Linux-Advocacy Digest #350, Volume #29 Thu, 28 Sep 00 17:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Windows+Linux+MacOS = BeOS (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Windows+Linux+MacOS = BeOS (.)
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
Re: Windows+Linux+MacOS = BeOS ("Ingemar Lundin")
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Roberto
Alsina)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Is Linux some kind of a joke? (2:1)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Roberto
Alsina)
Re: Is Linux some kind of a joke? ("Nigel Feltham")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows+Linux+MacOS = BeOS
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 17:18:50 -0300
El jue, 28 sep 2000, Daniel Berger escribió:
>Think Linux is just as stable? Then try this: start linux -- turn off
>PC without init 0. Possibly repeat one or two more times. Watch linux
>crash.
Not a problem here. Of course I am using ReiserFS.
>Shutting off the PC without an init 0 won't happen in your house? Then
>you must not have power failures or small children.
Or a 5 minute UPS and a decent desk.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: Windows+Linux+MacOS = BeOS
Date: 28 Sep 2000 20:17:24 GMT
Ingemar Lundin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Like the command line? Beos has a Bash shell.
>>
>> Like the GUI? Beos has its own GUI, as well as Windows, Mac, Amiga and
>> Gnome look and feel options.
> beos gui ? yeah well... ripped like hell from windows , mac and nextstep
It was? Can you demonstrate this?
>>
>> SMP support? Yup - automatic. No configuration hassles.
>>
>> Can you say 64 bit OS? Ok, so *some* flavors of Unix are there, too.
> "som" unix:es (like sun solaris) has been there for close to a decade now ;)
>>
Solaris has not been fully 64 bit for a decade. You dont know what youre
talking about.
>> Can you say pervasive multi-threading? I thought you could.
> anything new? besides from that i mean?
What else exactly runs *everything* in thread families? Besides realtime
OSen I mean.
>>
>> OpenGL support? Yup, and its gonna get *much* better real soon. Early
>> results already look *very* promising.
>>
>> Stability? Your odds of crashing Beos are even less than crashing a
>> unix box. I've even *tried* to crash it and failed. Protected
>> namespace. Go figure. Don't even get me started on Windows.
>>
> beos chrash PRETTY frequently as anyone knows that tested it for a sustained
> amount of time
Hasnt happened to me since 4.5. Ive been using BeOS for 3 years.
>> Think Linux is just as stable? Then try this: start linux -- turn off
>> PC without init 0. Possibly repeat one or two more times. Watch linux
>> crash.
>>
>> Shutting off the PC without an init 0 won't happen in your house? Then
>> you must not have power failures or small children.
>>
> meaning WHAT?
Apparantly that you could brush up on your reading for comprehension
skills.
>> Apps? Oh, all right. BeOS doesn't have a ton of Photoshop-like apps,
>> but there is lots of freeware and shareware already. But then if we
>> based an OS's quality based on apps available, Windows would win hands
>> down. Are you *really* sure about that?
> beos has'nt any apps beside those following base install and you know that!
>>
Oh really?
http://www.bebits.com/
http://www.begames.com/
http://www.beoscentral.com/
http://www.thestudiolab.com/
Looks like you're highly misinformed.
>> Of course, BeOS does have the only audio app that I know of that can
>> play .mp3 files backwards. Haven't you ever wondered what Prince says
>> at the end of "Purple Rain"?
>>
>> Drivers? Again, this is not the fault of the OS, but the will of
>> hardware manufacturers. ATI and 3dfx are now supporting Beos. Now if
>> we only had some more printer and scanner drivers.
>>
> drivers for beos? WHERE?
Intrinsic. Read the white papers.
>> Network / multi-user support? Oh, all right. I can't win here. We'll
>> see what happens in BeOS 6. At least I can say that BeOS
>> was "prepared" for such an enhancement.
> if it survives for that long ;)
Its been around for a number of years already, and shows no sign at all
of wavering (since Be INC. actually sells a product that is tangible, they
will likely avoid the huge market dump thats coming)
>>
>> Ease of use? Totally subjective. You can always go back to DOS 6.22
>> or a command-line only unix if you really want to. I still have my
>> Wordstar disks, just in case.
>>
> yeah its easy to use, but apart from that?
Apart from that, you know nothing of what youre talking about at all.
=====.
------------------------------
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, 28 Sep 2000 16:19:43 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said James A. Robertson in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>>
>> Said James Stutts in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> [...]
>
>>
>> Again, we run aground of the 'popular wisdom' meaning of "monopoly"
>> versus the actual meaning, the legal one. What makes a company a
>> 'monopoly' is not market share, but use of market share to control
>> prices and exclude competition. If you're trying in a back-handed way
>> to say that your cable company is monopolizing, that is a different
>> issue. Microsoft has broken the law, and has already been convicted.
>>
>
>The real price of Windows hasn't been going up though - as compared to,
>say, the real price of my local cable access. Not to mention that I can
>in fact buy other OS', even for Intel - but no matter how hard I try, I
>simply cannot buy from a different cable provider.
I'd say that depends on what you consider the 'real price', of which the
'purchase price' is merely the beginning.
>Why is that? In the MS example, we have a company with no legally
>protected access - just good marketing that has driven it to the top of
>it's niche. With cable, we have US law protecting my provider, no
>matter how crappy their service.
In point of fact, it was anti-competitive behavior, not 'good
marketing', which has secured the monopoly. With cable, you have laws
protecting you and the provider, so that even if your service is
idealistically perfect, there is still the potential, at least, for
competition. Again, though, you wish to put me in the position of
supporting cable companies in order to discuss Microsoft, and the two
have nothing to do with each other, save your inability to distinguish
the circumstances, and why one is illegal and the other is simply the
status quo.
[...]
>The market here wants a standard for interop more than it wants
>competition.
The market everyone wants interoperability. Only Microsoft and those
who defend them believe that this requires a lack of competition.
>There were other viable options in the late 80's prior to
>the rise of Windows. In fact, Apple had the first decent GUI system,
>and the early advantage.
Apple makes computers; Microsoft does not. The other 'viable options'
were all forced out of the market by Microsoft's illegal activity; only
purposeful ignorance would lead one to believe that Microsoft secured a
monopoly on competitive merits.
>As to the height of the price, when you get to the point that you can
>figure out optimal prices let us all know; we will want stock tips.
Adam Smith worked out the method rather clearly several centuries ago: a
competitive market.
>> Why? RedHat bases their prices on what the monopoly is charging, not on
>> what customers are willing to pay in a competitive market where one
>> vendor doesn't control 90%+ of the installed base.
>
>Hmm ? the base installation runs less than $50. How much lower do you
>suppose it can get and still be profitable?
$0.
[...]
>> Why? That's the most expensive way to do it possible. How about I wait
>> for the millions of corporate desktop PCs to prove the product and bring
>> the price down, first?
>
>Gee, you are demonstrating for all of us why the market wants a
>standard, and yet you just don't see it...
You entirely misrepresent the very concept of 'a standard'. The market
does not want a monopoly, and never has, and never will. Which is why
the courts are free to use the 'rule of reason' in deciding anti-trust
cases: if you have a monopoly, reason indicates that you have broken the
law. Free markets do not allow monopolies to form to begin with, let
alone continuation of lack of choice.
>> >
>> >The free market is one that has minimum government interference.
>>
>> The free market is the one that has competition.
>
>a free market is not guranteed by law. Based on US law, it's encouraged
>certainly.
No, it is guaranteed by law. The Sherman Act does not 'encourage' a
free market; it mandates it. The only acts you are allowed to perform
are competitive acts, which support free market competition.
Anti-competitive acts are all illegal; each and every one.
>But the only real monoploies here are those that the government allows
>and protects (by law)
>
>-- postal service
>-- cable service
>-- RBOCs
You're confabulating wildly. None of these are 'monopolies', despite
the inability of 'popular wisdom' to tell the difference between
anti-competitive acts and government regulation.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== 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: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 20:29:07 GMT
Roberto Alsina wrote:
> El jue, 28 sep 2000, Richard escribió:
> >I don't need to since someone has already done it a long time ago. And there is
> >nothing wrong with reusing terms for trivially generalized (and more powerful)
> >versions of the same concept.
>
> Baloney. Indeed someone did that long ago. The science is called sociology.
> Now go read a book on the subject, and tell me if you ever see the term
> psycopathy applied to a non-human entity.
I was thinking of psychohistory, which in many cases has a lot more
explanatory power than sociology.
> >The murderous and antihuman behaviour of corporations.
>
> Are armies psychopaths? Are churches psychopaths?
> Is the stock market psychopath?
The stock market is not a being. Armies *are* psychopathic. Churches
may be psychotic but are not psychopathic in general.
Psychopathy tends to imply antihuman behaviour.
The converse is not correct.
> Since there is hardly a person that doesn't have almost permanent contact with
> corporate behaviour, I have to doubt this. Or else, we would have way more
> psychopaths than we currently have.
And you base this judgement on what?
> > That human psychopaths will be especially attracted to corporate
> > environments.
^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Why? Psychopaths are not necessarily attracted to each other.
They are attracted to environments that encourage their being psychopaths.
> > That corporations will promote psychopathic ideals and
> >qualities in humans and societies. The list is endless and most of it can be
> > *easily* > >verified to be fact (the rest not so easily).
>
> So far, all I see is that you just don't like corporations. A corporation
> killed your puppy when you were a child?
No. I just don't like beings with no empathy (ie, psychopaths).
> Here is where the quid is. I say corporations don't have decision making
> capabilities, at least not any more than a car has.
Then you deny that corporations exist in the usual sense of the word?
A corporation's workforce (while it is working) forms part of its body,
and humans have information-processing and decision-making abilities.
> >Don't dismiss all abstractions as anthropomorphization.
>
> Don't assing the capability to the object, but to the men operating it.
Just how the hell do you define "corporation" anyways?
> >LOL! Conscience?? How the hell could they be psychopaths if they
> >had any conscience?
>
> Perhaps self-awareness is a better term.
Define it.
Corporations *are* self-aware and they *have* self-determination
but I refuse to use these terms because they are vague and fuzzy. You
want to *make* this into a vague discussion to prove your allegation
of vagueness on my part and I'm not going to cooperate.
> >"self-determination" is not well-defined even wrt humans.
>
> If a corporation doesn't have self-determination, it has no decision making
> capabilities. If it has no decision making capabilities, it is not a being
> according to your own definition. So you better define it quick.
Wrong. "decision-making" is clear, unambiguous and well-defined.
"self-determination" is not.
You only want to say that the two are equivalent because you know
that "self-determination" is a fuzzy concept to most people and you
want to give the impression that I'm being fuzzy myself.
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 20:37:52 GMT
Roberto Alsina wrote:
> For instance, how could a corporation develop a trauma, or a phobia, or have an
> emotional attachment? It can't, just as it can not be a psychopat.
How can a perfect psychopath develop an emotional attachment?
You're actually saying "corporations don't have emotions so they
can't lack empathy!" Think you moron!
All psychopathy means is a being devoid of empathy and it doesn't
fucking matter whether the being involved is human or not.
What you're saying makes no more sense than claiming that a square
isn't a regular polygon because it doesn't have the 3 dimensions of cubes!
------------------------------
From: "Ingemar Lundin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows+Linux+MacOS = BeOS
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 20:40:26 GMT
hehehehehe... hey "." you beos fanatics really kills me
all you can do is insulting people when trying to discuss your <so called
os> like i said you make the worst linux geeks appear as ms lovers!
get a life! will you?
/IL
"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev i meddelandet
news:8r090k$14qk$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ingemar Lundin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> Like the command line? Beos has a Bash shell.
> >>
> >> Like the GUI? Beos has its own GUI, as well as Windows, Mac, Amiga and
> >> Gnome look and feel options.
>
> > beos gui ? yeah well... ripped like hell from windows , mac and nextstep
>
> It was? Can you demonstrate this?
>
> >>
> >> SMP support? Yup - automatic. No configuration hassles.
> >>
> >> Can you say 64 bit OS? Ok, so *some* flavors of Unix are there, too.
>
> > "som" unix:es (like sun solaris) has been there for close to a decade
now ;)
> >>
>
> Solaris has not been fully 64 bit for a decade. You dont know what youre
> talking about.
>
> >> Can you say pervasive multi-threading? I thought you could.
>
> > anything new? besides from that i mean?
>
> What else exactly runs *everything* in thread families? Besides realtime
> OSen I mean.
>
> >>
> >> OpenGL support? Yup, and its gonna get *much* better real soon. Early
> >> results already look *very* promising.
> >>
> >> Stability? Your odds of crashing Beos are even less than crashing a
> >> unix box. I've even *tried* to crash it and failed. Protected
> >> namespace. Go figure. Don't even get me started on Windows.
> >>
>
> > beos chrash PRETTY frequently as anyone knows that tested it for a
sustained
> > amount of time
>
> Hasnt happened to me since 4.5. Ive been using BeOS for 3 years.
>
> >> Think Linux is just as stable? Then try this: start linux -- turn off
> >> PC without init 0. Possibly repeat one or two more times. Watch linux
> >> crash.
> >>
> >> Shutting off the PC without an init 0 won't happen in your house? Then
> >> you must not have power failures or small children.
> >>
>
> > meaning WHAT?
>
> Apparantly that you could brush up on your reading for comprehension
> skills.
>
> >> Apps? Oh, all right. BeOS doesn't have a ton of Photoshop-like apps,
> >> but there is lots of freeware and shareware already. But then if we
> >> based an OS's quality based on apps available, Windows would win hands
> >> down. Are you *really* sure about that?
>
> > beos has'nt any apps beside those following base install and you know
that!
> >>
>
> Oh really?
>
> http://www.bebits.com/
> http://www.begames.com/
> http://www.beoscentral.com/
> http://www.thestudiolab.com/
>
> Looks like you're highly misinformed.
>
> >> Of course, BeOS does have the only audio app that I know of that can
> >> play .mp3 files backwards. Haven't you ever wondered what Prince says
> >> at the end of "Purple Rain"?
> >>
> >> Drivers? Again, this is not the fault of the OS, but the will of
> >> hardware manufacturers. ATI and 3dfx are now supporting Beos. Now if
> >> we only had some more printer and scanner drivers.
> >>
>
> > drivers for beos? WHERE?
>
> Intrinsic. Read the white papers.
>
> >> Network / multi-user support? Oh, all right. I can't win here. We'll
> >> see what happens in BeOS 6. At least I can say that BeOS
> >> was "prepared" for such an enhancement.
>
> > if it survives for that long ;)
>
> Its been around for a number of years already, and shows no sign at all
> of wavering (since Be INC. actually sells a product that is tangible, they
> will likely avoid the huge market dump thats coming)
>
> >>
> >> Ease of use? Totally subjective. You can always go back to DOS 6.22
> >> or a command-line only unix if you really want to. I still have my
> >> Wordstar disks, just in case.
> >>
>
> > yeah its easy to use, but apart from that?
>
> Apart from that, you know nothing of what youre talking about at all.
>
>
>
>
> -----.
>
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 17:53:02 -0300
El jue, 28 sep 2000, Richard escribió:
>Roberto Alsina wrote:
>
>> For instance, how could a corporation develop a trauma, or a phobia, or have an
>> emotional attachment? It can't, just as it can not be a psychopat.
>
>How can a perfect psychopath develop an emotional attachment?
It was an example. I see you carefully avoided the other two.
>You're actually saying "corporations don't have emotions so they
>can't lack empathy!" Think you moron!
No, I am not saying that, exactly. However, corporations, being inanimate
objects, indeed lack emotions, among many other things.
>All psychopathy means is a being devoid of empathy and it doesn't
>fucking matter whether the being involved is human or not.
Only rational beings are capable of empathy. A company's lack of empathy
doesn't turn it into a psychopath, just like my car's lack of emotions doesn't
make it a son of a bitch.
>What you're saying makes no more sense than claiming that a square
>isn't a regular polygon because it doesn't have the 3 dimensions of cubes!
No, I am saying that a square is not a polyhedron. Since you claim to
have mathematical training, I am sure you can see that as true.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 16:50:24 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Richard in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>Roberto Alsina wrote:
>
>> For instance, how could a corporation develop a trauma, or a phobia, or have an
>> emotional attachment? It can't, just as it can not be a psychopat.
>
>How can a perfect psychopath develop an emotional attachment?
>You're actually saying "corporations don't have emotions so they
>can't lack empathy!" Think you moron!
Yes, that is exactly what he's saying. Corporations don't have any
emotions, capabilities of emotions, or potential for emotions; therefore
they cannot be considered to 'lack' empathy, in the same way that a
brick cannot be considered lacking in an empathic emotional response.
>All psychopathy means is a being devoid of empathy and it doesn't
>fucking matter whether the being involved is human or not.
Of course it does. That's a silly statement to make. Doorknobs,
according to your definition, are psychopathic.
>What you're saying makes no more sense than claiming that a square
>isn't a regular polygon because it doesn't have the 3 dimensions of cubes!
And what you're saying is that all squares are cubes, because you can
imagine that they extend into the third dimension.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== 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: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Is Linux some kind of a joke?
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 20:35:36 GMT
> Is Linux some kind of a joke or something?
Yep. Isn't it funny how you can gat all that stuff for free?
> I mean I instaled Redhat and it looks like shit.
Man, you must have some strange looking shit, if it looks anything like
X. Besides, X is crap, use SVGATextMode. That rules. Seriously, though
the new RedHats look fine (TT fonts and all that). So, let me guess: RH
4.2?
> No games, no support
XEvil rules, fool. I've heard that QIII is quite good too, not to
mention a host of other games...
> for my video card. No support for my soundcard or any of my USB
Aaah, have you got Pete's SB16?
> devices...
Try a new kernel.
> Why should I return to the 1980's just to run Linux?
Can I buy your time machine off you? Can you imagine how impresserd
people would be if you showed them QIII in the 80's?
> Linux is a piece of shit....
Think free speech, not free shit...
-Ed
--
Konrad Zuse should recognised. He built the first | Edward Rosten
binary digital computer (Z1, with floating point) the | Engineer
first general purpose computer (the Z3) and the first | u98ejr@
commercial one (Z4). He got there before Von Neumann too| eng.ox.ac.uk
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 17:56:11 -0300
El jue, 28 sep 2000, Richard escribió:
>Roberto Alsina wrote:
>
>> El jue, 28 sep 2000, Richard escribió:
>> >I don't need to since someone has already done it a long time ago. And there is
>> >nothing wrong with reusing terms for trivially generalized (and more powerful)
>> >versions of the same concept.
>>
>> Baloney. Indeed someone did that long ago. The science is called sociology.
>> Now go read a book on the subject, and tell me if you ever see the term
>> psycopathy applied to a non-human entity.
>
>I was thinking of psychohistory, which in many cases has a lot more
>explanatory power than sociology.
You take your Asimov too seriously.
>> >The murderous and antihuman behaviour of corporations.
>>
>> Are armies psychopaths? Are churches psychopaths?
>> Is the stock market psychopath?
>
>The stock market is not a being.
The characteristics you mentioned as privative of "beings" were:
a) Information processing: the market is a terrific information processing
system. Better than any company I have seen.
b) Decision making: the stock market makes decisions in the same sense any
corporation does.
Perhaps if you can give me a feature of "being" that a corporation has and the
stock market doesn't have, I will understand your operational definition of
"being".
> Armies *are* psychopathic. Churches
>may be psychotic but are not psychopathic in general.
>
>Psychopathy tends to imply antihuman behaviour.
>The converse is not correct.
Is there any large group of human beings with a common goal you don't see as
psychopathic?
>> Since there is hardly a person that doesn't have almost permanent contact with
>> corporate behaviour, I have to doubt this. Or else, we would have way more
>> psychopaths than we currently have.
>
>And you base this judgement on what?
That if permanent contact was an important cause of psychopathy, it would be
simple to show cases where it occured.
>> > That human psychopaths will be especially attracted to corporate
>> > environments.
>> Why? Psychopaths are not necessarily attracted to each other.
>They are attracted to environments that encourage their being psychopaths.
>
>> > That corporations will promote psychopathic ideals and
>> >qualities in humans and societies. The list is endless and most of it can be
>> > *easily* > >verified to be fact (the rest not so easily).
>>
>> So far, all I see is that you just don't like corporations. A corporation
>> killed your puppy when you were a child?
>
>No. I just don't like beings with no empathy (ie, psychopaths).
Corporations are not beings, so you don't need to dislike them.
>> Here is where the quid is. I say corporations don't have decision making
>> capabilities, at least not any more than a car has.
>
>Then you deny that corporations exist in the usual sense of the word?
No. Cars exist, too, before you ask.
>A corporation's workforce (while it is working) forms part of its body,
>and humans have information-processing and decision-making abilities.
You are again antropomorphizing the corporation. "the driver (while he is
driving) forms part of the body of the car, and humans have
information-processing and decision-making abilities".
So, by your logic, cars could be psychopaths.
>> >Don't dismiss all abstractions as anthropomorphization.
>>
>> Don't assing the capability to the object, but to the men operating it.
>
>Just how the hell do you define "corporation" anyways?
"a body formed and authorized by law to act as a single person although
constituted by one or more persons and legally endowed with various rights
and duties including the capacity of succession" is good enough for me.
>> >LOL! Conscience?? How the hell could they be psychopaths if they
>> >had any conscience?
>>
>> Perhaps self-awareness is a better term.
>
>Define it.
Conscience of its own existence. Of course it assumes that the corporation is
capable of rational thought, which it is not.
>Corporations *are* self-aware and they *have* self-determination
>but I refuse to use these terms because they are vague and fuzzy. You
>want to *make* this into a vague discussion to prove your allegation
>of vagueness on my part and I'm not going to cooperate.
Ok, I take them back, then. You define what a "being" is and I'll play by your
definition.
>> >"self-determination" is not well-defined even wrt humans.
>>
>> If a corporation doesn't have self-determination, it has no decision making
>> capabilities. If it has no decision making capabilities, it is not a being
>> according to your own definition. So you better define it quick.
>
>Wrong. "decision-making" is clear, unambiguous and well-defined.
>"self-determination" is not.
Cool then. Corporations have no decision-making abilities. The people working
in the corporation do. But so does the driver of a car. That is why I said that
corporations have no more decision making capability than a car.
>You only want to say that the two are equivalent because you know
>that "self-determination" is a fuzzy concept to most people and you
>want to give the impression that I'm being fuzzy myself.
It's not fuzzy to me, but I'm ok with not using them.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: "Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Is Linux some kind of a joke?
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 22:02:07 +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>Is Linux some kind of a joke or something?
> I mean I instaled Redhat and it looks like shit. No games, no support
>for my video card. No support for my soundcard or any of my USB
>devices...
>
Strange, my copy of mandrake 7.1 definately supports USB and most soundcards
(I have no
USB devices to test this support though).
>This has to be a joke?
>
Yes, it is hilarious having a system that runs reliably for months without a
reboot while all your
win9x using friends have to reboot at least 3 times per day.
>Why should I return to the 1980's just to run Linux?
>
Instead of being stuck with 1950's software stability (this is probably
being a bit unfair,
I am sure historic machines such as EDVAC, EDSAC, Manchester MK1 and LEO -
the
Lyons Electronic Office machine from the 1950's never crashed as often as
win9x)
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
