Linux-Advocacy Digest #470, Volume #29 Thu, 5 Oct 00 16:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: What kind of WinTroll Idiot are you anyway? ("Chad")
Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: The real issue
Re: Corel bailed out by MS? Let the games begin!
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (.)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (Matt Kennel)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("Chad")
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes ("Chad")
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: 2.4! (Darren Winsper)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply-To: "Chad" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Chad" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: What kind of WinTroll Idiot are you anyway?
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 18:32:00 GMT
"John Sanders" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chad wrote:
> >
> > "John Sanders" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Chad Myers wrote:
> [snip]
> > > On the other hand, how many people here that support Windows do you
> > > suppose have a good knowledge of Linux/UNIX? I mean people who know the
> > > shell well and regexps at a minimum? I bet only a handful.
> >
> > That's irrelevant. <MISSING: important part of the paragraph that explains
this statement>
>
> Oh, man! So it's irrelevant to know about what you are criticizing?
> Thanks for proving my point.
Please refrain from reading half my post, misquoting it, then making ignorant
replies to it.
Keep it in context and reply to it, or don't reply at all.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 18:32:07 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Erik Funkenbusch
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Wed, 4 Oct 2000 11:58:35 -0500
<A4JC5.4088$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>"David M. Butler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > I beg to differ. Personal web server is based on IIS 5.0 under Windows
>> > 2000, and it SMOKES apache in almost every way.
>>
>> Which is obviously why Apache is used so much more widely, right?
>
>And what makes you think that apache is used more widely? I don't think
>there are any statistics to back this up, unless of course you mean "More
>domain names are hosted on apache servers", but that doesn't mean it's used
>in more physical servers. It may be, but I don't see any evidence to
>support that other than wishful thinking.
>
>Netcrafts numbers simply do not paint the full picture.
I strongly suspect -- from cursory research -- that they can't
differentiate between "website that is up" and "website that is
actively working, soliciting business, answering questions,
and servicing users".
A pity, for it would be nice to have a breakdown by Total Megabytes of
Data Served, or perhaps Megabytes Per Hour, as opposed to a mere
tabulation of websites. One might liken Netcraft's methods to
poking a needle into a cage in complete darkness, drawing a minute
quantity of blood (bandwidth), then saying "See, there's an animal
in there." Can't tell whether it's a shrew or a gorilla without
further testing, though. :-)
Would IIS (NT/W2K) win? Possibly. I don't know, really, and I suspect
very few people do.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: The real issue
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 18:33:17 -0000
On 5 Oct 2000 01:06:41 GMT, Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Kolbjørn S. Brønnick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>: Hi all!
>
>: I just wanted to say that I am a bit fed up with some of the advocacy for
>: Linux that I have seen here. People who say that Netscape haven't crashed
>: at all, people who claim Linux is a good desktop OS, compared to W2K.
>
>This depends largely on how you use Netscape. Netscape on Linux is
>very crash-prone when visiting certain sites using Java, but not
>at all if you have Java turned off. I used to crash Netscape about
Interestingly enough, the version of IE that ships with NT5
doesn't seem to like the Pogo Linux site very well. So it
seems that my old remarks still hold true: both hellspawn of
Mosaic with crash and burn depending on what sites you visit.
[deletia]
>: These are not the important issues. It's obvious to me that Windows has the
>: best desktop environment, the best applications and so-on.
>
>: The important issues are: do we want to use proprietary office suites with
>: proprietary unpublished file-formats? Do we want to use proprietary
>: development languages and tools? Or, do we want free exchange of
>: information and freedom from the immoral mafia that is Microsoft?
>
>That's only an important issue to some. I'm not in a field where I
>ever need to bother with office type applications, so I'm rather
>ambivilent on that issue (until some moron sends me something in
>Word format even though it's nothing more than dumb text with
>paragraphs, and so could have been done in ascii without any loss of
>formatting, then it becomes an issue.)
--
I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less
than half of you half as well as you deserve.
-- J. R. R. Tolkien
Programming Department:
Mistakes made while you wait.
"Everyone's head is a cheap movie show."
-- Jeff G. Bone
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Corel bailed out by MS? Let the games begin!
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 18:35:56 -0000
On Wed, 04 Oct 2000 20:30:38 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>To be honest, I really don't know what the implications are. I suspect
>that it is not good for Open Source in any event though.
I'm not convinced anything has actually changed. Corel wasn't
making native Linux apps to begin with. Wordperfect actually
went BACKWARDS once Corel began formally acknowledging Linux.
[deletia]
--
When all else fails, read the instructions.
Beware of self-styled experts: an ex is a has-been, and a spurt is a
drip under pressure.
Marriage, n.:
The evil aye.
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 18:40:14 GMT
Roberto Alsina wrote:
> No, because the analogies are incompatible. You first compared me to a cell.
> Now you compare me to a tumor. Tumors are not single cells.
Cancerous cells are single cells. And insofar as you have people under
you, then you have infected others and your section is no longer part
of the corporate body.
> >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.
>
> Tumors are not parasites nor invaders.
Whatever.
> They existed in me (for whatever they are) before the corporation "met" me, so
> they can not have been dicated by the corporation.
Take a class in propaganda some day, asshole. The corporation put you in
a position of power and authority precisely because you "happen" to conform
to their ideals. And you don't find this at all suspicious?
> >ANALOGY! But I *already* explained this four or five separate times!
>
> Actually, you also claimed you don't do analogy, but abstraction.
Wrong, I explained analogy AS abstraction.
> > They beat up annoying shareholders over there.
>
> You saw Black Rain once too many.
Is that some kind of movie?
I'm going by what people in Japan have written about the nation.
> >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.
>
> So, you are now saying that only some corporations are psychopaths, and that
"some" includes ALL large anglo-american corporations and nearly every
small one. Every public corporation acts psychopathic as a matter of course.
> rather, the shareholders, (which BTW, in another subthread you declared had no
> corporate decision-making power)
Reference.
> are the real psychopaths?
Shareholders qua shareholders are psychopaths. Shareholders qua humans are
usually not psychopaths. This is another example where circumstance creates
a *completely* different person.
Shareholders have limited power over the corporation. That corporate executives
are "professionals" is the major contributing factor to corporate psychopathy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes
Date: 5 Oct 2000 18:51:22 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8rif2d$23c$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, 05 Oct 2000 04:17:07 GMT, Chad Myers wrote:
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> >There are welfare recipients who have been collecting checks for years.
>> >> >They increase their income, some of which are:
>> >> >
>> >> >- having more children
>> >>
>> >> This is legal but questionable.
>> >>
>> >> >- pulling food stamp scams for more cash to gamble with
>> >>
>> >> Illegal, probably fraud.
>> >>
>> >> >- feigning disability to collect disability on top of their welfare
>> >>
>> >> This is social security fraud, and it's a criminal offense.
>> >>
>> >> >- selling drugs or other illegal products
>> >>
>> >> Clearly a criminal offense.
>> >>
>> >> My point is that a lot of the things you're complaining about are wrong,
>> >> should be criminalised, and most importantly, are criminalised.
>> >>
>> >> >Several children had health problems that were not being taken
>> >> >care of because the parents couldn't afford health care because
>> >>
>> >> IMO, the current health care system is badly broken. The problem is
>> >> that it's employer based, and health insurance for individuals is too
>> >> expensive to be practical. Still, I don't think better health care will
>> >> cure negligent parents.
>> >>
>> >> >Make no bones, these people had been on welfare almost their
>> >> >whole life and had figured out ways to keep the checks coming
>> >>
>> >> Welfare reform has cut the rolls in half.
>>
>> > AFter much pissing and moaning the by the Commun^H^H^H^HDemocrats...
>>
>> I love reading political arguments by moronic republicans AND democrats.
>> (and populists and reformists for that matter). You probably dont even
>> know what communism is, and have at best a faint notion of how welfare
>> actually works.
> How it's SUPPOSED to work or how it actually DOES work? The two are
> very different indeed.
I suspect that no one in this thread understands the details of either one.
One of the very interesting things that people of this type seem to miss is that
in actuality, only a very tiny percentage (if any at all) of their tax dollars goes
towards welfare at all. In fact, until the clinton administration, every last
penny of the federal income tax of everyone who lived west of the missisippi
river went toward paying off the interest on the national debt. Now that we
have been running positive for a few years and tax spending has been restructured
nearly entirely, again, little or no amount of your taxes go towards supporting
anyone on welfare.
Now, if the republicans, democrats, populists and reformists started thinking
a little bit before they spoke, they may just begin to find these things out.
But even if they do, they probably wont believe them, since they take the
bottom out of most of their illogical, non-factual arguments.
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matt Kennel)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.arch,comp.lang.c,alt.conspiracy.area51,comp.os.netware.misc,comp.protocols.tcp-ip,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 19:09:38 +0000 (UTC)
Reply-To: mbkennel@<REMOVE THE BAD DOMAIN>yahoo.spam-B-gone.com
On Wed, 04 Oct 2000 09:54:00 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:
:IBM's GREATEST MISTAKE was making a machine which anybody could
:copy in his garage.
As I remember the story, they published all the hardware specification
and BIOS disassembly assuming that if anybody tried to make a 100% copy
that IBM could easily sue them out of business.
Compaq did make a copy and IBM was shocked to lose the suit, and
the market thereafter.
:It TOTALLY blew the "IBM Mystique" when clones with BETTER SPECS
:started appearing on the market at less than 1/2 the price.
:
:Up until then, IBM had a near total-lock on the computer market,
:because NOBODY ever questioned whether all that money going to
:IBM was actually a good performance/price ratio.
:
:With the introduction of clone PCs, everybody quickly realized
:that IBM had been overcharging for dumbed-down products for years.
Well, before that, there were cloned IBM mainframes that had a similar
dynamic (and similar lawsuits and antitrust issues), but the PC did
expose this to a much wider group of people.
--
* Matthew B. Kennel/Institute for Nonlinear Science, UCSD
*
* "To chill, or to pop a cap in my dome, whoomp! there it is."
* Hamlet, Fresh Prince of Denmark.
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Chad" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Chad" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.arch,comp.lang.c,alt.conspiracy.area51,comp.os.netware.misc,comp.protocols.tcp-ip,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 19:25:01 GMT
"Matt Kennel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Wed, 04 Oct 2000 09:54:00 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> :
> :IBM's GREATEST MISTAKE was making a machine which anybody could
> :copy in his garage.
>
> As I remember the story, they published all the hardware specification
> and BIOS disassembly assuming that if anybody tried to make a 100% copy
> that IBM could easily sue them out of business.
>
> Compaq did make a copy and IBM was shocked to lose the suit, and
> the market thereafter.
Compaq didn't make a copy, they reverse engineered it and proved
that the engineers that reversed it had not looked at the IBM specs
so there was no direct copying.
-Chad
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Chad" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Chad" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 19:26:45 GMT
"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8riija$23c$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > How it's SUPPOSED to work or how it actually DOES work? The two are
> > very different indeed.
>
> I suspect that no one in this thread understands the details of either one.
>
> One of the very interesting things that people of this type seem to miss is
that
> in actuality, only a very tiny percentage (if any at all) of their tax dollars
goes
> towards welfare at all. In fact, until the clinton administration, every last
> penny of the federal income tax of everyone who lived west of the missisippi
> river went toward paying off the interest on the national debt. Now that we
> have been running positive for a few years and tax spending has been
restructured
> nearly entirely, again, little or no amount of your taxes go towards
supporting
> anyone on welfare.
WHAT?! Are you kidding? Have you seen a recent budget? More than 1/3 of the
U.S. budget goes to supporting Welfare and welfare related programs.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 15:40:43 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Richard in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>> Said Richard in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >Try to answer "do data structures exist?" and the more you actually think
>> >about the question, the more it will blow your mind.
>>
>> My minds been blown for so long I wouldn't notice. I haven't found "do
>> [x] exist?" to be entertaining for quite a while.
>
>This from the guy who rejects all formalism.
I did not say I reject all formalism. I would reject anything you would
present as formalism, as you are apparently a bit mental.
[...]
>> I don't recall any question of whether it was a 'trivial mapping'. What
>
>Then you weren't following along closely enough.
Bullshit; I read every word. You can't follow it more closely than that
(unless you include where I read back over some of our email
conversation to try to figure out what the hell you were talking about).
>> he said was, in response to your statement that 'blue' doesn't exist
>> outside of perception, that 'blue' does exist as a well defined concept
>> in electromagnetic theory.
>
>And exactly what do you think this *means*?
I think it means you don't understand neurobiology, and thus have a
bizarre and useless view of existentialist concerns, philosophy, and
cognizance.
>> Listen, I don't care if you want to be an arrogant geek. Just do it on
>> your own time, and stop pretending you are "out-thinking" anyone when
>> you post this sort of tripe.
>
>I'm certainly out-thinking you.
How so?
>> This is where I'm pointing out to you that you are wrong. Yes, all the
>> stuff up to then, that malarkey about byte arrays and hash dictionaries,
>> I followed that. I won't argue whether 'red' in electromagnetic terms
>> is 'simple'. I have to point out, though, that in perceptual terms it
>> is simple.
>
>That's exactly why 'red' exists IN PERCEPTUAL TERMS!!
I didn't say it didn't exist in perceptual terms. I said that existing
in perceptual terms does not mean it is purely and entirely subjective.
>> Its very simple. We don't know everything about how it
>> works, or even any bit of it precisely. What we do know is that it is a
>> direct mapping; electromagnetic 'red' hits the back of your eyeball, and
>
>Wrong nitwit, there is no such thing as "electromagnetic red".
Oh? That's news to me. And everyone else.
>Look, take a class on the visual system, most universities offer them.
>As long as you're there, take courses on formal logic, mathematics,
>metaphysics, epistemology and philosophy of science. I already told
>you that any kind of discussion with you would be useless if you keep
>believing the utterly ludicrous things you do in these subjects. Well,
>this is just another application of all these topics.
Yes, but you haven't explained at all, which seems typical, what the
hell epistemology or theoretical mathematics have to do with red being
an objective perception, clearly a physical process.
>> your brain thinks "red". Thoughts do physically exist. You seem to
>> keep getting confused on this point.
>
>> I follow you. But in this particular case, it is a particular
>> hard-wired array, and we've already determined that its property is what
>> we have discovered it to be. Any ideas that some other array may have
>> some other property is just fantasizing.
>
>What the FUCK are you talking about?
You said that since the array could have any pattern, we are not
determining a property of the array when we determine the pattern. I
was pointing out that you're begging the question. The array has a
single pattern; we have no other array with any other pattern which
would indicate that the pattern is not, in fact, a property of the
array, and that you're merely fantasizing when you say that the pattern
"could" be different, and therefore the pattern is not a property of the
array. In short, I was using your example to illustrate how you're
wrong. That's what the FUCK I was talking about.
>> The human sensory system is every bit as deterministic (if much less
>> understood and complex) as the frequency of the light.
>
>You're oversimplifying things. So as long as we're there, I'll say:
>that's exactly why 'red' isn't a physical concept!
No, I am not 'over' simplifying anything. I'm pointing out that whether
we've already determined precisely how and exactly where light of the
frequency "red" hitting the back of the eyeball produces the perceptual
experience of 'red', or how that equivalency is stored in our memories
is not an argument for the idea that red isn't a physical concept.
It is not oversimplifying to point out that the human sensory system is
deterministic, because it is. Everything in the universe at macroscopic
scales is deterministic. That isn't the same as saying you can predict
it. If you want to start getting into chaos theory or quantum effects
(or their potential relationship), that would be a different argument.
It is quite simple to show that the human sensory system is
deterministic. If you show the color 'red' to a human whose sensory
system is working correctly, they identify it as the color 'red', in
whatever language they use.
You might want to be metaphysically minded, and believe that because
'red' is a *concept*, as well as a color, that it doesn't have any
physical reality outside of our thoughts. Which is why I pointed out
that our thoughts have physical reality. We do not know how they work
precisely, yet, but we do know that they correspond to electro-chemical
activity in the brain. To go further, you may wish to remark that there
is no way of absolutely correlating your concept of red from my concept
of red, and that they would not necessarily have identical physical
manifestations within the electro-chemical activity in the brain. I
would point out, then, that you are being speculative, as I've already
mentioned that we don't know yet what precisely is the electro-chemical
phenomenon within your brain which corresponds to the thought or sight
of 'red'. In point of fact, modern neurobiology *has* determined quite
a good deal of the physical perception of red, and therefore something
of the mental image of red, if not the concept of red, which has
everything to do with language and nothing to do with cognition.
--
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Darren Winsper)
Subject: Re: 2.4!
Date: 5 Oct 2000 20:00:08 GMT
On Thu, 05 Oct 2000 08:50:06 GMT, Grega Bremec
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ...and Todd used the keyboard:
> >BTW, according to recent tests on www.tomshardware.com, NVidia hardware runs
> >OpenGL faster on Windows 2000 than under Linux.
Yes, that extra 2fps on top of 80fps really makes all the difference.
Besides, according to him, that performance gap will all but dissapear soon
anyway.
--
Darren Winsper (El Capitano)
ICQ #8899775 - AIM: Ikibawa - MSNIM: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Certified 34% bastard, 19% of which is tard.
http://www.thespark.com/bastardtest
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes
Date: 5 Oct 2000 20:05:57 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8riija$23c$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > How it's SUPPOSED to work or how it actually DOES work? The two are
>> > very different indeed.
>>
>> I suspect that no one in this thread understands the details of either one.
>>
>> One of the very interesting things that people of this type seem to miss is
> that
>> in actuality, only a very tiny percentage (if any at all) of their tax dollars
> goes
>> towards welfare at all. In fact, until the clinton administration, every last
>> penny of the federal income tax of everyone who lived west of the missisippi
>> river went toward paying off the interest on the national debt. Now that we
>> have been running positive for a few years and tax spending has been
> restructured
>> nearly entirely, again, little or no amount of your taxes go towards
> supporting
>> anyone on welfare.
> WHAT?! Are you kidding? Have you seen a recent budget? More than 1/3 of the
> U.S. budget goes to supporting Welfare and welfare related programs.
No, actually just a little bit less than 1/3 is dedicated to domestic social
programs; ONE of which is welfare. Most of the rest are not related to welfare.
(medicare, school lunch programs, etc). You are misinformed.
And apart from that, how much of the annual budget do you think comes directly
from federal income tax?
I think its time for you to do some thinking, and then some math.
=====.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
