Linux-Advocacy Digest #960, Volume #28 Wed, 6 Sep 00 20:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: what's up with Sun? ("Raz A Mattazz")
Re: Computer and memory (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Computer and memory ("Otto")
Re: how large corporations test on the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (Christopher
Browne)
Re: How low can they go...?
Re: How low can they go...?
Re: How low can they go...?
Re: How low can they go...?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Raz A Mattazz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.hardware
Subject: Re: what's up with Sun?
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 23:10:24 +0200
"Fred Nastos" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8p5giq$m1q$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
: How much slower are IDE drives really? Are you comparing them
to SCSI?
Not slower at all. IDE (ATAPI) and SCSI drives are the same
mechanically, with different controller electronics. Most (all?)
manufacturers of harddrives have the (mechanically) same
harddisk in an ATAPI version and in a SCSI version. Such "twins"
perform equally. Only in big server RAID systems is SCSI
superior to IDE. Even advanced home users have no other reason
to buy SCSI but for the sake of attaching up to 15 units and
thus saving IRQs on their PCs.
Another point may be if you want to be able to move your
harddisks between the PC, Sun, MacIntosh etc. Then SCSI is to
prefer. Otherwise, for home and small business use, there's
really no need or advantage in using SCSI. Expensive controllers
and more hard to find and expensive harddisks, for what? A
queved command advantage that you have no noticable use for in
any "normal" computer use.
SCSI is grossly overhyped.
Raz (SCSI user...)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Computer and memory
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 23:46:26 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Christophe Ochal
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Wed, 6 Sep 2000 12:55:10 +0200
<zcrt5.891$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>The Ghost In The Machine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schreef in
>berichtnieuws [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Christophe Ochal
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote
>> on Tue, 5 Sep 2000 10:05:31 +0200
>> <%26t5.783$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> >Grega Bremec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schreef in berichtnieuws
>> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >> ...and Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> used the keyboard:
>> >> >Perhaps you should be writing your government then.
>> >> >
>> >> >It's not America's fault your country(ies) are behind
>> >> >in technology.
>> >> >
>> >> >-Chad
>> >>
>> >> American attitude at its best!
>> >>
>> >> "Noooo, we won't tell you how to encrypt your data using 8192-bit
>> >> strong encryption. But it's not our fault if you can't figure it out
>> >> on your own..."
>> >>
>> >> DOH!
>> >
>> >Actually, encryption is tied to some very stupid laws in the States,
>> >basicly, if the feds can crack the encryption, it's not allowed to be
>used
>> >by the public, talk about "right to privicy"
>>
>> I think you mean "can't", and that's recently changed if I'm not
>> mistaken -- but I agree, it's stupid. (And with our luck the
>> new conditions are even more confusing than the old ones.)
>
>D'oh! Typo :) yea, i meant can't :)
>
>How about the DMCA? What's that about? <grin>
I have no idea, since I'm not familiar with that acronym....?
>
>> I can't seem to locate an exact quote, but I seem to remember that
>> Louis Freeh, otherwise known as the Head of the FBI, has stated that
>> he wishes to be able to decode and read any ciphered text, should the
>> courts require it. This was some months -- years? -- back.
>
>Yea, talk about you're right for privicy...
Indeed.
>
>> Good luck, Mr. Freeh. You'll need it. :-)
>
>I'll never willingly cooperate with such an individual
>
>> (One might be able to get the private key of a willing party,
>> though, such as a bank on the other end of an (alleged!) illicit
>> transaction.)
>
>Yea, i want to keep my money ;)
Me too. But the government, in its infinite wisdom, has decreed
that any money resulting from drug deals is illegitimate and
confiscatable.
>
>Amon_Re
>
>
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: "Otto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Computer and memory
Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2000 00:00:19 GMT
"Christophe Ochal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:vXst5.915$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
: > America has welfare which does things similar to this. I rewards
: > many people who have made a career out of bad life decesisions
: > but don't feel the consequences because Welfare will provide
: > them with income greater than that if they worked.
:
: EG: If i earn 1000$ a month on a job, and i get fired, i well get 65% of
: that sum for 6 months, after that it will start to decrease untill it
: reaches minimum income rates, you *DON'T* get more then you get for
working,
: you get *LESS*
: You get what's needed to live
I beg to differ.... That depends on what kind of work we are talking about.
16 years ego I was on welfare in the US, it was called a refugee program but
essentially it was the same. My monthly income from the welfare department
was $720.00 and every 3 month I also received $300.00 clothing allowance for
season changes. When I've bought a car they increased my income by 10% to
buy gas. They didn't even ask me where I've got the money for the car. I
needed to make twice the amount of the minimum wage, which was $3.75 at that
time, just to break even when compared to welfare. At the first chance I
grabbed a job and haven't looked back ever since. The circumstances are
pretty much the same for welfare as it was years ego. Some states are
tougher than others, but it is there.
: > There's something wrong with your society if the lazy are
: > rewarded.
:
: You have no touch with reality, or you're even dumber then i ever held
: possible
Are you sure?
: > Yes, I know, some people on welfare actually need it for one
: > reason or another (physical disability, catostrophic
: > life event, etc) but the majority in the U.S. are not in
: > this situation.
:
: No, just those thousands of beggars that lay in the streets...
You can find beggers in any country, it isn't US specific. What specific
about the US is the amount of money some of them make on a daily basis.
Don't take me wrong, I'm not envious of the money, but the begging became a
pretty good business for some of the people.
: BTW, how many of them do you pass when you go to work?
Personally.... none. I work in the suburbs and it kind of hard to see them
at 70 miles/h speed on the highway.
Otto
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
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
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2000 00:01:41 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Stefaan A Eeckels would say:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Phillip Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>>>>> "Stefaan" == Stefaan A Eeckels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> Stefaan> (I probably cited these already sometime ago in this
>> Stefaan> newsgroup.)
>>
>> The twin studies that I have seen have never been terribly
>> convincing. I will still with perhaps....
>
>They're not too obviously statistical nonsense as some of
>the other articles I read.
If y'all are somewhat skeptical of statistical claims, then there's
hope :-). Just because there are "statistics" means neither that:
a) A given claim is correct, nor that
a) The given claim is _incorrect_.
>> So for instance individuals from an agrarian society who have
>> a club foot tend to be reclusive, poor, and more liable to criminal
>> tendencies (clearly I am making this data up!). Does this mean that
>> the gene causing club foot, is linked with one encoding criminal
>> tendencies. Obviously not.
>Obviously not. We don't even know if there is a gene (combination)
>directly responsible for criminal behaviour, and I don't believe
>it would matter if there were. It might well be (add salt as
>required) that there is a gene favouring foul language, but unless
>one is afflicted with Turret's, having a more pronounced tendency
>towards using foul langauge simply requires a bit more self control.
I think that's Tourette's Syndrome (for those that may not be
familiar); I'd tend to agree with you, and go beyond to suggest that
both genetics and environment can lead to various behavioural
propensities.
In some cases (as with Tourette's Syndrome), the "propensities" can be
so strong that they are likely to overcome attempts to will against
them.
And that in _most_ cases, the "propensities" are not nearly so strong;
they may lead to greater likelihood of behaviour, but may certainly be
overcome by someone with intent...
>> Stefaan> Note that this _also_ applies to behaviour induced by the
>> Stefaan> environment. Accepting that certain (less desirable)
>> Stefaan> behaviour is determined by our genes does not justify it,
>> Stefaan> or make it anymore acceptable than when it would be caused
>> Stefaan> by outside influences.
>>
>> We can agree on this.
>>
>> >> We can ask "how much of the variation in behaviour is due to
>> >> variation in the genes, and how much due to variation in the
>> >> environment". If this variability has not survived since the
>> >> savannah, then there is no question that we can meaningfully ask
>> >> here.
>> Stefaan> It's not variability, it's fundamental characteristics I'm
>> Stefaan> talking about. We all smile, and smiling is in all
>> Stefaan> likelyhood a genetically determined trait, like walking, or
>> Stefaan> developing self-consciousness, or counting (see:
>>
>> Without variation within the genes there is no way to
>> determine what is causing what, and its not really meaningful.
>>
>
>We know that the height of a person is determined by the genes,
>and can be influenced by the ennvironment. In other words, a
>supportive environment will allow the potential to be fully
>realized, etc. Your first question is one that can be approached
>statistically, and can yield statistically significant results,
>that (by definition) do not apply to a specific individual.
>That's basic. A decent study would try to find a population
>that is sufficiently homogenous environment-wise to allow the
>assumption that the difference in height is genetically
>determined, or sufficiently homogenous genetically to gauge
>the effect of different environments.
>That's why the biotech companies are so interested in the
>Icelanders.
>> So for instance we can ask "how much of the variability in
>> the height of the population is due to genetic variation?". Sensible
>> question. However "how much of a person's height is caused by the
>> genes and how much by the environment", is just meaningless. Without
>> their genes a person has no height, and without their environment they
>> have no height.
>I don't want to be rude, but your second question is just
>silly. A human 6 feet tall could be the result of a genetic
>disposition to average size maximized by an excellent
>environment, or a giant stunted by famine. But this does not
>mean that tallness is not encoded in the genes.
Indeed.
It seems to me that in a whole lot of situations, the effects of both
genetics and environment _primarily_ have potential to be negative.
Either "bad genes" or "bad environment" are likely to lead to
unfortunate results.
If you haven't the "tall genes" (however that be identified), you're
not likely to be tall. And if you don't get nourished sufficiently
well, you won't get tall.
In effect, genes _and_ food must go together in order to get Andre the
Giant...
>> I suppose you could ask this sort of question by crossing
>> different primates (chimps also smile, but it has a different social
>> meaning), but its not clear what environment you would raise them
>> in. And I think it would be hard to get approval to cross humans and
>> chimps even if you could do it.
>
>One can ask, the problem is whether one can answer :-)
>As there are no known human cultures where smiling means sadness,
>there's a case to be made that the relation between the OK-feeling
>and the smile is somehow genetically determined. As Darwin says,
>
>"The same state of mind is expressed throughout the world with
>remarkable uniformity; and this fact is in itself interesting
>as evidence of the close similarity in bodily structure and
>mental disposition of all the races of mankind."
>(The expression of the emotions in man and animals, 1872)
On the other hand, the way people gesture with their heads seems to
vary somewhat. In some cultures, shaking the head back and forth
indicates negativity, whilst in others, it is just an indication that
the listener is listening intently.
It's a bit difficult to guarantee that gestures mean the same
things...
>> Stefaan> But we select people. It's not really important _why_ we
>> Stefaan> prefer some people to others, the verifiable fact is that
>> Stefaan> we do so.
>>
>> No its very very important why we prefer some people to
>> others. I have heard enumerable bigots justify their position by
>> resort to the same sort of inalienable biology that you are
>> using. "Its just nature that we hate blacks and gays". I know that you
>> are not doing this, but this is where I think your reasoning
>> leads.
>
>You cannot wish away reality because you don't like it. Given
>half a chance, people classify others. Mothers have favourite
>children, children see favourite siblings even when parents
>make inordinate efforts to be even-handed, children form
>groups in class and active exclude (and later include) other
>children. Street gangs, village rivalries, soccer supporters,
>KKK-ers, feminists, catholics (and protestants), animal
>welfare fanaticists, etc. You may not like that people use
>silly, or downright cretinous reasons to classify their
>fellows, they just do it.
>When you ask your toddler why it doesn't want to play with
>the child of your best friend, it'll reply "because I don't
>like him".
The words "classification" and "discrimination" have a whole lot in
common...
In psychology, "discrimination" may be relatively value-free, that is,
it does not forcibly indicate prejudicial distinctions. It can merely
indicate "telling things apart."
>This is bleak, I know. Somehow it would be nice to be able
>to cast all the blame on "society", implying that we only
>need to change "society" to return mankind (and each individual)
>to a state of harmony and bliss.
>Unfortunately, one cannot build a stable social order on
>false premisses, and any society that wants to be relatively
>stable has to take both good, and bad aspects of the human
>animal into consideration.
>
>> Stefaan> But nonethess quite often operates on basis of real or
>> Stefaan> perceived genetic closeness (cfr immigrants sticking
>> Stefaan> together in their new country).
>>
>> Because they share a common culture and possibly language. And
>> often because the common culture of the majority population ghettoizes
>> them.
>
>> >> That we have family units, with children often bought up by
>> >> parents is unsurprising as its reflects fundamental
>> >> biology. However the way in which the family unit works differs
>> >> widely from society to society. The US nuclear family is in no
>> >> way God given nor universal.
>> Stefaan> And favouring one's offspring (through passing on
>> Stefaan> posessions and positions) is a universal human
>> Stefaan> characteristic, and hence unlikely to be the sole result of
>> Stefaan> social convention.
>>
>> "Universal human characteristics" are often much less
>> universal than they seem. As I have said before I think that this is
>> based upon a relationship that is formed between people rather than
>> one which is genetically predefined. Otherwise adoptive parents would
>> not also favour their children.
>
>The point is that humans arrange their fellows in hierarchies of
>care or favour. The technique used to do this is less important
>than the fact that they so do. The preeminence of the conscious
>part of the brain over techniques used by other animals does not
>change that one iota.
Adoption implies that the characteristic of "preference" does not
restrict itself to genetic, or "blood" relationships; it is possible
to establish relationships by force of will that are virtually as
strong.
--
(concatenate 'string "cbbrowne" "@" "ntlug.org")
<http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
Roses are red,
Violets are blue,
I'm schizophrenic...
And I am too.
------------------------------
From: <[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, 6 Sep 2000 16:41:40 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Simon Cooke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:nEvt5.53302$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> No, they can't. Not when it comes to court evidence. You need to look at
the
> MS site, and at the DOJ site, and compare evidence. Each has only half of
> the story, and in isolation, you'll get bias. Falsifying court evidence
and
> proceedings when reproducing them is against the law, so they can't just
> "put anything they want" on their website.
>
Since when has that ever stopped B.G.&Co. ?
------------------------------
From: <[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, 6 Sep 2000 16:39:03 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Christophe Ochal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:Fcrt5.906$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Simon Cooke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schreef in berichtnieuws
> 4Yat5.50423$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > No; I just try to give everyone the courtesy of a fair shake of the
stick.
>
> Meaning?
Perhaps a mangled version of President Theodore Roosevelt's "speak softly
and carry a big stick."
------------------------------
From: <[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, 6 Sep 2000 16:47:20 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Simon Cooke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8p63nr$ie4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Note how it is only the browser that is seen as a shareable component
> > and noone seems to be mentioning any other examples. It's rather
> > obvious that Microsoft only did what it did to Mosaic to undermine
> > Netscape rather than it being good engineering.
>
> Netscape lost a deal with Intuit for not having a componentizable browser.
> Similarly, that's why AOL went with IE.
>
> As for the rest -- HTML Help makes great sense.
> Using a browser to navigate the file system -- if it's such a stupid idea,
> why does KDE do it?
Because KDE did not already have another working hypertext help system
already in place like Windows did?
------------------------------
From: <[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, 6 Sep 2000 16:59:25 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Christophe Ochal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:Gcrt5.907$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schreef in berichtnieuws
> 8p47nl$o9b$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> <cut>
>
> > Then when someone on the Judge's staff proved the lie, the T.V. news
> > stations reported it and Microsoft's refutation as well, they also
brought
> > in "independent experts" providing reports supporting Microsoft
position.
> > The local NBC affiliate was the worst in this reguard, the arranged a
> > demonstration in the news studio televised as part of the news to prove
> that
> > Windows 95 will fail to be functional without IE.
>
> And the law allows this?
To this date there have been no contrary opinions aired and there has been
no retractions.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
