Linux-Advocacy Digest #942, Volume #28 Wed, 6 Sep 00 02:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (Eric Bennett)
Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Computer and memory ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: American schools ARE being sabotaged from within. ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: The Test: Dial-up Connections (Paul E. Larson)
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (Courageous)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating ("JS/PL")
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating ("JS/PL")
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (Courageous)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Eric Bennett <[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 00:51:59 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Joe
R." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > In article <Bt_s5.32780$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Chad Myers"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > However, by the 3rd trimester, C-sections become more and
> > > more possible and with todays medical technology, children
> > > as small as 3-4lbs can live to see long healthy lives
> > > which makes the need for PBAs unecessary and, in fact,
> > > counterintuitive and unethical.
> >
> > "can" live to see long healthy lives, but depending on the chances that
> > this will happen it's not clear to me that it's really unethical. My
> > understanding was that for most of these children the likelihood of a
> > normal life is not very good.
>
> Not really. In most cases, it seems to be "I changed my mind and don't
> want to have a baby after all".
I'm not talking about those cases. It seemed to me that Chad was
suggesting that when ending the pregnancy is medically advisable (ie to
protect the health of the mother) a regular delivery should almost
always be attempted instead of a late-term abortion. That's the
position I was questioning.
> > (Note, I don't like PBAs, but I would defend their use to protect the
> > life of the mother, and I support bans with such exceptions.)
>
> There is virtually alway such an exception in every proposed law to
> regulate abortion
Yes.
--
Eric Bennett ( http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/ )
Cornell University / Chemistry & Chemical Biology
http://play.rbn.com/?url=swave/abc/g2demand/000904bush.rm&proto=rtsp
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 15:07:02 +1000
"D. Spider" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> It appears that on Tue, 5 Sep 2000 23:44:36 +1000, in
> comp.os.linux.advocacy "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Well, comparing system stability between two systems that aren't doing
even
> >remotely similarly complex things (evidently, console apps vs GUIs) is
> >hardly fair.
>
> It certainly is when one system allows you to escape the GUI and the
> other doesn't.
Not even then. It would support an argument that one system is more
flexible, however.
> >> Running in console mode or with a stable X setup (I use slack 7,
> >> upgraded to XFree 4.01, with WindowMaker for a window manager) I see
> >> no instability at all.
> >
> >Lucky you. Get a WM/"Desktop environment" that does a bit more than draw
> >pretty widgets and do basic window manipulations and see how you go.
Then
>
> Why on earth would I want to do that? If I liked useless bloated fluff
> I wouldn't have installed Linux to begin with.
Then why are you using something as horribly bloated as Linux ? Get QNX.
> >> >IE is better than Netscape in almost any way you can measure. It's
> >faster,
> >> >stabler and more standards compliant. It uses less memory and is more
> >> >configurable. Most importantly, it doesn't come with AOL Instant
> >Messenger.
> >>
> >> It's just *barely* faster, it's not more standards compliant in my
> >> view (which could easily spark a side-thread on what it means to be
> >> standards compliant if you wish), it uses less memory mostly because
> >
> >I'd call standards compliant, compliant with W3C standards. Last I
checked,
> >IE was far, far ahead of Netscape in that arena.
>
> IE is just a little ahead if you view standards compliance as checking
> off boxes on a list of "features." There is more to it, however.
No, there isn't. This is standards *compliance*.
> Adding non-standard tags and encouraging people to use them to break
> compatibility with other browsers is NOT standards compliance so far
> as I am concerned, regardless of what check marks you have ticked.
>
> And yes, Netscape used to do the same thing. Two wrongs do not make a
> right.
Netscape started the whole non-standard tags thing. To support Netscape in
leiu of IE on that basis is extremely hypocritical. At least Microsoft
tried to make IE compatible with Netscape's non-standard tags.
> >> If you want to see what I consider a good browser, check out
> >> http://www.opera.com - they are porting to linux and that's just one
> >> more nail in the old MS coffin so far as my continuing to use them
> >> (willingly) goes...
> >
> >I've used Opera before. It's been a while, I might have another look.
> >
> >*shrug*, I see no need to swithc from IE. It's fast, stable and has a
lot
> >of features I like a lot.
>
> I use the web for research fairly often, and I really like having the
> MDI interface. Just open 8 different pages with either of the big
> browsers and try to switch back and forth between them efficiently and
> you'll see why that's an advantage. After getting used to Opera every
> other browser out there seems positively paleolithic on this one point
> alone.
Ugh. I *hate* MDI, and I'm glad to be seeing the end of it as application
stop using it. I can't think of a single advantage it has. Just the idea
of having to have an enormous parent window open just so I could see the
content of multiple browser windows and drag & drop/copy & paste stuff out
of them is making me cringe.
> It's also very standards-compliant, and it is designed to be run from
> the keyboard, and it is intensely configurable, with intelligent
> cookie handling, the ability to simply turn off the processing of
> certain commonly abused tags and "features," to override the
> properties of poorly designed web pages and make them readable, to
> switch image-handling modes at will... oh and also it's REALLY nice on
> a modem, it will open multiple connections at once and saturate your
> pipe for maximum efficiency.
>
> >> Perhaps. If so, it was Microsoft
> >> that made me that way though. I've been using their software since Dos
> >> 3, I was once one of their biggest fans. If they would pull their
> >> heads out, I could be again. But they've shown time and again they
> >> don't care about people like me, they don't care about the companies
> >> that made the programs that made their OS usable, they don't care
> >> about anything but extirminating those companies as soon as they have
> >> a competing program and inflating their bottom line. And that's why I
> >> have decided to quit contributing to it.
> >
> >That's why they bend over backwards, to the detriment of customers on
> >general to be backwards compatible with all those old apps, I suppose ?
>
> Umm nope. They've done what they have to preserve backwards
> compatibility only grudgingly, because their market research teams
> tell em if they don't people will refuse to upgrade. So instead of
> breaking it all at once they've had to break it a little at a time.
> Know how to cook a frog alive?
Say what ? The entire reason for Win9x's existence is to pander to
backwards compatibility. Microsoft's commitment to backwards compatibility
in their OSes is responsible for most of the the bad things about them.
Almost evey criticism you could level at Windows is there to facilitate
legacy support.
> >Win2k now "protects" its system files from poorly written installers
> >overwriting important files. How long do you think it will be before the
> >first claims of Microsoft "sabotaging" competitors products by removing
the
> >old libraries their installers try to put in the system directory, thus
> >making their apps unable to run ?
> >
> >Most of those "companies that made the programs that made their OS
usable",
> >are the reason it has so many problems.
>
> Because MS insists on replacing their products with half-assed clones
> you mean? ;^)
Because the write shitty installers that overwrite files they shouldn't be
touching.
Because they don't follow UI guidelines.
Because they don't put files where they're supposed to go.
Etc, etc.
> >> Why does NASA still use 386s?
> >
> >Inertia ?
>
> Nope.
>
> >Because they work ?
>
> Closer.
>
> >Because they've been their since a projects
> >inception when a 386 was probalby the fastest thing you could buy and
they
> >aren't easily replaced.
>
> Nope.
>
> I'm not talking about ones that are "up there" and can't easily be
> replaced. I'm talking about systems being used on the space shuttle,
> which can be upgraded anytime they want. They put in a fresh chip,
> just to take no chances - but it's still a 386 chip.
Um, I think you'll find upgrading a system in the space shuttle would be a
little more involved than dropping in a new chip, if you wanted to upgrade
it from a 386.
> They use 386s because they are *more reliable.* The MTBF is higher.
> They are more resistant to interference, and less given to isolated
> errors. That's why. It's the KISS imperative at work.
Do you have any documentation to back this up ? I have no doubt 386s are
still in use, it's your reasons I question.
> >> And firewalls are not mission critical?
> >
> >Depends. I would imagine someone like Redhat isn't running their
corporate
> >firewall on an old 386 shoved in the corner.
>
> I doubt that too, but RedHat is a very high traffic site. For many
> networks, a 386 is perfectly capable of handling the traffic. Why
> throw away the 386 and buy a PIII NT box just to do the same job, but
> not as well? How rational is that?
Well, for just a firewall on that scale you're not going to need a PIII. An
old pentium will do the job just fine.
> >> >Btw, NT 3.51 would probably work fairly well on a 386 with fast SCSI
> >disks
> >> >and enough RAM, if you really wanted to.
> >>
> >> NT 3.51 didn't work well on pentiums. I know, I had to babysit several
> >> of those boxes. I ran Netware and NT side by side on the same hardware
> >> for quite awhile, NT 3.51 couldn't hold a candle.
> >
> >I ran NT 3.51 (and 4) quite happily on a 486. NT4 on a 386 would be
> >stretching, but I can't see why 3.51 wouldn't. Especially for file/print
> >duty.
> >
> >Netware would probalby have been faster,
>
> Hey, look, I ran those boxes, I know what I'm talking about, I'm not
> going to argue with you, you can choose to disbelieve if you want.
I'm only disbelieving you because I also ran NT4 and 3.51 *as a workstation*
quite happily on a 486 and a Pentium 100.
> But
> Netware 4 was fast and wonderfully stable on a Pentium, NT 3.51 on the
> same hardware was slow as a dog doing a fraction of the work and
> crashed several times a day. I know, it got better. After months. But
> it still wasn't in the same class.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[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 00:55:31 -0400
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
> On Wed, 06 Sep 2000 02:35:39 GMT, Chad Myers wrote:
> >
>
> >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.
>
> Hahaha ... they have corporate welfare, protectionist trade policies
> which have resulted in the survival of inefficient industries that really
> deserved to dies, and entrenched corruption.
i.e. a Fascist economy.
>
> Cheers,
> --
> Donovan
--
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: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: American schools ARE being sabotaged from within.
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 00:57:15 -0400
Loren Petrich wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Loren Petrich wrote:
> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >Loren Petrich wrote:
> >> [on Alan Kulkis...]
> >> >> It's because he lives in a grove of birch trees.
> >> >> A special kind of birch trees, in fact.
> >> >> John Birch trees :-)
> >> >So says the communist agitator
> >> Seen any Reds under your bed lately?
> >No. But I've met a few. They're almost all closet-dictators like you.
>
> Closest dictators?
Yes, Loren, like you.
Remember when you told us that the sign of success is to have
"thousands of underlings groveling at one's feet" ?????
--
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul E. Larson)
Subject: Re: The Test: Dial-up Connections
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 05:28:32 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Paul E. Larson" wrote:
>>
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >>
>> >> OK, so I finally did it... Tested two machines, one Linux and one Win98
>> >> SE.
>> >>
>> ~~~~~~~trimmed~~~~~~~~
>> >>
>> >> After one hour the downloads were:
>> >>
>> >> Linux - 18MB
>> >> Windows - 6.5MB
>> >>
>> >> After two hours, the accumalated total was (and we stopped here):
>> >>
>> >> Linux - 32MB
>> >> Windows - 14MB
>> >>
>> ~~~~trimmed~~~~~~~~
>> >> Other interesting facts:
>> >>
>> >> Install times:
>> >> --------------
>> >>
>> >> Linux - 43 Minutes
>> >> Windows - 45 Minutes
>> >>
>> >> Time from start to first working dial-up connection:
>> >> ----------------------------------------------------
>> >>
>> >> Linux - 52 Minutes
>> >> Windows - 48 Minutes
>> >>
>> >> Yes, it took only 3 minutes to configure windows to dial-up. Why? Well,
>> >> I first had to create a user in Linux and enable that user to make ppp
>> >> connections. This wasted some time. Aslo I had to enter the ISP's DNS
>> >> IP in the Linux machine, while this was not an issue with the Windows
>> >> box. The ISP's version of IE5 was used that did most of the set-up
>> >> automatically.
>> >>
>> >> Time to authenticate:
>> >> --------------------
>> >>
>> >> Average times:
>> >>
>> >> Linux: 4 Seconds
>> >> Windows: 9 Seconds
>> >>
>> >> Total Connections per machine:
>> >> -----------------------------
>> >>
>> >> Linux: 5 (3 line drops occured)
>> >>
>> >> Windows: 4 (2 line drops occured)
>> >>
>> >> Both machines were set-up to reconnect automatically. In all instances
>> >> we restarted the FTP clients manually.
>> >>
>> >> That was that.
>> >>
>> >> I am now convinced. Linux IS faster on dial-up then Windows, especially
>> >> on FTP. Any other person that want to add anything are welcome.
>> >>
>> >> PS. This test is still not 100% scientific. I KNOW THAT. Take it for
>> >> what it is. I believe that this is typical times you should get from
>> >> other machines in similar configurations.
>> >>
>>
>> >
>> >I have similar results from "cable modem" connections from identical
>> >machines.
>> >
>> Either you are connecting to sites with slow connections or your cable
>> connection is truly fscked up. I just did 19mb in 55 seconds.
>
>That's inconsequential.
>
>The important point is, hitting the same sites, SIMULTANEOUSLY, from
>a Linux box and a Windows box, with identical hardware configurations,
>(other than the Windows box having MORE memory), the Linux box ALWAYS
>downloads the data faster.
>
>Why is that?
>
Your the one that claimed to be getting similar results with a cable modem
connection as the above tests with 56k modems. That is something for you to
figure out along with your cable provider.
Paul
--
"Mr. Rusk you not wearing your tie." -- Frenzy 1972
------------------------------
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: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 01:31:56 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Christophe Ochal in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schreef in berichtnieuws
[...]
>I have high hopes that Max is an intelligent person
I'm trying, honest. :-)
[...]
>> They are in no way closing their technology to alternative platforms.
>>"Open Source" is not an "alternative platform", it's a development model.
>
>I said 'opening up', i didn't mean they should go open source, i meant that
>they should allow people to write a DVD player for alternative and small
>platforms
>BTW, iirc belgium law allows 'reverse engeneering if the goal is to provide
>compability'
In the end, it all ends up the same. Open source, GPL, unrestricted or
very low cost licensing, reverse engineering, decompiling, and outright
copying.... They all end up with Phillips unable to profiteer on the
value of DVD content to consumers.
In the US, not only is reverse engineering allowed, but decompiling, and
even limited (fair use) copying is allowed, to provide compatibility.
If the DVD encoding software which was copyrighted is the 'only way' to
create a DVD-compatible decoder (or encoder), then you merely need to
copy the necessary code; no 'reverse engineering' is necessary.
These guys aren't the first to try to use a combination of copyright and
trade secret agreements to pretend they have a patent on something that
can't be patented.
[...]
>> It was Microsoft. People like those kicking up the fuss don't need a
>> reason, because all they understand is "is Microsoft, is bad".
>
>Iirc the fuss was because they didn't document their extentions
I'm finding it quite entertaining, as you may have noticed, to point out
that this caracature of "Microsoft bashing" is, in fact, entirely
appropriate for a criminal monopoly. The more I learn about the law and
the situation, the more obvious it becomes that, yes, "is Microsoft, is
bad". That's not bias; that's understanding of what 'monopolization'
is. You cannot trust anything a monopolist does is for consumer benefit
*at all*, even accidentally. They are not making poor products, on
purpose. They are making the product more expensive without value, on
purpose. They are destroying competition, inhibiting innovation in such
unbelievably widespread and subtle ways that, it seems, the only, if not
simply the most, appropriate response is "of course I don't 'need a
reason' to kick up a fuss about Microsoft; THEY'RE A MONOPOLY."
Maybe I'm just losing my patience with the waiting for hail-mary appeals
and the short-sightedness, but I am sick to death of having to pretend
that Microsoft should be considered of any value at all, at this point,
and their products anything other than "the best we can do until we can
replace them at the earliest possible opportunity."
I guess maybe I should go back to my home group. Last year, I was
saying that all I wanted to see was justice, because it was just
business. Now, I stand behind the name, and I *want* it to be
professional suicide, if it comes to that; that would make my day. I
can't believe that anybody would be stupid enough to buy a Microsoft
product from this point forward for any reason other than "I had
absolutely no choice." I don't think I could look myself in the mirror,
or look my son in the eye, if I didn't try with every reasonable effort
to live up to that newsgroup's name.
I guess I'll take a break for a while; everybody's sick of me already,
I'm sure. If you need me, I'll be in alt.destroy.microsoft.
--
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: 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 05:32:15 GMT
> 1st and 2nd trimester abortions typically use solvents to
> disolve the fetus or, if the fetus is more developed, ...
Yes; however there are indeed physicians who do the "partial
birth" technique on early trimester pregnancy, for whatever
justification...
> 3rd trimester abortions are not so easy and the only
> pratical way is to do a PBA. Most OBs refuse to do them
> because it's so obvious unethical, inhumane and a crime against
> humanity.
Very few of these happen at all every year in the United
States. I don't have hard and fast numbers. But since you're
the one jumping up and down how it ought to be illegal,
that's your responsibility in any case.
C/
------------------------------
From: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 01:32:02 -0400
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> Hmmm. I know its going to make me a real pain in the ass, but I think
> its worth mentioning that there being some appropriate mechanism for the
> lack of competition does not in any way indicate that such mechanisms
> are not simply market reaction to anti-competitive actions.
Don't you think it's about time you "contribute" to the competition instead
of "hinder" the competition you want so badly. If you RUN Windows AND bitch
that there's no competition you look like more of an ass than most of the
anti-microsoft crowd around here. Given the fact that your posting to
comp.os.linux.advocacy and comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy using Windows 98
in your leisure time I believe your quite a fool to be bad mouthing the
company that makes it possible for your little OEM monitor to create light.
Now don't you?
------------------------------
From: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 01:36:39 -0400
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> Well, most people don't know I'd be happy to help, if they need some
> advice. Feel free to email me. And I hope to be starting a web page
> soon.
It will no doubt be a page thanking Bill Gates for making it possible for
your home computer to boot up?
------------------------------
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: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 01:42:47 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Zenin in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>Christophe Ochal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>: D'Arcy Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schreef:
> >snip<
>:> What legal reasons do you have for not being able to create DVD software
>:> for, say, Linux? The legal issues are that you have to license to stuff
>:> and keep it closed source.
>:
>: What if you link with a GPL program, as most are on linux?
>: You do know the GPL right?
>
> 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...
Oh, so it is a patent. Hmmm. That's even better. Now, instead of
simply testing the concept of trade secret-wrapped copyrights, we can
probe the idea of software patents themselves. Ideal!
But hold it a sec; you can't *patent* an algorithm. No wonder I'm
confused. Sounds like a little research is in order. Research
assistance gratefully appreciated. Follow-ups set on my way out the
door. CU.
--
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: 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 05:44:33 GMT
> > 1st and 2nd trimester abortions typically use solvents to
> > disolve the fetus or, if the fetus is more developed, ...
Looking around some more, a site which advertises itself
as neutral, wrote this particular article:
http://www.bergen.com/abortion/abort199609191.htm
The article places most PBAs in the second trimester,
further elaborating that there are almost no physicians
who will conduct third trimester terminations.
I'm personally against third trimester abortions of
any kind, except to the extent a physician decides that
the abortion IN GENERAL is appropriate to shield the
mother from medically negative consequences.
I don't, however, see any particular reason to vilify
a *procedure*, and see this as grandstanding.
Which it is, plainly.
C//
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
