
> BTW, are we being arrogant today?
Man, I can't believe the gul of you guys to sit here and call me arrogant
when you guys make posts like:
"Chad, there are other people in the world besides americans."
" Thank god for that! Can you imagine what a mess the world would be
otherwise?"
What would it be like? We wouldn't have any whiny lazy bitching talking
heads that seem to think _I'M_ the arrogant one. That's just for starters...
The world would be far more productive and technologically advanced for
second. Shall I go on?
Now, to address your ignorant "It's not us European's fault..." remark.
I never said it was Europe's fault. You guys were the ones bitching
about it. There's no reason to bitch. None. Downloading RedHat Linux
is a 1+ GB adventure. No one's complaining about that. How is MS
different in this regards? Everyone has hefty downloads now, MS
is not alone. Save your biased, ignorant remarks for some other
clueless Eurotrash twit.
If you don't like having metered Internet access, don't blame MS
for big downloads, blame your lousy government for not getting on
the ball and helping your country catch up with the rest of the
world. Yes, you are far behind everyone else. Stop bitching and
do something about it.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Computer and memory
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 02:35:39 GMT
"The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> He is, anyway. :-)
Look who's talking...
> (Besides, the US is behind in technology to Japan, who already has
> Java technology -- I think -- to have two people call each other
> on their cell phones and play whatever game takes their fancy thereon.
> So there, Chad :-P~ :-) )
I didn't say the US was the supreme almighty, you ignorant euro-twits
always read words into everything and then bash us for it.
Aren't the schools any good there in Europe? Don't they teach basic
reading comprehension skills?
Yes, Japan has many more advances than the US does. They even have
less beuacracy in their government allowing for more widespread
technology use without fear of government intervention.
But at least our worthless government is slightly more worthful
than your governments and at least we can have _SOME_ competition
in our telco marketplace and we haven't socialized everything yet
like you guys have.
-Chad
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 02:38:07 +0000
From: Jacques Guy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Open lettor to CommyLinux Commy's, and all other commy's to.
Michael Vester wrote:
> Welcome back Tim. I certainly missed your entertaining [...]
Lirn too spel propper lighk Tymm duz. Hear, lemme sho ewe:
Whelk humpback Tymm. Ice hurtin'ly myst yore ant her tayning...
> alt.society.anarchy, alt.atheism, talk.politics.misc,
> alt.christnet, alt.flame.niggers
^^^^^^^
knickers, knot niggers!
> Speaking of the missed Windows advocates, what ever happened
> to Drestin Black?
Thatz ware hiz poustyng nough, owl' Dressed Tin: altf.lame.knickers
------------------------------
From: Courageous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 02:39:04 GMT
> I'm not trying to turn this into a life/abortion thing. There are
> reasonable views on both sides of that debate, but there is NO
> reasonable defense for partial birth abortions, none. It could
> be argued that they would be needed in emergency situations, but
> even then, a C-section would be more humane and more ethical
> for reasonable obstetricians to perform.
Eh? But the point is, most of these "partial birth" abortions
are actually first trimester abortions. They are actually quite
rare, and the few physicians who engage in them believe they
have a medical basis.
As for late trimester abortions, I'm personally against them,
*irrespective* of the means of abortion, withstanding a serious
health risk to the mother of course.
C//
------------------------------
From: "Otto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Computer and memory
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 02:39:11 GMT
"Christophe Ochal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:336t5.788$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
: gimme a break, most Europeans speak 3 to 4 languages, how many Americans
can
: say that?
Then you give me a break.... most Europeans don't speak 3 to 4 languages,
that's just a myth. You are really pushing the envelop.
: > So then it's America's fault that UK can't produce it's on steel
: (metaphorically
: > speaking)? America got the edge and surpassed the world in technology
and
:
: Arrogance again?
More like the truth...
:
: > now all the poor, disparaged countries (modern, western countries I
might
: add)
: > were left in the dirt with only their arrogance and presumptousness in
: their
:
: Here, have a mirror
What's the bandwidth to that mirror :)?
:
: > hands, so now we have to ante up and divulge all the technology we've
: spent
: > billions researching and developing?
:
: How much of your technology is actually manufactured in the States, and
not
: in Taiwan?
Who gives a damn in today's global economy? Europians can buy it just like
US does. Not to mention the fact that most of those technologies were
developed in the US, during the times when the Europian countries were
bickering against each others.
: You really should look in the mirror
And you should start to think about what you see in the mirror. If anybody
is arrogant then it is the Europeans, they have nothing but complains...
Otto
------------------------------
From: Courageous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 02:40:38 GMT
> Read up where?
Hint: most "partial birth" abortions are actually conducted during the
first two-three months of pregnancy. And there aren't that many annually,
in any case.
C//
------------------------------
From: Andrew Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!!
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 12:12:31 +1030
lyttlec wrote:
> Andrew Carpenter wrote:
> > I'd heard that the NT security certification not only required no
> > network card be present, but that no floppy drive was installed as well.
> > Was that the case?
> >
> > (If it was, what *is* such a system good for?)
>
> Many military computers do not have floppy drives. They come prepackaged
> with a set of software that is not, under any circumstances, changed by
> field operators. They come in very handy for solving some specific field
> problems.
Granted... but if you have a sealed box, with no ability to transfer
data in or out (excluding the user of course), I wouldn't have thought
it would be all that hard to get some level of security rating for
pretty much *any* system worth its salt...
Andrew
[ opinions are my own ]
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
