Linux-Advocacy Digest #457, Volume #29 Wed, 4 Oct 00 20:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: What kind of WinTroll Idiot are you anyway? (Perry Pip)
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?) (Roberto
Alsina)
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?) (Roberto
Alsina)
Re: Migration --> NT costing please :-) ("PistolGrip")
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: Migration --> NT costing please :-) ("Chad Myers")
RE: 2.4! ("Raul Iglesias")
Re: Windows+Linux+MacOS = BeOS (Steve Mading)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: What kind of WinTroll Idiot are you anyway?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 22:59:04 GMT
On 4 Oct 2000 20:04:12 GMT,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Perry Pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On 4 Oct 2000 17:57:25 GMT,
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Sure you can. You can measure a CPU's frequency to 10 decimal places, easily.
>>>
>>>> Assuming you can count the oscilations exactly, you will have a +-0.5 error in
>>>> the count.
>>>
>>>> Measure time in seconds with an error of less than 1E-25, and count the
>>>> oscillations in 1E15 seconds.
>
>> Uhm...Roberto...do you know how long 1E15 seconds is?? You must
>> believe in reincarnation:)
>
>>>> You will have 10 significant decimal places for the frequency of that CPU, with
>>>> plenty to spare (check the error propagation, if you want).
>>>
>>>*significant* decimal places?
>>>
>>>Thats not enough to cover the 13 offered in the original post. :)
>
>> You are measuring frequency in Mhz. One Mhz is equal to 1,000,000
>> Hz. One Hz is defined as one oscillation per "second". So now what
>> exactly is a "second", Dr. Einstien?? A "second" is defined by
>> international agreement as 9,192,631,770 oscillations of Cesium-133
>> excitation microwave radiation. So if you can count 9,192,631,770
>> Cesium-133 oscillations you've counted for one second exactly by
>> definition.
>
>> Now we wanted Mhz to ten decimal places. That's the same a Hz to four
>> decimal places. So instead of spending all your cash on W2K plus all
>> the buggy software that goes with it, get yourself a Cesium-133
>> clock. Then count CPU oscilations for exactly 10,000 seconds (exactly
>> 91,926,317,700,000 cesium-133 oscillations). Divide the count of CPU
>> oscilations by 10,000 for Hz or 1E10 for Mhz. If you really want to be
>> sure the last digit is accurate, run the test for 20,000 seconds or
>> more.
>
>More. In order to go to 13,15 or 19 sig figs on this problem, youd need to
>run that cesium clock for many hundreds of lifetimes.
20,000 seconds would be approx 1.333E13 cycles of the processor, and
*exactly* 1.838526354E14 cesium cylces. That's enough for 13 sig figs.
>>>Yes, just a teeny weeny one. You also have to take into consideration variance
>>>according to temperature, humidity, acts of god and whether its the second tuesday
>>>of the month.
>
>> True. You'll get a different result every time you do the test.
>
>
>>>Once you reach out to that kind of placement, you're beginning to
>>>deal with a quantum-like quality;
>
>> Not even close. A 666Mhz chip has a period of 1.5 nanosecs. The cesium
>> 133 radiation has a period of approx 109 picosecs. Visible light is
>> about a 1E4 times shorter than that and gamma rays are about 1E9 times
>> shorter.
>
>You clearly missed where I told everyone all about the difference between
>'measurement'and 'extrapolation'.
>
How am I extrapolating?? I'm *counting* the number of cycles over 2E4
seconds, which is over 1E13 cycles and can be timed acurrately enough
with cesium. Thus I have 13 sig figs in my count. Then I'm dividing by
2E4 to get the cycles per second. Granted it's only an average becuase
the frequency will fluctuate during the test, but it's not
extrapolation.
Perry
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 20:18:29 -0300
El mié, 04 oct 2000, Richard escribió:
>Roberto Alsina wrote:
>> El mié, 04 oct 2000, Richard escribió:
>> >Ahhhh, this is finally coming to an end.
>>
>> Are you considering leaving the thread? I notice this is in reply to that post
>> where you made such a terribly obvious logical error. Perhaps you are too
>> ashamed?
>
>LOL! I've only been waiting for this thread to die for the last week!
It's easy to make it die, you know.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 20:18:53 -0300
El mié, 04 oct 2000, Richard escribió:
>Roberto Alsina wrote:
>> In your words, why should I bother? But hey, today, I'd say it includes every
>> person who is of the homo sapiens species. I suppose you could define homo
>> sapiens semi-formally, somehow, based on commonality of DNA.
>
>IOW, you're going to change your definition when it suits you. You've
>already broken your own definition when you stated that aliens would
>have to be included in the word 'human'.
You seem to have a really bad time reading. I said that if aliens were proven
to exist, the definition may have to be changed. Currently, they are not, so it
has not.
>> >> Not in the corporation I work for.
>> >
>> >And this is even remotely relevant because ..... ?
>>
>> It shows that "corporations deny employees the right to piss" is not a correct
>> statement.
>
>IMBECILE! It only shows that "corporations ALWAYS deny ...." is incorrect but
>since I have never claimed or implied any such thing, it is IRRELEVANT.
Nonsense. For someone who claims to be a formalist, you have no problem being
completely illogic. Formally, if you wanted it to be a statement that is not
always true, you need to qualify it. A is B means A is always B. If you mean,
sometimes, you have to say it.
>> I don't care. All I said is "the UN would disagree". Just showed you they
>
>If the UN doesn't fucking matter then why the fuck did you bring it up???
Who says it doesn't matter? Please don't try to impose your opinion by forse of
assertion.
>> indeed would disagree. If you care or not, I don't care. You are free to
>> believe that there is no right to have a religion. Just acknowledge plenty of
>> others disagree, with good reasons.
>
>With *NO* rational reasons. There is no right to have religions since this
>supposed "right" directly contradicts freedom FROM religion.
My having a religion doesn't impose any religiousness on you.
> Claiming that
>you have a right to impose your little irrationalities on others is like
>claiming that you have the right to murder people; utterly absurd.
Claiming that because someone is religious he is imposing religious on others
is just false.
>> >And of course, this is completely irrelevant since this situation never
>> >needs to come to pass in order to go from corporation to cooperative;
>>
>> It is the path you suggested for such a thing to happen. If you say this
>
>Look, cretin, I said that A had to happen and B had to happen, I never
>said that B could only happen after A!
Perhaps you could explain how a corp. can become a cooperative, then.
>> doesn't need happen, I would say you had not needed suggesting it.
>>
>> >what the original problem was and the only thing I gave a damn about.
>>
>> I still believe such a thing is not possible. How could it happen? The way you
>> suggested doesn't seem to work.
>
>You're a fuckhead.
And you, my friend, are wrong. And as usual, resort to insult when shown to be
wrong. What a sore loser. With emphasis on loser.
>> >A corporation can issue stock to its employees at the same time that it
>> >is buying back stock from non-employees.
>>
>> It would break the corp's fiduciary duty, and be probably forbidden by law.
>
>No, it would not.
Giving away money to employees with the purpose of decreasing stockholders's
stock value is not against fiduciary duty? Amazing.
>> And even if it wasn't, the employees would have worthless stock, since the
>> dilution of value would be even greater.
>
>The employees would have the only VOTING stock. That's the only thing that
>matters, you antedeluvian imbecile! That employees would pay for this stock
>is irrelevant and is in the NATURE of stock!
You seem to have a very poor grasp on the free market. On the other hand, you
claimed it doesn't exist, so it figures.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 20:25:19 -0300
El mié, 04 oct 2000, Richard escribió:
>Roberto Alsina wrote:
>> Well, I tend to trust dictionary definitions when someone tells me I misuse a
>> word. Where should I look? I believed immortal to have a meaning. You claimed
>> it has a completely different one, one which I know doesn't fit the context
>> where I have seen the word used in the past. So, I look for a reference. If you
>> can provide a reference supporting your meaning and not mine, please provide.
>
>I change my definitions:
Again.
>immortal = animate object that does not age
That is not english. I'd suggest getting another word.
>eternal = inanimate object that does not age OR animate object that does not
die >
>Perpetual cell lines are immortal.
But perpetual cell lines are very peculiar. Normal cells can not reproduce ad
infinitum. Cancerous cells and embryo cells can, though.
>Elementary particles are eternal.
>When people say that "the stone is immortal" they are being mystical
>and thinking of it as an animate object. "the eternal flame" either
>implies that the flame is animate and never goes out, or is inanimate
>but doesn't age depending on how mystical someone is.
>
>Corporations are immortal because they do not age and are animate beings
>(and thus animate objects).
Corporations, using that peculiar definition of immortal, are immortal, if we
accept them to be animate beings.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 20:30:48 -0300
El mié, 04 oct 2000, Richard escribió:
>Roberto Alsina wrote:
>> El mié, 04 oct 2000, Richard escribió:
>
>From what you describe, it looks like your position with respect
>to your corporation (no oversight whatsoever) is analogous to a
>tumour or other cancerous growth.
Piling analogies doesn't make them any better.
>> >> as I have said a hundred times. Add this to the list of ways in
>> >> which that analogy is flawed: decisions in corporations are traceable to
>> >> individuals, thoughts in the brain are not traceable to neurons.
> ^^^^^^^
>
>> >Wrong idiot; they're not traceable by *YOU* and you think that your
>> >idiocy is an inherent trait of the universe, that it's not *your*
>> >limitations, only the "universe's" limitations. Arrogrant cretin.
>>
>> You just said thoughts are not traceable to individual neurons the previous
> ^^^^^^^^^^
>Do I have to outline everything? Are you even capable of feeding yourself
>or do you need someone to do that for you as well?
I like being fed, but have to do it myself, usually.
>Most corporate decisions are traceable to humans (and many are not) but
>they are never traceable to a SINGLE human. If no member of the corporation
>ever hired you, you have no oversight whatsoever and you do not follow
>the implicit rules and values of the corporation then you are a foreign
>invader and NOT part of the corporation.
Ever heard the concept of "first employee"? You seem to believe the values of
the corporation and my own disagree, while usually they don't.
However, if the corporation values (whatever that may be) mandated I do
something I considered wrong, I would not do it. Regardless of what you may
believe, I don't let anyone override my own ethics.
> If you /were/ hired but you still
>have no oversight then you are a tumour. If you were hired and you have
>no oversight and you don't conform to the corporation then you are a
>*malignant* tumour.
And you claim you don't do metaphor.
>> post. Maybe you should not consider your stated position so harshly.
>
>Maybe you shouldn't be such a fucking idiot.
Maybe you have never actually worked for a living?
>I can, and just have wrt immortal and eternal, detect inconsistencies
>in my position without anyone ever proving they exist and resolve those
>inconsistencies on my own.
Uh? It took 3 posts for you to actually get it.
> You can't detect inconsistencies in your own
>position even AFTER they have been proven by someone else.
Nonsense.
>> The CEO can have a degree of oversight from the board. Noone oversees the
>> board (except law, but that's external to the corp.).
>
>Except the shareholders. And the shareholders are a quintessential mob.
The shareholders oversee through the board. No shareholder can usually call the
CEO and tell him what to do.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: "PistolGrip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Migration --> NT costing please :-)
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 18:27:10 -0500
"A transfinite number of monkeys" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Wed, 04 Oct 2000 12:58:08 GMT,
> Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : > 1) 2xNT4 or Window 2000 Server licenses to provide RAID1 on both
computers.
> :
> : Windows 2000 professional will do all this.
>
> Don't read those license agreements much, do you? Win2k Pro is not to be
> used as a web server platform. You need to buck up at least $800 per
> copy for Win2k Server.
You can serve one WWW site with W2K Pro.
Dave
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 23:36:15 GMT
Roberto Alsina wrote:
> You seem to have a really bad time reading. I said that if aliens were proven
> to exist, the definition may have to be changed. Currently, they are not, so it
> has not.
Irrelevant, cretin. Something need not be proven to exist in order to
require a change in the language. That it be shown POSSIBLE is usually
sufficient.
*ARE* aliens human?
If so then *why*? Produce a FORMAL definition of human that will *NOT*
need to be updated regularly (geez, ever heard of mathematics?)
And if not then can they be psychopaths?
> Nonsense. For someone who claims to be a formalist, you have no problem being
And as I already explained, cretin, 1) being a formalist is a philosophical
position and has nothing to do with being formal all the time, and 2) you are
too stupid to appreciate rigour, let alone work rigorously, so I hardly feel
the need to be rigourous myself.
> completely illogic. Formally, if you wanted it to be a statement that is not
> always true, you need to qualify it. A is B means A is always B. If you mean,
> sometimes, you have to say it.
I'm only rigorous when it's RELEVANT, nitwit. You're only ever concerned
with logic when you think you can score a point. I (Richard) am rigorous,
you (Roberto) are pedantic. Learn to conjugate that verb properly!
> >> I don't care. All I said is "the UN would disagree". Just showed you they
> >
> >If the UN doesn't fucking matter then why the fuck did you bring it up???
>
> Who says it doesn't matter? Please don't try to impose your opinion by forse of
> assertion.
And now we're ALL the way back to the beginning where I explained that
the UN isn't an expert in moral philosophy!!!!!!!!
> >With *NO* rational reasons. There is no right to have religions since this
> >supposed "right" directly contradicts freedom FROM religion.
>
> My having a religion doesn't impose any religiousness on you.
Learn to be consistent, cretin. At least in the same fucking sentence!
Your being religIOUS does not impose any "religiOUSNESS" on me.
Your having a religION imposes that religION on me. A religion
is an inherently public structure, like a corporation.
> > Claiming that
> >you have a right to impose your little irrationalities on others is like
> >claiming that you have the right to murder people; utterly absurd.
>
> Claiming that because someone is religious he is imposing religious on others
> is just false.
And you are a fucking moron.
> >Look, cretin, I said that A had to happen and B had to happen, I never
> >said that B could only happen after A!
>
> Perhaps you could explain how a corp. can become a cooperative, then.
And now we're ALL the way back to the beginning *AGAIN*.
> >You're a fuckhead.
>
> And you, my friend, are wrong. And as usual, resort to insult when shown to be
> wrong. What a sore loser. With emphasis on loser.
You're a moron.
> >No, it would not.
>
> Giving away money to employees with the purpose of decreasing stockholders's
> stock value is not against fiduciary duty? Amazing.
No, SHITHEAD, *selling* stock to employees ("issuing" does not imply giving it
away you fucking stupid moronic shit for brains!) and buying back the stock of
non-employees does not devalue the stock.
> You seem to have a very poor grasp on the free market. On the other hand, you
> claimed it doesn't exist, so it figures.
You have a poor grasp of EVERYTHING, including Godel's incompleteness theorem
(sight unseen, you are just SO much of a moron that I feel 99% confidence in
that statement)!
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 23:39:19 GMT
Roberto Alsina wrote:
> >immortal = animate object that does not age
>
> That is not english. I'd suggest getting another word.
I'd suggest you get a brain.
> >eternal = inanimate object that does not age OR animate object that does not
> die >
> >Perpetual cell lines are immortal.
>
> But perpetual cell lines are very peculiar. Normal cells can not reproduce ad
> infinitum. Cancerous cells and embryo cells can, though.
And what is your fucking point?
Are you implying that normal cell lines *are* immortal??????
> >Corporations are immortal because they do not age and are animate beings
> >(and thus animate objects).
>
> Corporations, using that peculiar definition of immortal, are immortal, if we
> accept them to be animate beings.
*WRONG* NUMBSKULL! Corporations need only be animate *OBJECTS*.
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Migration --> NT costing please :-)
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 23:45:23 GMT
"A transfinite number of monkeys" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Wed, 04 Oct 2000 12:58:08 GMT,
> Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : > 1) 2xNT4 or Window 2000 Server licenses to provide RAID1 on both
computers.
> :
> : Windows 2000 professional will do all this.
>
> Don't read those license agreements much, do you? Win2k Pro is not to be
> used as a web server platform. You need to buck up at least $800 per
> copy for Win2k Server.
Who said that? What is Personal Web Server for, then? Check your licenses
before you critize. Both PWS and IIS allow for any number of connections,
but PWS's capabilities in terms of hosting multiple sites on multiple ports
and several other tasks are limited, but it'll serve up ASP and connect
to a database just as well as IIS.
> Hmm.. Since your "evidence" is anecdotal, I'll counter with an anecdote of
> my own. Here's our mail server at work:
<SNIP: uptime reports>
I wasn't trying to imply that Linux COULDN'T be stable, I was implying
that Linux CAN be just as unstable as the Penguinistas seem to claim
NT 4 is (weekly reboots, etc). Both CAN be stable in good installations
and both CAN be unstable in bad installations.
> : > Or more importantly, who really believes MS can sustain a lower TCO if a
> : > MS solution is indeed more attractive at this point in time?
> :
> : Everyone who has deployed an MS solution properly and is reaping the
> : benefits.
>
> Like my friends who work at a large insurance company's data center down
> the road here (in NJ)? Their standard operating procedure is to reboot
> anything running NT or 2000 every Sunday night at 7:00PM.
I said "properly". If they have to reboot more than once or twice a year,
then they haven't install properly.
> Their bluescreens have been cut by 2/3 since instituting weekly reboots...
If they've had more than one bluescreen a year, or more, then they
haven't install properly. In fact, if they've ever had a bluescreen on
a production system, then they haven't install properly.
> They do "wacky" things like run Compaq Proliants with 100% Compaq-sanctioned
> hardware, with all of their "special" Windows installs (to accomodate the
Compaq
> butchered hardware), and such crazy applications as SQL Server and Exchange.
It's obvious you're exaggerating here. All my boxes were Compaq and they were
far better than any other vendor (namely Dell) in every respect.
Ironically, I've never had one bluescreen on any of my servers, all of which
have relatively heavy load (e.g. the smaller boxes have smaller loads than
the larger boxes, but they have proprotinately equal loads).
Never had to reboot any of them except for physical relocation. Most of my
boxes have >300 day uptimes. They would've had around ~480 day uptimes
be we moved our offices about 480 days ago. Some of the other servers
which have less uptime were only brought on recently, and haven't been taken
down since.
This is a fact, there's no exaggeration. Likewise, I realize that Linux
installations can have high uptimes as well.
Both can have bad installations as I mentioned before, and as you mentioned
in this post.
However, it takes someone with little or no knowledge of systems administration
to be able to hose a Compaq installation that hard to have to reboot often
or have BSODs frequently. I suggest your friends find another line of work.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Raul Iglesias" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: 2.4!
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 23:46:23 GMT
> Well, I just moved to 2.4 test 9... I must say, I'm impressed! All my
> USB devices working... great... great... great *jaw lying on the ground
> after compilation* ... WOW! I love it!
I think really 2.4 serie is still unstable by far; used it since test1 to
test8 and run
well on some hardware, bad on another and at all on a few of configurations.
> Hmm.. with this kernel, and some more work by the GNOME foundation and
> Helixcode Linux can finally kick some real butt on the Desktop (together
> with NVidia hardware, we just need a damn open-source GL driver *g*).
I dislike a lot GNOME and hope it not to become neither the dominant nor
the only desktop around, in fact, I do not need a desktop at all.
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows+Linux+MacOS = BeOS
Date: 4 Oct 2000 23:44:30 GMT
. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: What else exactly runs *everything* in thread families? Besides realtime
: OSen I mean.
This is not always an advantage. Sometimes you'd much rather have
seperate processes with separate memory spaces than several threads of
a monolithic single process. Consider for example the UNIX remote login
technique:
The ssh or telnet server listens for connections. When it sees one it
forks itself as a new process, and in this new copy of itself it sets up
a pseud-tty and runs a process called 'login' in it. The 'login'
process asks for name and password, and if it's good, changes user ID's
to that user and replaces itself with the user's chosen shell program.
In this way, each person logging into the machine gets their own
processes, totally independant of each other, even through they all
started from the same server listening to their initial connection.
This is preferable to all of them being threads in one big process,
becuase their memory spaces are protected from each other then.
Consider apache's technique vs IIS's technique:
apache: - each connection talks to a new httpd process. If there should
happen to be a nasty bug, only that httpd dies, not the whole webserver.
IIS: - each connection is a thread in one monolithic app.
Threads should only be used when it is a design goal to have them
manipulating each other's memory, and even then if they only need
to talk to each other a little bit here and there, semaphores or
shared memory should be used. Threads should only be used when
you need a high occurance of threads looking at the same memory.
Processes are much simpler to code, and safer memory-wise. The
only reason Windows uses so many threads and UNIX does not is that
process creation is a more expensive operation in Windows than it
is in UNIX. In most modern UNIXen, a process and a thread are
pretty much the same thing - the only difference being whether they
are attached to the same memory spaces or different memory spaces.
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 23:54:02 GMT
Roberto Alsina wrote:
> El mié, 04 oct 2000, Richard escribió:
> >From what you describe, it looks like your position with respect
> >to your corporation (no oversight whatsoever) is analogous to a
> >tumour or other cancerous growth.
>
> Piling analogies doesn't make them any better.
Then it's a good thing that I'm not doing that. EXTENDING the
same analogy to encompass more and more and more only makes that
single analogy more powerful.
Parasites and invaders come free with the 'corporation as human
body' analogy. In fact, I'd be in trouble if there WEREN'T an
analogue.
> >Most corporate decisions are traceable to humans (and many are not) but
> >they are never traceable to a SINGLE human. If no member of the corporation
> >ever hired you, you have no oversight whatsoever and you do not follow
> >the implicit rules and values of the corporation then you are a foreign
> >invader and NOT part of the corporation.
>
> Ever heard the concept of "first employee"?
Ever heard the concept of "first node connected to the network"?
How about "Invisible Pink Unicorn"?
Not everything that can be named is meaningful. That is exactly why
people need to be rigorous; so that they don't end up like you.
> You seem to believe the values of
> the corporation and my own disagree, while usually they don't.
And you were selected on that exact basis. If they had disagreed,
you would never have been selected. The values of the corporation
do not come from you, they *dictate* you.
> However, if the corporation values (whatever that may be) mandated I do
> something I considered wrong, I would not do it. Regardless of what you may
At which point you would be recognized as a foreigner and fired ASAP.
> believe, I don't let anyone override my own ethics.
>
> > If you /were/ hired but you still
> >have no oversight then you are a tumour. If you were hired and you have
> >no oversight and you don't conform to the corporation then you are a
> >*malignant* tumour.
>
> And you claim you don't do metaphor.
ANALOGY! But I *already* explained this four or five separate times!
> >I can, and just have wrt immortal and eternal, detect inconsistencies
> >in my position without anyone ever proving they exist and resolve those
> >inconsistencies on my own.
>
> Uh? It took 3 posts for you to actually get it.
And note how in none of those posts you did any significant work or
ever even attempted to be rigorous, formal, or even rational.
> >Except the shareholders. And the shareholders are a quintessential mob.
>
> The shareholders oversee through the board. No shareholder can usually call the
> CEO and tell him what to do.
Except when the share price plummets. At which point he is immediately held
responsible by the shareholders, and not by "law".
As for that whole crap about "fiduciary duty", you obviously don't know how
Japanese corporations work. They beat up annoying shareholders over there.
Of course, Japanese corporations are a hell of a lot less psychopathic than
American corporations. It is the very essence of a shareholder to act like a
psychopath; that's where the corporations' psychopathic values come from and
corporations that don't have shareholders or that simply don't give a fuck
about them are less (or not at all) psychopathic.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
