Linux-Advocacy Digest #968, Volume #28 Thu, 7 Sep 00 04:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Can you believe this??? (was Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: ("Aaron R.
Kulkis")
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...? (Andrew Carpenter)
Re: what's up with Sun? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: How low can they go...? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: what's up with Sun? ("Andrew N. McGuire ")
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: how large corporations test on the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (Stefaan A
Eeckels)
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[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:
Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2000 03:03:53 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > > If you read any financial magazines, you'll see comments like "the
> > > 'safest' place to put your money is in an FDIC insured savings
> account
> > > at 2% interest. Unfortunately, with inflation averaging greater than
> > > that, you're taking a greater risk with your money than a more
> > > 'aggressive' investment.
> > >
> > > That's actually a pretty universal position among investment
> advisors.
> > >
> > > > not whether or not you'll maintain purchasing power. two different
> > > > things.
> > > > especially if you are looking at my statement of govt. bonds
> being a
> > > > risk-free investment
> > > >
> > > > the reason they are risk free is that you'll get your money. 100%
> no
> > > > worries.
> > >
> > > True. But that doesn't negate the fact that most current financial
> > > advisors go one step further than you have and consider the risk of
> loss
> > > of buying power.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > how about those folks that bought redhat at 300 bucks a share?
> how are
> > > > they feeling
> > > > these days?
> > >
> > > Probably a lot worse than the ones who bought Apple at 12 (before
> split).
> > >
> > > None of which is relevant. Aaron isn't arguing that bonds are
> riskier
> > > than stocks. But you should consider the risk of inflation in your
> > > investments.
> >
> > Personally, I hope the asshole puts all of his money in bonds...and
> > when he gets old, he can rot in the poorhouse for his idiotic beliefs.
> >
>
> Portfolio theory has shown that you can eliminate much of the risk from
> your portfolio, while still achieving most of the stock market's
> return, by holding a mixture of stocks and bonds.
>
> My uncle bought long term government bonds with a 15% coupon in the
> early 80's.
>
> Think you can get that kind of return in the stock market for 30 years
> running? Maybe if you're Warren Buffet, but the long term return on
> the total stock market is ~10%. My uncle is quite happy with his
> bonds, and I guarantee you he ain't in the poorhouse.
If they are *COMMERCIAL* bonds, you'll probably do ok.
Government bonds are very prone to loss of real value.
>
> -og
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
--
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: T. Max Devlin <[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: Thu, 07 Sep 2000 03:12:30 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
[...]
>> Its not nonsense and I'm not wrong, and your a rude person for insisting
>> it is. KDE became what *I* consider a 'commercial enterprise' when it
>> became incestuously linked with a commercial enterprise which would
>> profit from its success. Not just the founder of the KDE project, but
>> several members of the project are Troll Tech employees.
>
>Ok, but you do realize that as long as you just define things to mean
>whatever they want, you can say anything is true, right?
No, I don't realize that, I don't even agree with it. Its post-modern
claptrap. I am not defining, nor re-defining, what 'commercial' means.
I'm telling you what I would consider merits the term 'commercial
enterprise' within the discussion we're having. Feel free to argue
against it, but save your 'dictionary quibbling' for the after-hours
crowd.
>If you bother sharing that special "definition" of yours, I will
>be happy to agree or disagree. I just assumed you were wrinting
>english, silly me.
Well, when you learn how to write in English, instead (god, he's reduced
me to spelling flames), you might understand that posting an opinion is
not redefining words. At least not anymore than any usage of words
defines them, because they all do. (But that's a lesson on 'natural'
language, and it seems it would be wasted on your limited ability to
comprehend. I base this last assessment on the current post, and your
general denseness in failing to realize that I don't really care for
bullshit and have no concern for how 'crafty' you may think you can be,
and don't feel the need to be polite to people who confuse arguing a
point with trying to twist someone's words against them in a serious
discussion.)
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2000 03:13:29 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
>> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
>> [...]
>> >> You have too narrow a perspective on things that allow you
>> >> to feel comfortable selling future for the sake of a little
>> >> convenience.
>> >
>> >I do what I do based on what I know and believe. You do what you
>> >do based on what you know and believe. Do so and let me do so.
>>
>> I don't want to gang up on Roberto with Jedi; that's not what I'm trying
>> to do.
>
>Then don't do it.
I didn't, you moron. That was the point of the statement.
--
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: Andrew Carpenter <[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: Thu, 07 Sep 2000 16:43:56 +1030
Mike Byrns wrote:
> "T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> > >Would you buy it?
> > >
> > >Probably not.
> >
> > No, I didn't buy it at $50, either. I'll wait till my brother gets
> > bored with it, and use his.
>
> Pirate. Read the confirmed legal license agreemnet. It's non-transferable.
That's a bit harsh.
Isn't there a fair use clause in copyright law regarding that sort of
thing -- "first sale", I think?
Ignoring that, how do you know that they don't have only one computer,
and Devlin will use his brother's PC? Or do you think letting a
friend/relative try play a game on your PC is also 'piracy'?
Andrew
[ opinions are my own ]
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.hardware
Subject: Re: what's up with Sun?
Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2000 03:14:34 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>
>Ez-Aton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:newscache$n8jf0g$k21$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> Both Intel and AMD should stick to the home-office computers, and leave
>the
>> servers to the real tough computers, since they will never reach the Sun
>> stability and power.
>> My oppinion.
>
>Better yet. Intel and AMD should stick to producing processors and let the
>users determine how the computers built with their processors should be
>used.
Ooh-rah.
--
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: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[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: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 02:34:35 -0500
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8p6isf$e53$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> What foolishness, that queston as hand was is it possible for Windows 95
to
> run without Microsoft Internet Explorer. The answer is that of course it
> was.
"Windows 95" is not "Windows 98". Also, "Windows 95" refers to 4 distinct
versions of Windows 95 that are in many ways as different from each other as
Windows 3.1 and Windows for Workgroups 3.11 is. That would be Windows 95
versions 950, 950a, 950b, and 950c. 950c is virtually a completely
different OS from 950, if you consider the number of changes to system files
between them.
> You can test the theory yourself with the only accurate objective evidence
> possible. Purchase a copy of Windows 95 Retail. It has been shipped in
two
> media formats, floppy disk or CD-Rom.
>
> Assuming you purchased the CD-Rom format of Windows 95 Retail, it comes
with
> two CD's. One is the Windows installation CD, the other is the IE
> installation CD. Install the contents of the Windows installation CD.
Toss
> the IE installation CD in the drawer or in the trash, in short don't
install
> it. Does Windows 95 now run? Yes, it does. Case closed, Microsoft lied.
Ok. Take a copy of Red Hat Linux 4.0, and run it. Now take a copy of Red
Hat 6.2 and remove the 6.2 kernel and replace it with the 5.0 kernel. Do
you think everything will run?
Here's a hint for you. Later versions of the OS have added features which
rely on functionality that ships with that OS.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[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: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 02:37:54 -0500
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8p6n2l$jfd$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Seán Ó Donnchadha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > No, the question was whether IE could be removed from today's Windows
> > without damaging the product. The answer is no. Microsoft didn't lie.
>
> Windows 98 was not available yet. Window 98 SE was not available yet.
> Windows ME was not available yet. Windows 2000 was not available yet.
Only
> Windows 95 and before was available, it was Windows 95 that was the
subject
> of the lie.
Actually, Windows 98 did exist, and the DOJ was asking for an injunction on
shipping Windows 98. The specific testimony in question was given over the
period of time from Febuary 3-5th, 1999. Or more than 8 months after
Windows 98 shipped.
------------------------------
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: Thu, 07 Sep 2000 03:37:20 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said lyttlec in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
[...]
>Well, a patent is a monopoly with government intervention.
A patent is a kind of monopoly. It isn't the same kind as a criminal
monopoly, based on Sherman Act terminology. The patent 'monopoly' would
be the archaic meaning of the term: an exclusive right to sell a product
or conduct trade granted by a sovereign. These days, such 'monopolies'
are called 'public utilities', or 'intellectual property'.
>There was a
>monopoly in copper briefly during the 70's in the US and world wide.
I don't know what you're referring to. Perhaps you mean the Alcoa
Aluminum case?
>Standard Oil is the one that started the whole backlash.
It wasn't a backlash, it was the continuing enforcement of anti-trust
laws. The Sherman Act was in 1890; the railroad cases throughout the
turn of the century. (Earlier laws concerned more explicit attempts at
monopolization, such as laws against 'forestalling', which we call
'vaporware' or 'engrossing', which call 'FUD', and regrating, which I
haven't found a definition for yet.) The quintessential Join Traffic
case hit the Supreme Court in 1897, I believe. Standard Oil was only
1910. Don't forget, we only hear about the cases that reach the highest
courts, and every state has anti-trust laws, as well.
>I mentioned
>wheat in Rome because that same monopoly is building now in the US.
>Small farmers are being put out of business by "corporate farms". There
>will eventually be only one giant corporate farm. When that happens, we
>will be in the same position as Rome. Try to break the monopoly, and you
>will starve.
If I'm not mistaken, the agribusiness conglomerates (there's two or
three, I think, but that's not to say they're not monopolizing, or more
properly, restraining trade) have already bought up the vast majority of
private farms. The small percentage of small business farms that are
left are a desiccated husk, not an industry. The problem is that
growing a 'business' by buying 'competitors' is not considered illegal
(though it should be.)
--
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! ======
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.hardware
From: "Andrew N. McGuire " <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: what's up with Sun?
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 02:35:23 -0500
On Thu, 7 Sep 2000, T. Max Devlin quoth:
~~ Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2000 03:14:34 -0400
~~ From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
~~ Newsgroups: alt.os.linux, comp.os.linux.advocacy, comp.os.linux.misc,
~~ comp.os.linux.hardware
~~ Subject: Re: what's up with Sun?
~~
~~ Said <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
~~ >
~~ >Ez-Aton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
~~ >news:newscache$n8jf0g$k21$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
~~ >
~~ >> Both Intel and AMD should stick to the home-office computers, and leave
~~ >the
~~ >> servers to the real tough computers, since they will never reach the Sun
~~ >> stability and power.
~~ >> My oppinion.
~~ >
~~ >Better yet. Intel and AMD should stick to producing processors and let the
~~ >users determine how the computers built with their processors should be
~~ >used.
~~
~~ Ooh-rah.
Marine?
anm
--
Andrew N. McGuire
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
perl -le'print map?"(.*)"?&&($_=$1)&&s](\w+)]\u$1]g&&$_=>`perldoc -qj`'
------------------------------
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: Thu, 07 Sep 2000 03:41:36 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Seán Ó Donnchadha in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"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.
LOL!
>>> 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.
This is *such* an amazing bunch of inept stupidity. I'm frankly
embarrassed for you, Sean. Judge Jackson never said anything about
application support or building a broken product. The building a broken
product was your idea. Anybody with more brains than sand would figure
that if ordered to produce a non-IE Win98, Microsoft just barely *might*
have figured out that they need to change the revision level between the
two.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2000 03:44:05 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Simon Cooke in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>He replaced a whole slew of system DLLs with ones from Windows 95 Gold;
>thus, effectively removing IE by downgrading the OS to Win95 standards.
>
>Of course, the next time you install an app which requires IE, kaaaboom.
So it might be a good idea to get the "Win98 with IE" version if you
want to install an app which 'requires' IE, don't you think?
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2000 03:45:42 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Simon Cooke in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> Said Seán Ó Donnchadha in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >>>
>> >>>What do you expect from the guy who said that software products can't
>> >>>be damaged because it's all just bits?
>> >>
>> >>What, they get dented in shipping;
>> >>
>> >
>> >Ah, so [...]
>>
>> Christ, what a troll. When you've figured out your ass from a hole in
>> the ground, try again. I don't respond to trolls on rhetorical
>> comments.
>>
>> You said removing IE would 'damage' the software. I said that's
>> bullshit, because its bullshit. Software doesn't get 'damaged' like
>> that.
>
>Of course, being the world class developer that you are, you'd know this for
>certain, wouldn't you?
Your ass = product without IE
Hole in the ground = program which doesn't run
When you've learned the difference, try again.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2000 03:48:39 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Christ, what a troll. When you've figured out your ass from a hole in
>> the ground, try again. I don't respond to trolls on rhetorical
>> comments.
>>
>> You said removing IE would 'damage' the software. I said that's
>> bullshit, because its bullshit. Software doesn't get 'damaged' like
>> that.
>
>It does when the sum components of the software called "IE" include
>components necessary for the software called "Windows" to function. In
>order to fulfill the requirement to remove IE, you must remove each piece of
>software which has IE functionality. That includes such things as common
>controls (which include HTML rendering into listviews), the help subsystem
>which uses IE to render the HTML and display it, the shell and Windows
>explorer, which really just run in an IE shell, and quite a few other
>components.
>
>You can't just remove IE without replacing these components with something
>else.
Nobody ever said anything about software. We're talking about products.
One would assume if the goal is to separate the two products, which were
formerly separate, one would write new components, in two different
version, if desired. One with, and one.... without.
It seems frankly incredible to me that there are so many people who
would expect they can talk about 'removing components' as if it isn't
possible for the author of a product to change how it operates without
going to the installed product and deleting DLLs. MS put it in there,
MS can take it out, and there is no way around that fact, no matter how
long you want to pretend.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (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: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 09:51:25 +0200
In article <FVAt5.344034$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne) writes:
> 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_.
And there is no b :-)
If people use statistics (and probability) incorrectly, then
you only know that they don't know statistics (an all too
common occurence in scientists). Their observations are
probably :-) still valid.
When statistics were laborious, people did less of them,
and thought more about their observations.
>>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
You are quite right. I got the approximate phonetics, and
derived an English-like spelling. Unfortunate result of the
strained relationship between letters and sounds. Apologies.
> 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...
And that it has become acceptable to publicly invoke real or
imaginary propensities to justify undesirable behaviour.
Be it parents or genes, far too many people (and their apologists)
claim that humans cannot, and even should not, control their
urges.
>>"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...
>
But there remains a remarkable uniformity.
>>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.
The point being that we have to accept that we do classify
people, and that it's a very strong force indeed. Even those
who champion a classless society start by classifying people.
It's in the 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: 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: Thu, 07 Sep 2000 03:54:52 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Zenin in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
>: No, I didn't buy it at $50, either. I'll wait till my brother gets bored
>: with it, and use his.
> If you want to play Half-Life, I suggest you buy your own copy and
> not wait for your brother. So far, I've yet to meet anyone that has
> liked Half-Life and has stopped playing. [...]
Its not off-topic. I'm aware of this fact concerning Half-Life. The
thing is, there's six other games on the shelf that are no less
compelling. It only takes a couple of such games to be more than enough
for the next few years. I prefer straight shooters, and real-time
tactical/strategy games, and abstract puzzles (I've bought every level
pack available for DXBall). Shooter/RPG hybrids like Half Life aren't
really that interesting to me. Not that I'm not interested in playing
it.
Its just that I have no reason to blow $50 on YAG.
--
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! ======
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
