Linux-Advocacy Digest #80, Volume #29 Tue, 12 Sep 00 21:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!! (lyttlec)
Re: How low can they go...? ("Simon Cooke")
Re: How low can they go...? ("Simon Cooke")
Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!! ("Nik Simpson")
Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?] ("2 + 2")
Re: Computer and memory ("Chad Myers")
Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!! ("Nik Simpson")
Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!! (lyttlec)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 20:51:43 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Simon Cooke in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Simon Cooke in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> Yes, we all know its better to tie your HTML code to using only
>> >> Microsoft's browser. Idiot. I'm getting bored.
>> >
>> >Hmmm...
>> >
>> >Quicken is a Windows app; so they may as well tie it to Microsoft's
>browser,
>> >as it's the only one out there that provides programmable interfaces
>(other
>> >than Gecko, which is still a work-in-progress).
>>
>> Well, the Quicken that made Intuit successful was a DOS app, as a matter
>> of fact.
>
>So? A DOS app is *really* going to sell well in today's market, isn't it
>Max?
Trying to change the subject, Simon?
>I thought we were talking about today, rather than past tense.
So did I, then you brought up imaginary stuff.
>[Being able to auto-update and push/pull content using the browser embedded
>in the app]
>> Yes, we know that this kind of stupid idea encourages developer's to be
>> lazy and not ensure that their products would be acceptable in a
>> competitive market; that isn't the point.
>
>Max, you've just proved (again) that you're a fuckwit.
Why, because you can shoe-horn a misrepresentation and think it
qualifies as an editorial comment? I think you've proven you have no
integrity.
>> This means they don't have any ability to make their interface any more
>> efficient than a web page. That's all there is to it. They are
>> *supposed* to worry about displaying graphics, and fonts, and printing.
>> What the fuck do you think we're paying them for? Maintaining financial
>> data in a database ain't quite rocket science. And I'd prefer to use an
>> application, rather than an 'integrated web site'. I don't pay people
>> to provide them a marketing channel. They provide the channel for free,
>> or they pay me; no other option exists.
>
>You seemingly ignored where I said that you can override the behavior of all
>elements.
You apparently are not paying attention; that doesn't mean you can do
anything but use web page widgets in place of a real interface.
[...]
>> >IE lets you bind code directly to every element on a page. [...]
>>
>> IE lets you tie yourself to an illegal monopoly which attempts to
>> further monopolize other markets, and restrain trade, as well.
>
>You're a fuckwit who is completely ignoring the arguments.
I'm a professional who doesn't confuse bullshit with arguments.
>(1) The Quicken pages don't work like a webpage because they're written
>their own custom behavior for their elements.
Then why are they trumpeting a 'fully HTML interface'? If you access
the control interface through a browser window, its a web page. 'Custom
behavior' be damned; its a stupid idea, and is only considered tolerable
because in an industry which has been dominated by a monopoly for more
than a decade, the developers are only concerned with their own
convenience, regardless of how uncompetitive and generally
counter-productive (read: stupid and nightmarish; check
http://www.iarchitect.com/shame.htm if you're not sure why) their
products are.
>(2) You're a FUCKWIT. Get used to it.
I'm starting to get to you, aren't I? That happens to a lot of people.
It's my fault, really. I have so little patience for stupid ideas and
ignorance that I often seem like an extremist flake, when you first
encounter my ranting. Until you try to refute my supporting reasoning
and opinions. Then you get frustrated and angry because it isn't as
easy as you'd like it to be.
Get used to it.
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
--
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: 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, 13 Sep 2000 00:51:13 GMT
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> "lyttlec" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Ok I have an app that will crash DOS, Windows 3.1, Windows 95, and
> > Windows 98. But no one will let me try it on their NT machine. I am
> > writing a new one based on a utility program provided by an OEM to be
> > used to upgrade their Flash BIOS. It looks all a cracker would have to
> > do is steal administrator privaliges in order to wipe the BIOS on an NT
> > based system. (He has to be root to do that on Linux. Same difference)
>
> Hey Kevin Mitnick, the master hacker:
>
> You have to boot to a non PM OS to flash the BIOS (DOS is a good example).
>
> You don't flash the BIOS from your regular OS. I can boot a DOS disk with
> a screwed up Flash image on any Linux PC and do the exact same thing.
>
> I'm not sure what you think is so special about flashing the bios.
>
> -Chad
There isn't anything special about flashing the bios other than it
provides a means to hide a program on a system such that it can't be
detected by normal means. For general mayhem on an NT system, any old
driver will do and is much easier.
------------------------------
From: "Simon Cooke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 17:50:15 -0700
"Jonathan Revusky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Simon Cooke wrote:
> >
> > "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Said Simon Cooke in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> > > >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >> You honestly haven't a clue, Erik, just how far and wide my
knowledge
> > > >> and information are on this or any other technical subject.
> > > >
> > > >Do you know the difference between interpolation, extrapolation, and
> > factual
> > > >analysis, Max?
>
> > >
> > > Yes, why?
>
> Max may know the difference between interpolation, extrapolation, and
> factual analysis, but I sho' don't.
>
> Could you explain the difference to me, Simon?
Factual analysis -- is analysis of the data presented; specifically analysis
based on the data set provided and nothing but -- no guessing, no fudging,
just using what's there.
Interpolation -- taking the data from factual analysis, and calculating
other values from that, within the range of values provided from the factual
analysis. Typically this is reasonably accurate, but not entirely so. eg. if
you have a curve with X = 0,1,2 and Y = 0,2,4 you can interpolate to give
X=0.5, Y=1.
Extrapolation -- taking the data from factual analysis, and calculating
other values from that, outside of the range of values provided by the
factual analysis. Typically, this is dangerous and not necessarily accurate,
but can be used to provide estimates. For example, if something has 1%
growth one year, 2% the next, 4% the next, and 8% after that, you can
extrapolate to assume that the growth will be 16% for the next value outside
of your data set. Unfortunately, you can't guarantee that this behavior will
be plausible; limiting factors outside of your dataset may prevent this.
Also, the further you get from your sampled dataset, the less likely it is
that your analysis is correct. For example, from chemistry, you can
extrapolate the behavior of a gas against temperature and pressure, but this
doesn't take into account phase changes in the material; the moment you
cross the point where the gas can become liquid, your results are thrown
off -- and similarly when that gas becomes solid, you're thrown off again.
Simon
------------------------------
From: "Simon Cooke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 17:51:01 -0700
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Stuart Fox in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Said Simon Cooke in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >>
> >> Outlook is complete an utter crap for each and every potential use. I
> >> know; I have to use it. As an expert in the implementation of
> >> operationally functional, I can tell you with no fear of contradiction
> >> that Outlook is a monstrously useless piece of dogshit. Except, of
> >> course, in comparison to 'nothing at all'.
> >
> >And in comparison to Notes client...
>
> I'm certainly not a huge fan of Notes; neither are most Notes users.
> Having seen the results in both medium and large companies, I'll tell
> you, again with no fear of contradiction, that Outlook is to Notes as a
> pile of dogshit is to a pile of potting soil.
There's no way anyone *can* contradict you with examples, going from the way
you debate.
Simon
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Nik Simpson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Nik Simpson" <[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: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 20:55:23 -0400
"lyttlec" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Nik Simpson wrote:
> >
> > "lyttlec" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Ok I have an app that will crash DOS, Windows 3.1, Windows 95, and
> > > Windows 98. But no one will let me try it on their NT machine. I am
> > > writing a new one based on a utility program provided by an OEM to be
> > > used to upgrade their Flash BIOS. It looks all a cracker would have to
> > > do is steal administrator privaliges in order to wipe the BIOS on an
NT
> > > based system. (He has to be root to do that on Linux. Same difference)
> > >
> >
> > Send it me, I'll try it.
> >
> > --
> > Nik Simpson
> Meet me face to face and we will discuss it. I live in Arizona, but can
> meet either here or in Las Vegas.
Chicken, consider your bluff well and truly called! Why on Earth should I
travel to Arizona to obtain a mysterious piece of software that you believe
will trash my system. If it exists at all, zip it up and email it to me, it
can't be that big.
--
Nik Simpson
------------------------------
From: "2 + 2" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?]
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 20:55:25 -0400
T. Max Devlin wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>Said 2 + 2 in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>T. Max Devlin wrote in message ...
> [...]
<snip>
>>>>I have never really disagreed with the non-tech tying argument.
>>>>
>>>>What I have said that jumping to that stage of the analysis is agruing
>>>>conclusions, since there is a jump over the real issue, which is whether
>>>>there is a tech tying.
>>>
>>>Could you tell me what you mean by 'arguing conclusions'? It isn't a
>>>'jump past' the per se rule. Its an avoidance of it altogether, because
>>>it is inappropriate for the case. Per se rules for determining if
>>>anti-trust violations have occurred are never mandatory; they are all
>>>just short-cuts to the *real* analysis, which is "the rule of reason".
>>>If there's less competition because you did something, and you knew that
>>>would be the result, you're guilty. (You still have an opportunity in
>>>defense to refute these assertions, but if you can't overcome the burden
>>>of proof and provide reasonable doubt that it wasn't what you did, or
>>>that you didn't intend that result, you'll be convicted.)
>>
>>Max, you just throwing out bull, a hodge podge of legal glop.
>
>A synthesis of legal issues, perhaps.
>
>>First of all, the accused does not have the burden of proof, except
perhaps
>>in Chinese systems, where the govt is always right and individual's have
no
>>freedom, especially legal-based freedoms that began a long ascent with the
>>Magna Carta, which established trial by a jury of peers, but is important
>>for its historical basis in limiting power.
>
>Actually, once the prosecution has shown that the defendant has monopoly
>power (the ability to control prices or exclude competition, regardless
>of any actual demonstration of such), the burden of proof is, literally,
>on the defendant.
>
>"See United States v. AT&T Co., 524 F. Supp. 1336, 1347-48 (D.D.C. 1981)
>("a persuasive showing . . . that defendants have monopoly power . . .
>through various barriers to entry, . . . in combination with the
>evidence of market shares, suffice[s] at least to meet the government's
>initial burden, and the burden is then appropriately placed upon
>defendants to rebut the existence and significance of barriers to
>entry")"
Your statement above says:
>>>". . . because you did something, and you knew that
>>>would be the result, you're guilty. (You still have an opportunity in
>>>defense to refute these assertions, but if you can't overcome the burden
>>>of proof and provide reasonable doubt that it wasn't what you did, or
>>>that you didn't intend that result, you'll be convicted.)
Assertions" are different than a "pervasive showing" coupled with "evidence
of market shares" amounting to meeting an "initial burden."
Max cites case to defeat Max, in classic Alice in Wonderland style.
Then Max goes on to make up a tougher standard, ie "provide reasonable
doubt," rather than the "weight of the evidence," no doubt because Max's
inner Mad Hatter has heard "beyond a reasonable doubt" batted around a lot.
But in a rule of reason Maxism [a kind of logical Marxism of the Popular
Wisdom], the DEFENDANT must provide "reasonable doubt."
I dread to think of where this might go if we were to legally parse
"reasonable doubt," via the Maxist "rule of reason."
I mean what is the Alice in Wonderland view of "doubt." Is doubt the same as
going down the RABBIT HOLE of illogic?
Then what is the Maxist "reasonable" when applied to "doubt"? Isn't doubt
always a little unreasonable?
Yes, yes, YOU can see where all this is leading, just as sure a MAD HATTER
circle dance to the pure sweet anticompetitive competition,
*it* [this is especially hard to follow in indefinite pronouns] can indeed
be translated to the RULE OF REASON.
Yes, the source of all Maxian light and wisdom, it is said first thing in
the morning and last thing at night.
You know what it means, if you've even known certain people of ill repute,
who mix a little bit of truth in with all their lies, so when they get
challenged on a lie, they have SOMETHING that they have said which is true.
And that is used to refute the lie.
2 + 2
<snip>
>--
>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: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Computer and memory
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 00:56:43 GMT
"Matthias Warkus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> It was the Tue, 12 Sep 2000 00:32:34 GMT...
> ...and Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > "Matthias Warkus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > Correction: The US posters do not only produce more arrogant and
> > > idiotic postings that all of the European posters.
> >
> > So says you.
>
> ROTFLMAO. Talk about Americans trying to speak English.
Again! Speaking of arrogant ignorant Europeans...
"So says you" is a common slang term in America. Try buffing
up on your language skills before criticizing what you know
nothing about.
-Chad
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Nik Simpson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Nik Simpson" <[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: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 20:57:55 -0400
"lyttlec" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chad Myers wrote:
>
> There isn't anything special about flashing the bios other than it
> provides a means to hide a program on a system such that it can't be
> detected by normal means. For general mayhem on an NT system, any old
> driver will do and is much easier.
If you give someobdy permission to install device drivers, it doesn't matter
whether you are running NT, UNIX or Joe's custom OS you are giving away the
keys to kingdom. If you really think that NT is any different to any other
OS in this respect then you are obviously more clueless than people are
already suspecting. At least on W2K if I installed you driver, the OS would
warn me that it came from a non-trusted source and warn me not to do it.
--
Nik Simpson
------------------------------
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, 13 Sep 2000 00:59:00 GMT
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
> On Tue, 12 Sep 2000 12:33:56 +1000, Christopher Smith wrote:
> >
>
> >No, it isn't the "same difference" at all. Administrator and root are very
> >different things. Stuff like security and hardware abstraction actually
> >apply to the Administrator account, whereas Unix security runs along the
> >lines of "if UID=0, allow anything" - yet another reason NT is better.
>
> Could you explain how "security and hardware abstraction" do apply to
> Administrator and do not apply to root ?
>
> --
> Donovan
NT seems to have "administrator" and "SuperRoot". "SuperRoot" is MS
logging into your system via hidden features. Remember the NSA key ?
That was a spare crypto key that permitted MS to log into your computer
so they can update your software without you knowing it. They grant some
of the "SuperRoot" privileges to applications developers who partner
with them. Those who write drivers for some video and audio cards for
example.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
