Linux-Advocacy Digest #439, Volume #30 Sun, 26 Nov 00 11:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (T. Max Devlin)
Re: The Sixth Sense (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 01:40:27 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Curtis in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 24 Nov 2000 20:18:33 -0500;
>T. Max Devlin wrote...
[...]
>> >What the hell does that have to do with their supporting language X or
>> >not?
>>
>> I've just explained that. Sorry if you missed it.
>
>Actually I didn't. You brought it up.
Now I'm confused. You asked what one thing had to do with another, and
I just explained it. So what are you saying?
>I'm trying to get it back out of
>this argument that really shouldn't have arisen.
Well, the way back out is either forward, or literally "back out", which
is to say don't respond.
>But since you're always
>looking for any little discussion to grind your anti-monopoly fixated
>teeth into, you had to bring it up.
Well, geez, duh; I post to alt.destroy.microsoft to talk about cooking.
>> It has to do with
>> whether or not supporting language X is a competitive, or an
>> anti-competitive, act. This describes the *class* of the action, BTW,
>> not the actual activity involved. It stands to reason that Microsoft
>> would have the largest language support, even apart from their 90%+
>> market share, that's all I'm saying. If you're going to defend a
>> monopoly, your decision isn't so much how to make your product more
>> attractive
>
>Why isn't language support just that?
It isn't an issue of what mechanism is used, whether it is language
support, or hardware support, or API support, or whatever. Microsoft
doesn't have to make its products more attractive; they already have
more than 90% of the market locked in with preloads. So why are they
spending money on it? I thought they were businessmen.
Yes, I *know* that competitive businesses add support for as many
markets as they can. I realize that it might seem a bit fanatical to
suggest that Microsoft isn't merely keeping their products competitive.
But competitive against what? Is the *number of people* that are not
going to buy Microsoft's product if it doesn't have a particular obscure
language really so large that Microsoft will lose money, lose *market
share*, to, say, Linux? Come *on*. How blind are you intent on being?
Sure, I'm a zealot for "harping" about it (by continuing to post on that
topic in alt.destroy.microsoft, thank you very much; fuck you and the
horse you road in on if you want to try to take a "you're just a freak"
shot at an ad hominem), the fact that Microsoft has broken the law by
maintaining a monopoly. And my voice gets shrill when I start reading
about how .NET is moving along, promising to make the monopoly
independent of the OS itself, freeing Outlook, IE, and Office to prevent
competitive development on all computers everywhere. Jesus Christ. How
stupid do you intend on being? Wake up and smell the coffee, Curtis.
>BTW, is advertising a profitable thing to do?
For god's sake, Curtis. At least try to pretend to have more brains
than a nat. You tell me, is advertising *always* a profitable thing to
do?
>Does everything that a
>company do to promote their product, have to be profitable?
Yes. Its called expecting a return on investment, and capitalists tend
to be rather keen on it. Competitions tough, you see, and you have to
be absolutely as efficient as possible.
>You see, my
>problem is that you translate everything they do as being solely
>dedicated to the perpetuation of their monopoly. Nothing is really done
>in an effort to please their customers.
You are correct sir. If what they do is successful at perpetuating the
monopoly, they have no need, no motive, and ultimately no ability to
please their customers. They can dupe them, but that's about as far as
it goes. Their customers might be very pleased to be duped, since they
may be unaware (this being the definition of being duped, in fact.)
Here's the recipe, in case the idea of federal prosecution doesn't scare
you:
a) ensure that customers have no choice but to buy your product in order
to benefit from an existing technology
b) dupe the customers into believing that the benefit of existing
technology can only come from you
c) dupe the customers into paying you, recurrently, in order to benefit
from the existing technology, which you continue to change around
(without any necessary intent or ability to improve it), which prevents
others from replicating your product, and further dupes the customers
into believing that any future technology must also come only from you,
in order to continue to benefit from existing technology.
Note that after step 'a', you don't have to even have a product. An
empty box, with a paper taped to it saying "you have permission to
benefit from existing technology", is really all it takes.
>While I do agree that they are guilty of monopolistic practices, I
>certainly don't see everything they do as you do.
That is simply because you don't actually understand what "guilty of
monopolistic practices" really means, my friend.
>> (since that's not what provides or defends monopoly power),
>> but in removing any excuse to seek a market alternative, while using the
>> 90% market power to simultaneously change the market requirements to
>> exclude those alternatives.
>
>What does that specifically have to do with language support?
>
>As I said, I use a lot of software that supports many languages apart
>from English and the non-English speakers (even though many speak
>English) appreciate their native language being supported and tend to
>gravitate to the software that does support their language, unless there
>are killer feature/s supported by the English only application.
>
>> >> There is a cost/benefit analysis that goes in to including
>> >> support for a language.
>> >
>> >Yes. We all know that.
>>
>> Apparently not, if you think supporting Fiji or some other obscure
>> language is a profitable endeavor for Microsoft.
>
>We aren't speaking about supporting an obscure dialect or language.
>
>> >Haha. Neat! :=) A nicely paranoid statement. You take this a step too
>> >far. Are you saying it's not profitable for them to support all these
>> >languages?
>>
>> Of course I am. Did I say they would be unprofitable if they didn't?
>
>Do you have proof of this?
>
>Do you think advertising it's profitable to advertise? The same principle
>applies in making the effort to support multiple languages. For instance,
>one of the biggest selling points for my favourite e-mail client TB!, is
>it's excellent multi-lingual support, something the primary non-English
>speakers curse many of the other available clients for. It takes Russian
>developers to realize the importance of multi-lingual support to
>international customers. It paid off.
>
>> Are you saying they would be unprofitable if they didn't?
>
>Their OS wouldn't be as widely used if it only supported the English
>Language while others supported other languages.
>
>You need to speak more to people who speak other languages. Then you'll
>see the importance of supporting more than just English.
>
>> If not, then
>> why would you ask this question? It is not profit-seeking behavior; if
>> the company were interested in making the largest profit from the
>> smallest investment, then adding languages, when you wouldn't be
>> unprofitable if you didn't add them, is not efficient. Normally,
>> competition has the effect of ensuring that companies do not allow
>> inefficiencies in their production. This is why Adam Smith recognized
>> monopolies as abhorrent, and why Senator Sherman identified them as
>> illegal.
>>
>> >> >The same goes for the OS features. I only care about the features I wish
>> >> >to use and how they're implemented. I couldn't care less about the
>> >> >features a sysadmin would need. That's for MS and the sysadmins to care
>> >> >about.
>> >>
>> >> Well, then I presume that means you don't care about any features,
>> >
>> >You presume too much wise guy ...
>> >
>> >> because these are *personal computers*, and there is no real difference
>> >> between 'sysadmin' and 'user'.
>> >
>> >In the context I meant, oh yes they are. I will not however try to
>> >elaborate because you'll only play difficult since it suites your
>> >vitriolic arguments.
>>
>> A good point. Nevertheless, it is quite possible your 'context' is
>> ephemeral, and you're merely seeking to avoid having me dismantle your
>> arguments, should you bother to present them.
>
><chuckle> My arguments are already presented. My argument is that a
>sysadmin uses a computer differently from a typical end user. Their needs
>may be similar in some respects but are different in other respects. What
>is absolutely intolerable and unacceptable to a professional sysadmin is
>quite acceptable to a typical user. Usually this sort of disparity falls
>into the area of supported functionality.
>
>You may say that this disparity exists as a result of ignorance on the
>part of the typical user. I agree, but only to a point. I have a copy of
>VMWare. I could run linux primarily with Windows in a VMWare VM. However,
>I'm not interested in Linux's offerings over that of Win2K. Win2k with
>the addition of a few tools, some freeware and some not, offers a nicer
>solution. Best of both worlds sort of thing.
>
>> >I guess if I said Linux is OSS while PGP is not, you'd say no to that
>> >right? ;=)
>>
>> No, I am not a pedantic person. I didn't say that there's no difference
>> between sysadmin procedures and user procedures on personal computers
>> because it is a pedantic point; I said it because it is a design point.
>>
>> >> Unless you're in a professional
>> >> environment, in which case you don't make any choices, so your point is,
>> >> again, moot.
>> >
>> >I agree on that, but that's not what I'm referring to. A large portion of
>> >PC's in use are not used in a professional environment where they are
>> >maintained and administered by trained professionals.
>>
>> Yes, and this is very much the reason often given for Windows to be so
>> popular with the home market; it doesn't require professional
>> administration.
>
>It requires administration.
>
>> But, then, that's true only as long as you don't want
>> any administration at all,
>
>Well, many just wish to add a few peripherals .... dead easy in the
>majority of instances I've had to witness and that's more than enough to
>make a statistically sound judgement.
>
>> and are happy with the default behavior, the
>> default presentations, and the default configuration.
>
>This is the crux of the matter.
>
>> Windroids
>> routinely also suggest this is true, but it is an obvious fabrication:
>> people always like having options, even if they don't use them.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>That addition I'll never understand. They like the unused functionality
>provided it doesn't get in the way of easy use of the functionality
>they're interested in.
>
>But this is why I don't use Linux. Linux provides functionality that I'm
>not interested in but the support of which adds to the overall complexity
>of the more than just passing user experience. KDE does a nice job of
>making Linux a nice passing user experience. :=) OS/2 was my best
>experience, but I stopped using it because of lack of supporting apps.
>Win2k is close behind it.
>
>> Microsoft has gotten very good at providing options that are so
>> pointless or difficult to use (claiming they are 'sysadmin' procedures)
>> that the majority of users give up, if they ever even had the idea that
>> they could treat a computer as their personal equipment.
>
>You're saying they wouldn't give up as well with Linux?
>
>> >> Considering the ideas you've presented here, I'd say your
>> >> best choice would be a Mac.
>> >
>> >Nope. My best choice is Win2k at present. You don't know what I need,
>> >therefore you cannot make my choice.
>>
>> Quite blowing smoke up my ass. I already knew your "choice" was W2K.
>> And the "at present" just means "because its the newest version of
>> monopoly crapware".
>
>No the newest version is Win ME.
>
>> It doesn't matter what you need: you haven't made a choice.
>
>I do have a choice. I'm pretty much aware of the choices. Many have
>chosen to use these other choices. What made it a choice for them and not
>one for me. They always pontificate to apparently ignorant individuals
>like myself, how much better their non-MS choice is.
>
>I'm still wondering why you insist that I haven't chosen. That's for
>those who aren't aware of the choices.
>
>Is it because you yourself feel forced to be using Windows and Forte
>Agent?
>
>> You just went along with the least-effort option that was
>> handed to you,
>
>Look Mr. Presumptuous, this option was not simply handed to me. It took a
>lot of reading, a lot of doodling, a lot of checking out and testing
>through multi-boot setups to make my decision.
>
>> >Would you please stop making these
>> >assumptions about what I think and what I need. You're doing terribly. Is
>> >this your level of performance with respect to what you think people need
>> >after 12 years studying this?
>>
>> Which is to say, I have you pegged, but you don't want to admit it.
>
>Well, I'll not admit what's not true.
>
>> These are "assumptions", they are presumptions,
>
>That's why I gave you the name above. :=)
>
>> and until you provide me
>> some reason to revise them, they are certainly correct, and have proven
>> to be entirely accurate so far.
>
>Knock yourself out. :=)
>
>> >> Treated in this kind of hopelessly over-simplified way, you have a
>> >> choice to present a clear ethical underpinning to your thinking, or
>> >> become deluded into thinking that monopolization is "just" doing
>> >> business.
>> >
>> >My arguments have nothing to do with monopolizing perse. But since you're
>> >so fixated to an almost pathologic level with MS and their monopolizing,
>> >you tend to twist any argument with the word Microsoft in it, into one of
>> >defending the fact that they don't monopolize. I agree that they
>> >monopolize OK? There's no need to build the strawman.
>>
>> It isn't a strawman; it is the reason your arguments "have nothing to do
>> with monopolizing per se". Why did you include "per se" in that
>> sentence? Apparently, it was because you realize that providing
>> "reasons" for why a monopoly product is "chosen" by the market is
>> nothing more than empty posturing. A strawman itself, you might say.
>
><chuckle>
>
>> My point is, agreeing that they monopolize, but not recognizing that
>> this means, _by definition_, that their products are not competitive,
>> and generally not as good as any potential alternatives (they don't have
>> to be, in order to keep the alternatives little more than potential, and
>> they don't have a reason to be, because it is not required for
>> "success", as long as the monopoly is maintained) means you just aren't
>> thinking hard enough.
>
>My aim here is not to defend that their products are better than the
>potential alternatives. I'm getting tired of you now. The fact that I use
>Win2k doesn't make it better than Linux. It simply means it suits my
>purposes better than Linux, MacOS, OS/2 or Win9x/ME do.
>
>> >> It is not. That last bit, btw, where you indicated that a
>> >> customer has a different perspective than wanting to meet their needs or
>> >> preferences, doesn't seem to make a lot of sense.
>> >
>> >Read again. A customer will buy what suites their needs .... to the best
>> >of their ability. Now PLEASE ..... this is not about MS alone. This is a
>> >general statement. Please ... No more MS is a monopoly argument.
>>
>> This is a general statement, which is about MS alone, within the context
>> of this discussion. The customer's choice isn't being based right now
>> on what suites their needs. Its being based on is available to the best
>> of their ability.
>
>Yes, this is true for the bulk of Win9x/ME users.
>
>> IOW, MS software is crap, because if it were any
>> good, it would have competition, and if it had competition, it might
>> possibly be good. It is simply not credible to discuss MS software and
>> avoid 'the monopoly argument', since that's what MS software is.
>
>In your head it isn't. That's OK though. It's just your head. :=)
>
>> >A customers concerns are not the same as those of the service provider or
>> >vendor. The customers concerns are selfish. The vendor has to consider
>> >different customer types and their concerns. The vendor will be concerned
>> >about multiple language support if they wish to market internationally.
>> >The customer is concerned only about his language being supported.
>>
>> The customer concerns are selfish, the vendor's concerns are selfish,
>> the producer's concerns are selfish. Everybody's concerns are selfish,
>> yet a free market will still work to ensure that the highest efficiency
>> in production is brought to bear to provide the most products (and the
>> greatest variety of products) to market at the cheapest price. Funny
>> how that works, huh? Of course, when someone monopolizes, then there
>> isn't a free market anymore, and NONE OF THIS IS TRUE. You are very
>> focused, I must tell you, on pretending that these rules still apply,
>> that whether a product is "better", or whether a consumer can "choose"
>> the best product for their needs or the best price for their choice, can
>> be determined, even when the market is not free, but monopolized. This
>> simply isn't the case. This is why monopolies are illegal, and why
>> discussing the relative technical merits of a monopoly product is just
>> plain silly.
>
>Yada yada ...
>
>> [...]
>> >> >> Take a look at what happened when Iceland wanted windows in their own
>> >> >> language, btw.
>> >> >
>> >> >I think you missed what T. Max was really saying but that's OK. It's not
>> >> >worth it. :=)
>> >>
>> >> I think you missed what T. Max was really saying. That's not OK,
>> >> because it was important.
>> >
>> >I haven't missed a thing. :=)
>> >
>> >You will not listen. You're too busy being preoccupied with yourself and
>> >what you think. :=) It's pretty amazing.
>>
>> You misunderstand the circumstances. I'm happy to see that you are
>> satisfied with yourself, but you are, in fact, still missing the point.
>
>I see your point a long time ago. However, as with all people like you,
>you genuinely feel that the only time someone sees your point is when
>they agree with it.
No; I believe that unless they agree with it, they don't see it. After
all, as far as I know (or they have convinced me) it is the most
accurate, consistent, and practical point, adequately and rationally
explained well enough that a reasonable person could at least ask
questions, in order to figure out what it is about my point they don't
understand, since they don't agree with it. Most people disagree with
points they don't understand, you see. That's the problem you're
actually dealing with. I assure you, if nothing else, there are no
other "people like me", AFAIK.
Does it sound like I'm being preposterously arrogant, again? Am I
playing word games, in order to make myself sound smart? Do I really
think I know what is "true", and that anyone who disagrees with me is
"mistaken"?
You tell me.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
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:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 01:40:33 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Curtis in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 24 Nov 2000 19:06:39 -0500;
>Chris Ahlstrom wrote...
>> Curtis wrote:
>> >
>> > Is there any practical reason for me to know more than I do presently. I
>> > make associations without difficulty. I realised that I can only
>> > associate one default application with a particular filetype. An annoying
>> > limitation at times. However I can associate multiple applications for a
>> > particular filetype. Being able to associate applications on a per file
>> > basis is great but not a show stopper for me, meaning that I will not
>> > drop Windows and it's advantages to embrace that functionality in another
>> > OS.
>>
>> Uh, you can get a lot of this functionality in Windozzzzzzz using the
>> shortcuts.
>
>No, you can't.
>
>Example:
>
>If I have 5 HTML documents, I can't associate each to be opened with a
>different editor using shortcuts.
Actually, you can. Sort of, at least. You can make shortcuts which
call the app and load the doc, and use them instead of the original doc
icons. Rather simple, don't you think?
Wouldn't work for links, but then you could just use a one line shell
script.
>Anyway, that's no loss for me. I use only two editors, ie, NoteTab Pro
>and CoffeeCup HTML. NoteTab Pro is the default and CoffeeCup HTML resides
>in my right click context menu as the other option (Open with Coffee Cup
>editor).
I tried NoteTab, and was only an inch away from buying the sucker. WOW.
But I don't actually work with text much, in comparison to a lot of
people.
>> > I only really care about the end result. Any particular OS you use will
>> > never be perfect. You choose the one that offers the best balance for
>> > your needs, monopolies and all being considered. :=)
>>
>> It is your choice.
>
>Thanks for that. Some would think otherwise.
Federal judges among them.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
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.os.os2.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Uptime -- where is NT?
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 01:40:36 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Erik Funkenbusch in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 24 Nov 2000
20:27:25 -0600;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> The "ignorance" being referred to in the term is not the ignorance of
>> which argument is correct, but of any argument at all. If neither side
>> is known to be correct, then one examines the supporting arguments, one
>> doesn't presume that neither alternative is valid. The amount of
>> ignorance Erik insists on maintaining, in order to remain ignorant, and
>> profess ignorance as a logical argument (a fallacy), is beside the
>> point. It is not discussion; it is an attempt to deter discussion, and
>> nothing more.
>
>You are misinterpreting both what I say, and what the Fallacy is. I'm not
>saying that neither position is or isn't correct. I'm saying that the
>ARGUMENT isn't valid.
I thought for a moment your first sentence might be correct, and was
fully prepared to consider how it might be so. And then I read your
second and third sentence, and realized you're full of it. Argument
from ignorance, that is. To say an *argument* isn't "valid" is, indeed,
an argument from ignorance, the classic fallacy, albeit in a slightly
different form. An argument is as valid as its reasoning, and nothing
more. Stating that there isn't evidence to support it in some way, and
therefore the argument has no validity, is an argument from ignorance.
The reasoning of the argument is what is to be considered, not whether
or not it is already known to be true.
>It may be that you are correct, but without any
>supporting evidence, that's pure luck.
See what I mean? I hadn't read your fourth sentence before I responded
to the first three, yet it perfectly mirrors what I have pointed out is
your argument from ignorance.
>Even if what you are arguing about
>is correct, your argument is still invalid because it's based on a lack of
>evidence.
And now you mirror that actual classic form of an argument from
ignorance as cited on the Logical Fallacies page.
http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/toc.htm
You don't know if the argument is correct until you consider both its
reasoning and its evidence. A lack of evidence alone is not, in any way
shape or form, an argument against the reasoning. Now, *contrary*
evidence might be very useful in questioning either the reasoning or the
evidenced, and indeed the 'validity', of an argument. But that requires
evidence, not ignorance. An argument from ignorance is always invalid;
that's why they call it a logical fallacy.
>> Empirical testing, of course, would be required to *know* it is correct;
>> Occam's Razor is an inductive tool, not a deductive one. But in the
>> post-post-modern world, induction becomes often much more important than
>> deduction, as there is so much which is not known, and it is a grave and
>> ignorant mistake to say "therefore it cannot be known".
>
>No, I'm not saying "it cannot be known", I'm saying "It *IS* not known",
>therefore your argument is invalid.
As I've already explained (but will again, because apparently you missed
it), this results in an inability to know. If an argument is not valid
if it is not known to be true, then an argument cannot be known to be
valid until it is known to be valid, and therefore cannot ever be either
known or valid, capiche?
>Your position may or may not be
>correct, but without evidence, it's simply your belief.
No, even with evidence, it is still simply your belief. Welcome to the
post-post-modern reality. The evidence is only evidence simply because
it is your belief as well. You might find it easier to believe
something with evidence, and disbelieve one without; most people do.
But that isn't an argument against any particular belief: you're still
required to reason.
>Occam's razor is largely irrelevant in situations like this. There isn't
>enough evidence to even support Occam in making a judgement about
>likelihood.
Apparently, you aren't very familiar with Occam's razor, either. It is
in situations where there isn't enough evidence that it is employed.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
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.os.os2.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Uptime -- where is NT?
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 01:40:35 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Giuliano Colla in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 25 Nov 2000
[...]
>Max, listen to me.
>
>I don't object on counters for continuity indicators. It's the simplest
>and cleanest solution I can see. I'm well aware that a counter rolls
>over to zero. It's the MS implementation what I object to.
>
>You have given the specs for the uptime: a 32 bit value, which is
>incremented in units of one hundredth of second, or 10 ms if you prefer.
>This allows for a continuous increment during 497 days and something,
>then, as any binary value it will become all 1's, and at next increment
>it will be all 0's. OK?
>
>That's what anybody would expect from such a specification, and that's
>very simple and easy to deal with, if it's intended (as it is) as a
>continuity indicator.
>
>Now look what NT does. It exposes a 32 bit value, which is incremented
>in units of one hundredth of a second, as per specs, but when it reaches
>a value 10 times smaller than the all 1's value (i.e. after 49.7 days,
>instead 497) it goes back to zero. To be exact, when it reaches the
>binary value 11001100110011001100110011001 it goes back to zero. It's
>not a binary counter rolling over to zero!
>
>If you provide a 3 digit decimal counter as a continuity indicator, you
>think that after 999 it will roll over to 000. But you'd never expect it
>to go back to 000 after, say 191![...]
Holy shit. All this time, I figured I was the one dropping a zero, or
one or the other was thousandths. See how that works? You start
thinking you're reasonably smart, and then you find you can't keep the
simplest details straight.
Well, heck, thanks for the tutorial, Giuliano. That's killer. I guess
I was just giving a certain party the benefit of the doubt, without much
cause. Holy...
No wonder I missed it. Its just so ludicrous.
WHY? I'm not going to be able to think until I figure out why! HOW?
for that matter. HOW?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
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! ======
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
