Linux-Advocacy Digest #480, Volume #29 Fri, 6 Oct 00 02:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Aaron R. Kulkis [Off-Topic Idiot Tres Grande] ("David T. Johnson")
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Migration --> NT costing please :-) (Pan)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Aaron R. Kulkis [Off-Topic Idiot Tres Grande] (Marty)
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...? ("JS/PL")
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Donovan
Rebbechi)
Re: How low can they go...? ("JS/PL")
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 00:58:25 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Richard in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>>
>> Said Richard in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> I'm afraid you're entirely wrong. A metaphor is an abstraction.
>
>But an abstraction is not a metaphor so metaphor != abstraction.
No, a metaphor is an abstraction, so a metaphor is an abstraction.
Metaphor = abstraction, if that's the only way you can understand it.
Not all abstractions are metaphors, I think is what you mean. That
would be abstraction != metaphor. The wonder full lack of symmetry in
the pseudo-mathematical terms is what makes epistemology philosophy, and
not science.
>> >At the time the automated stock trading software decides to sell
>> >ABC stock, there is a distinct concept in its database of "ABC stock"
>> >as distinct from any other stock.
>>
>> I don't believe its possible for their to be a 'concept' in a
>> 'database'. It seems to me that 'data' is all you'd find there.
>
>And just what is your mind if not a database? Or is it all 'data'?
We don't know yet. Do you presume to have knowledge beyond what
cognitive science has yet been able to produce?
>> >All the programmer is doing is writing a rule book for the machine
>> >to follow. The machine is the entity that applies these rules, not
>> >the programmer.
>>
>> No, the guy who executes the program is the 'entity' that applies the
>> rules. Machines don't do things all by themselves; they don't have
>> will, if you will.
>
>So the box booter is responsible for all of those stock trades?
"Booter"? No. The one who made the *decision* to apply the
configuration *decided* by the person who configured the software
written by the programmer who *decided* how the configuration would
work, once the person who *decided* to implement an automatic stock
system hired him.
>And what is it that you think a human is if not a machine? YOU
>are a machine, are you claiming that you do nothing by yourself?
Yes. But I think about it while I'm doing it, which a machine doesn't
do.
>> >He decided no such thing! If the software runs on an unconnected machine
>> >then it makes empty decisions on meaningless data (it's *fantasizing*).
>>
>> Oh it is, huh? Have you checked into a hospital lately?
>
>Next you'll be telling me that androids don't dream of electric sheep.
Cute. No; androids don't dream. Replicants, on the other hand, are a
fictional device.
>> >So does your brain!
>>
>> No shit. I though you believed in metaphysics and free will?
>
>Only problem is you don't know what metaphysics is, and I do NOT
>believe in "free" will. In fact, the definition of "will" generally
>contradicts its being "free".
Then what's 'will'? The desire to do something? That's just
rationalization, not motive cause. I know precisely what metaphysics
is: complete and utter bullshit.
>> I'm neither solipsist nor an idiot.
>
>You're an anti-formalist and since formalism is the only solid
>defense agaist solipsism, you're pretty vulnerable to it. As well,
>a huge reason why solipsists are so damned annoying is because
>they are anti-formalists.
If you mean epistemological formalism, I'm certainly anti-formalist, but
only because most of the epistemological formalists I've ever read were
idiots. But perhaps you could change my opinion by describing how
formalism is a solid defense against solipsism, as I wasn't aware there
was such a thing.
--
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: "David T. Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Aaron R. Kulkis [Off-Topic Idiot Tres Grande]
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 22:04:41 -0400
Marty wrote:
>
> "David T. Johnson" wrote:
> >
> > Aaron R. Kulkis has posted a total of at least 256 unique messages in
> > comp.os.os2.advocacy during the month of September, 2000 on five related
> > threads, none of which have anything to do with OS/2, OS/2 advocacy,
> > computer software, or even computers:
>
> The hypocrisy continues! :-)
The nonsense posts continue!
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 01:17:56 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Richard in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>> Said Richard in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >Roberto Alsina wrote:
>> >> Someone makes the decision. Decisions don't surge out of a vacuum.
>> >
>> >Some cell has to create the thought. Thoughts don't surge out of a vacuum.
>>
>> Cells don't have or deal with 'thought', just bio-chemical interactions.
>> Yes, as far as our consciousness is aware, 'thoughts' surge out of a
>> vacuum of sensory input whenever we perceive anything.
>
>:-)
>
>> The only time we
>> don't continue to have conscious thoughts is when we are no longer
>> receiving sensory input.
>
>And not even then.
I think calling them 'conscious' would be a bit unfounded.
>> Look, Richard, just because I'm not above using invective doesn't mean
>> that I can't point out that you say things like 'fucking moron', and
>> 'imbecile' and 'cretin' far too often to be seen as a reasonable person.
>
>I know but it's the only way I have of dealing with Roberto that
>doesn't involve going insane.
I'd prefer the latter, if it kept you from posting this drivel.
>> I hate to engage in blatant Usenet therapy, but if I remember your
>> general conversation, you've claimed that you've experience some
>> unspecified form of child abuse (please correct me if I misread your
>> words) and from the last answer you gave Roberto, I'd agree that you
>> seem to have a distinct lack of empathy for your mother, while also seem
>> obsessed about turning metaphoric things into real things which you then
>> classify as psychotic, lacking in empathy. I'd like you to recognize
>
>LOL. Don't give up your day job; you suck at psychoanalysis.
>
>Btw, *having* empathy for abusive parents is what screws up children.
>You can confirm this with any psychotherapist from the Alice Miller
>school of thought (the other schools tend to deny that abuse occurs).
I think you're reaching when you say that it is empathy for the abusive
parents (or Alice Miller is reaching, if she says that) which screws up
children. It seems to me it would be abuse that screws up children, and
prevents them from having empathy with anyone. Or, if they aren't
entirely psychopathic, prevents them from having empathy with their
parents, exclusively, and anyone or anything else they transfer their
anxiety onto.
>> the fact that the reason you're so arrogant on Usenet is because you
>> need to convince yourself of your intellectual superiority to prove to
>> yourself that you've 'overcome' this issue you have. And the reason you
>> scream and yell at everyone who questions you is because, knowing how
>> unreasoning it makes people who were abused as children, you've finally
>> come to the point that you are ready to admit that you didn't overcome
>> anything, and you're hurting.
>
>Does this make *ANY* sense to you after you re-read it?
Yes, and I still think its true, too. What other reason is there that
you are so obnoxious, but yet keep posting?
>> This is reflected in your unreasoning
>> response to those who realize that corporations are metaphors,
>> analogies, legal abstractions, and they don't make decisions or think
>> and therefore cannot be psychopathic, except metaphorically. In the
>> same way, programmers don't hate users, and Linux UIs are not crappy,
>> though both could use improvement.
>
>And the world is a happy happy place where everyone is doing their very
>best to improve things for *everybody*. So let's start singing Joy To The
>World and not try to change it.
No, its changing it that makes it a happy happy place. Mostly,
everybody is doing their very best to improve things for themselves;
that's where the 'enlightened self-interest' comes in, and we recognize
that social support is the reason for consciousness.
>> >How many times has it been that I've had to explain
>> >this? Corporate decisions are no more ascribable to individual humans than
>> >human thoughts are ascribable to individual neurons.
>>
>> That is not a valid analogy. It is not an abstraction which works. It
>
>And of course, you have valid and sound reasons for this? Reasons that
>go beyond explaining in an oh so patient tone that I am wrong?
Yes, but you can't blame me if I'm patient as I explain it to you. Your
analogy would require the relationship between cells and the brain to be
analogous to the relationship between humans and a corporation, to be
valid. This doesn't seem to be the case, by any means I can think of.
Perhaps you might suggest some, and we can discuss it.
>> is a metaphor. Stop using it; it sucks. Yes, corporate decisions are
>> all entirely ascribable to various individual humans, and groups of
>> humans. Perhaps you are confused that when something is put to a vote,
>> the 'decision' to do that thing is supposedly not ascribable to a human
>> being, and that is, metaphorically, true. Ethically, the decision is
>
>ETHICALLY?? Oh, yeah, that's another philosophical term you've redefined
>so as to contradict every last usage of the term on this planet.
No, in point of fact my definition is *consistent*, with every usage I
can find. It is not perfectly consistent with any one except itself,
but it is accurate and practical enough to be valid. Morality is just
what goes on inside your head; ethics is only how you act. It seems a
rather clear-cut and precise distinction.
>> ascribed to the one who decided to hold the vote, or the one that
>> implemented the result of the vote, etc. But other than that, it isn't
>> a decision of any abstract entity, in real life, though we again might
>> say that "the city" voted for something or "the committee decided" or
>> what have you. These are metaphors, Richard.
>
>I see. And is "civilization" a metaphor?
Depends on how you use it. In "civilization requires social
interaction," it is merely a concept. In "civilization is what allows
modern sewage treatment plants," it is a metaphor.
>What about "the USA"? What
>about "national borders"? What about "species"? What about "computers"?
>Is anything *NOT* a metaphor to you?
It isn't the word itself which makes it a metaphor, Richard. Any word
can be used metaphorically, or can be the object of a metaphor. I guess
nobody ever explained that to you, huh?
>> >And you STILL don't
>> >fucking get it! You STILL think that "all thoughts must be traceable to
>> >individual neurons or else thoughts can't possibly exist" <-- either that
>> >or you believe that human thought is *magical*. IMBECILE!
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> Nobody said 'all thoughts must be traceable to individual neurons' to
>
>Do you understand analogy and abstraction? Of course not, they're just
>"metaphors" to you!
No, they are concepts. An analogy is a kind of metaphor. An
abstraction might be a metaphor, but it doesn't have to be. The
'desktop' is a metaphor, the 'stack' is an abstraction. You see?
>In any case, Roberto *does* treat human thought as if it were magical.
>And so do you.
Not even the tiniest itty bitty bit. Roberto is a separate issue.
>> begin with. We said that thought has a physical reality.
>
>It doesn't. Human thought is a PATTERN of neuronal activity. There
>is absolutely nothing in the laws of physics that dictates that this
>pattern corresponds with that thought.
No, perception of human thought by other humans is limited to the
*pattern* of neuronal activity. That doesn't make the pattern the
thought. Remember the array of lights? Remember how you got it wrong?
>> Cells don't
>> think. Stop trying to convince us you don't, either.
>
>> >Someone has actually made a study showing that cretins never learn
>> >precisely because they refuse to believe they're cretins. Wish I had
>> >the clipping.
>>
>> You ought to check a dictionary about the word "cretin". I don't think
>> it means what you think it means. I wished you'd saved the clipping,
>> too.
>
>They didn't use "stupid" although that's what they meant. I used
>cretin because I'm tired of using "stupid".
No, you've never used 'stupid', you used 'cretin' because you thought an
unsophisticated person, and would therefore apply to Roberto, or me.
Now you know it means "an offensive, boorish, oaf", and realize it
applies to you, and that clipping that pointed out that cretins refuse
to recognize they are because they are was memorable for a reason you
might not have recognized at the time.
--
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: Pan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Migration --> NT costing please :-)
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 22:28:46 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Chad Myers wrote:
> At my current employer I hear the phrase, "The mail server is down again,
> it should be back up after a reboot". The mail server, of course, being
> a Linux mail server. I imagine there will be only a few more of these before
> our management complains that they are missing emails.
At least we know that your management team is smart enough not to listen
to your moronic proM$ ranting.
I know Renfield, you must serve the master, but do you have to be so
obvious about your lies? Reboot is a Winfix. If sendmail goes down (
it's never happened to me, but I suppose its possible ), kill the pid
and restart.
--
Pan
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.la-online.com
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 01:29:48 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Richard in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>> No, all people have some inconsistencies in their belief system, or else
>> their belief system is entirely consistent with reality, and they don't
>> have a belief system, they have knowledge.
>
>BS. You don't know what you're talking about.
I always know what I'm talking about. I might not know all the facts
which you do, and I might not be correct, but what I'm talking about
happens to be my specialty, and I'm quite the expert on the subject.
>And I am NOT discussing
>metaphysics with someone who refuses to acknowledge the topic is meta-
>physical because he has redefined the word to mean "my favourite theory
>in the field of philosohy". This topic is also epistemological and for
>the same reasons, I refuse to discuss the topic with someone who denies
>the existence of the field.
I don't deny the existence of any field, merely the reality of anything
"meta-physical". You aren't discussing metaphysics with me because you
know it would go absolutely no-where outside the ranks of amateur
philosophers you've interacted with so far.
>> You confuse "unfalsifiable" with consistent. It is the fact that they
>> are not self-consistent (their ideal of each person being independent is
>> applied outside their person) which undermines their position, and make
>> it inconsistent with the real world, which is always self-consistent.
>
>No, I do not confuse consistent with "unfalsifiable". OTOH, you are
>confusing a great many things and I wouldn't have the first clue as
>to what you mean in the above paragraph if I didn't know you confuse
>entirely different types of existence and don't believe in formal logic.
>As it is, I still don't know what you mean but I have some idea why
>it's so confused.
It must be even more confusing if you think I don't believe in formal
logic. Of course I believe in formal logic. That doesn't mean I agree
with every application of supposedly formal logic.
>When someone says something that's incomprehensible (*), that's not
>because they're being profound but because they're it's bullshit.
"They are it's [possessive] bullshit?" What's that supposed to mean?
Is it epistemological, or just a typo?
>> >Anarcho-syndicalism is both internally and externally consistent.
>> >*Proving* it is another matter entirely.
>>
>> You can't say it is consistent at all unless you can prove it to begin
>> with.
>
>More BS. Inconsistency is provable, consistency is NOT provable.
Oh, that makes LOADS of sense. You really are just an amateur
philosopher who knows too much and understands too little, you know
that? If you worked *really* hard, you could be a professional
philosopher, but that's not saying much, as you'd just be another
shithead in a field mostly filled with post-modern idiots. The few
truly competent professional philosophers find that type to be foolish
and unreasoning.
>> It is a trivial statement about the resolution of infinite problem
>> domains using finite axiomatic sets. It does not mean that formalists,
>> let alone wannabe's like yourself, were ever right, or ever will be.
>> You're a post-modernist imbecile. How precisely does the concept of
>> 'truth' "mess up everything?"
>
>Because its formal definition clearly shows it to be nonsense.
How?
>As for you, you don't know the first thing about philosophy and
>cheerfully contradict everything that is known in the field while
>not giving a damn about whether or not what you say is meaningful,
>let alone self-consistent.
Modern philosophy has contradicted itself often enough that that isn't
saying much except that you've learned too much by rote. I'd hope that
you're not entirely ruined by too much studying and not enough thinking.
You obviously have to work on your ability to grasp abstractions.
> While you're not a postmodernist, you
>are pretty fucking close. Too damned close for me to bother trying
>to discuss anything with you.
On the contrary, I'm as purely non-post-modernist as you can get. I'm
post-post-modernist, you might say. What shall we call it? The obvious
choice would be "neo-modernist", but I prefer "secular humanist", as it
does away with all the clap-trap of academic philosophical prattle and
concentrates on the actual issues.
>*: two caveats
>1) incomprehensible is not the same thing as "I think
> it's absurd nonsense", and
>2) missing out on the context or framework of a discussion
> does not make what the participants say bullshit
> even if it /is/ incomprehensible
But I haven't missed out on any single part of the discussion. It all
replicated just fine, in perfect order. I tried to reason with you in
email and it failed; I hardly gave it a second thought. Now you engaged
Roberto enough to make clear that even he can make you look like an
idiot. That doesn't speak very highly of your ability to communicate
your position. I'm not willing to pass judgement, at this point, on
your actual position, given that fact.
You really might have some original thoughts deep down, if you'd only
stop arrogantly trying to protect them from becoming common knowledge.
You have to work a lot harder at it if you want to express yourself
well, though. You really do sound like a moron with an education.
--
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: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Aaron R. Kulkis [Off-Topic Idiot Tres Grande]
Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 05:25:02 GMT
"David T. Johnson" wrote:
>
> Marty wrote:
> >
> > "David T. Johnson" wrote:
> > >
> > > Aaron R. Kulkis has posted a total of at least 256 unique messages in
> > > comp.os.os2.advocacy during the month of September, 2000 on five related
> > > threads, none of which have anything to do with OS/2, OS/2 advocacy,
> > > computer software, or even computers:
> >
> > The hypocrisy continues! :-)
>
> The nonsense posts continue!
Are you really *this* blind?
How many more "attack-the-person" threads are you going to launch after
whining about such things, hypocritical troll?
------------------------------
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: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 01:32:15 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>T. Max Devlin wrote in message
>
>>The fact is there isn't a right, there is an technical capability, and
>>you have no constitutional right to deny anonymous participation in
>>public forums, THAT'S the point.
>
>You have the right to deny access to anyone for any reason in a public
>forum. [...]
Enough said. You're entirely and completely wrong. WHO has the right
to deny anyone access in public forums?
--
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: 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: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 01:34:10 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>T. Max Devlin wrote in message
[...]
>Show me a law stating I have no right to administer a public forum
>that I have created any way I see fit.[...]
Show me how you've created any public forums, and thereby have a right
to administer them?
--
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: "JS/PL" <[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: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 01:42:12 -0000
T. Max Devlin wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>T. Max Devlin wrote in message
> [...]
>>Show me a law stating I have no right to administer a public forum
>>that I have created any way I see fit.[...]
>
>Show me how you've created any public forums, and thereby have a right
>to administer them?
That's not necessary. Suffice it to say that I do in fact administer several
at this time and I have the freedom to delete at will. Although I rarely
delete but have done so in the past upon request from the offended parties,
I archive occasionally and remove the archive away from public access as a
matter of routine. If I had my news server set up I'd create a newgroup just
for you so I could delete your posts only but allow all others.
Unfortunately you've caught me in a rare two or three day window in which it
is not installed.
Now show me what law prevents me from removing posts at will.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: 6 Oct 2000 05:47:27 GMT
On Wed, 4 Oct 2000 11:28:01 -0300, Roberto Alsina wrote:
[ quoting richard ]
>>Wrong, imbecile. People who know pure OO languages well almost always know
>>crappy procedural languages like C++ and Java. You couldn't find an example
>>of the reverse if I gave you a century.
... and I've yet to see Richard identify a single piece of OO functionality
offered by smalltalk that's not available in C++ or java ( i'm not saying
that there isn't, but Richard's too ignorant to be able to demonstrate it )
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: "JS/PL" <[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: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 01:49:00 -0000
T. Max Devlin wrote in message ...
>Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>T. Max Devlin wrote in message
>>
>>>The fact is there isn't a right, there is an technical capability, and
>>>you have no constitutional right to deny anonymous participation in
>>>public forums, THAT'S the point.
>>
>>You have the right to deny access to anyone for any reason in a public
>>forum. [...]
>
>Enough said. You're entirely and completely wrong. WHO has the right
>to deny anyone access in public forums?
Whoever owns or has permission to administer the forum. I could set up a
news server and deny the whole set of IP addresses your ISP uses. And when
you get smart and use a proxy I'd just delete your posts (as well as block
that IP). In the end it's my property your sending your posts to, and my
full right to refuse or delete them at will for any reason I see fit.
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 06:06:20 GMT
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Oct 2000 11:28:01 -0300, Roberto Alsina wrote:
> [ quoting richard ]
>
> >>Wrong, imbecile. People who know pure OO languages well almost always know
> >>crappy procedural languages like C++ and Java. You couldn't find an example
> >>of the reverse if I gave you a century.
>
> ... and I've yet to see Richard identify a single piece of OO functionality
> offered by smalltalk that's not available in C++ or java ( i'm not saying
> that there isn't, but Richard's too ignorant to be able to demonstrate it )
OO isn't a bunch of "features", it's a philosophy. Calling a function a
method doesn't make it one, and calling a structure an object doesn't make
it one either. But then, you know nothing about high-level design so it
figures that you'd think OO is reducible to a bunch of features.
Grow up Donovan.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
