Linux-Advocacy Digest #485, Volume #29 Fri, 6 Oct 00 10:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Donal K.
Fellows)
Re: To all you WinTrolls (John Sanders)
Re: "Overclocking" Is A Bad Idea (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: To all you WinTrolls (mlw)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (.)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (.)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (.)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (dc)
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: 2.4! (David M. Butler)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: 6 Oct 2000 10:31:24 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Donal K. Fellows" wrote:
>>> is a lattice but not a tree. It's called partially ordered because
>>> the ordering operation "is lower than" is not defined for every pair
>>> of elements, but does follow the rules of any ordering like
>>> transitivity (if (a < b and b < c) then (a < c)).
>>
>> So a lattice is (approximately) the transitive closure of a DAG
>> (Directed Acyclic Graph)?
>
> Actually, no. A DAG is a lattice with the relation "there is a path
> from X to Y" defined on top of some pairs of elements. At the time,
> I thought there might be a difference between a DAG and a lattice
> but there isn't. I'm used to thinking of lattices as being nicely
> ordered and DAGs as spaghetti, so that messed me up.
It depends. From your description, a lattice appears to be a DAG
where A>B means there is a path from A to B, and you can form a
lattice from any DAG by taking the transitive closure of the relation.
If there are additional constrains (e.g. unique suprema or minima)
then this isn't true.
Donal (I find nomenclature harder than semantics...)
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- I may seem more arrogant, but I think that's just because you didn't
realize how arrogant I was before. :^)
-- Jeffrey Hobbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: John Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: To all you WinTrolls
Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 07:24:46 -0500
"David.L" wrote:
>
> This is to all of you morons who write posts such as: "Linux sucks",
> "Windows Rulez" and such in linux newsgroups.
>
> Almost every linux user i know including myself has used Win9* Win 2000
> etc... either at work, at school or at home. I used Windows NT/Win 9*
> four years before i switched over to Linux. I have even tried out
> Windows 2000, and yes Windows 2000 is pretty good //by Windoze
> standards//. So i, and most linux users has had first hand experience
> with Windoze and know at least the basics. But the morons who write
> "Linux sucks" have usually not even seen a Linux screenshot. So before
> you write "Linux sucks" try out Linux for an year or two. Until you have
> done that shut up!!!
>
> //Sorry for the bad english//
Chad Myers will explain it to you. He sez that this is an irrelevant
argument.
--
John W. Sanders
===============
"there" in or at a place.
"their" of or relating to them.
"they're" contraction of 'they are'.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Subject: Re: "Overclocking" Is A Bad Idea
Date: 6 Oct 2000 12:55:14 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Mathias Grimmberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows) writes:
>> Intel FP is not as bad as it used to be, but it is still nothing to
>> write home about. That gamers haven't figured this out doesn't
>> surprise me; they tend not to be anything nearly so hot-shot technical
>> people as they like to believe themselves to be...
>
> Well, that is true. An Alpha may be even faster.
Maybe. The only way to find out is to test on real code and real
problems[*], and that's an expensive test to carry out
> However I fail to see how SPARC boxes would be interesting in any way,
> shape or form to gamers? Not everyone is a Nethack nut...
Some of us do work other than playing games, you know... (And I've
not played nethack since '94. USENET is more fun. :^)
> MGri (who sometimes likes playing a game too and doesn't do it on SPARCs)
Looking slick is all very well, but I don't buy games for visual
candy. I buy them for gameplay. (And FPSs all exacerbate my tendency
to motion-sickness; putting loads of 3D in a game *puts me off*...)
Donal.
[* It's too easy to optimise for benchmarks instead of real software;
only real tests count, and even then they only count for your
specific situation... ]
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- I may seem more arrogant, but I think that's just because you didn't
realize how arrogant I was before. :^)
-- Jeffrey Hobbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: To all you WinTrolls
Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 09:03:51 -0400
Todd wrote:
>
> Hmmm... have to agree with what you said.
>
> I am called a wintroll here, but I also have RedHat Linux 6.2.
>
> I've compiled the kernel a couple times and done this and that. Linux ain't
> bad. I've used it now for quite a while (ever since 6.2 was released).
That really isn't very long at all, besides, you probably still use a
Windows xxx box and expect Linux to be like Windows.
>
> But it isn't nearly as good as Windows 2000 nor as feature complete. Heck,
> most UNIX are way better than Linux as well. For example, HP-UX / Solaris /
> FreeBSD.
I would not go that far. FreeBSD is a very good UNIX, but Linux has a
lot on the UNIX purist camps for usability.
The biggest problem I have with people that say "Linux Sucks" is that
they want it to work just like Windows, and when it doesn't (because it
isn't) they say it sucks.
Linux (and UNIX) is both better and worse that any version of Windows.
If one were to sum up the pros and cons, UNIX generaly comes out ahead
(depending largely what you want to do with it).
If you need a computer to do video conferencing, hell yes, use Windows
because this is where most companies are developing the software. When
it crashes, you get to get on with your real work.
If you need to do development work, general office work (spreadsheets,
word processing, database, etc), e-mail, research, UNIX is the only way.
These applications represent "time." A crash or a hang loses work. Just
yesterday a friend told me that a URL I had sent her caused here machine
to crash. HER MACHINE!!!! She lost 3 hours work.
In the UNIX world a something like that hardly ever happens, and when it
does the system doesn't crash, it is the X session. (A vague distiction,
I grant you, and the result is the same.) And when something like that
happens on UNIX, you can bet it gets hunted down because the "a reboot
will fix it" metality does not exist here. In UNIX, a reboot means
critical system failure. In Windows a reboot means you've changed a
minor configuration.
I would like to see a serious study into how much time is spent waiting
for Windows to reboot each day. People I know who do serious work on
their machines reboot every morning, and have to reboot during the day
about twice a week.
This happens along side my machine (I am the only Linux user -- so far)
and I only reboot if I upgrade my kernel or test software against a
different kernel. Also, It has been over 3 years since I have lost work
due to a system crash.
>
> -Todd
>
> "David.L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > This is to all of you morons who write posts such as: "Linux sucks",
> > "Windows Rulez" and such in linux newsgroups.
> >
> > Almost every linux user i know including myself has used Win9* Win 2000
> > etc... either at work, at school or at home. I used Windows NT/Win 9*
> > four years before i switched over to Linux. I have even tried out
> > Windows 2000, and yes Windows 2000 is pretty good //by Windoze
> > standards//. So i, and most linux users has had first hand experience
> > with Windoze and know at least the basics. But the morons who write
> > "Linux sucks" have usually not even seen a Linux screenshot. So before
> > you write "Linux sucks" try out Linux for an year or two. Until you have
> > done that shut up!!!
> >
> > //Sorry for the bad english//
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
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: 6 Oct 2000 13:11:38 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "." wrote:
>>
>> 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.
> You GODDAMNED FUCKING LIAR.
> The back of the 1040 workbook has a pie-chart of how US federal revenues
> are spent. A Fulll TWO THIRD (2/3) of all tax dollars go to "entitlements"
Wrong. You are confusing 'tax dollars' at least three other types of revenue.
>> 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.
> What we really need is to put every lying communist like you up against
> the wall and pump about $5 worth of bullets into every one of your
> lousy, traitorous hides.
Communist? You dont even know how I feel about public welfare. (which is
very similar to the way you feel, actually).
But im not surprised at your illogical conclusion-jumping. You do it in all
of your political arguments. :)
=====.
------------------------------
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: 6 Oct 2000 13:14:04 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "." wrote:
>>
>> 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.
> Hint fucking hint ... all 'social programs' are welfare.
Oh really? Does that include federal support for college scolarships? Job training?
Etc?
>> (medicare, school lunch programs, etc). You are misinformed.
> Liar. The pie-chart on the back of the 1040 workbook CLEARLY shows
> 2/3 of the 1998 budget going to entitlements.
You clearly have no idea what makes up that number.
=====.
------------------------------
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: 6 Oct 2000 13:14:57 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "." wrote:
>>
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > ZnU wrote:
>> >>
>> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
>> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Loren Petrich wrote:
>> >> > >
>> >> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Aaron R. Kulkis
>> >> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> > >
>> >> > > > Loren Petrich wrote:
>> >> > >
>> >> > > > > And Mr. Kulkis seems to like everything that he professes to
>> >> > > > > object
>> >> > > > > to when it's military. So the ideal way to get even the
>> >> > > > > grossest pork past the Kulkises of the world is to claim some
>> >> > > > > "national defense" purpose to it.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > > I'm one of the first to admit that defense spending is abused.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Praise with faint damns.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > > What I can't figure out is why you advocate running the ENTIRE
>> >> > > > ECONOMY IN THE SAME FASHION.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > I've never advocated that.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > > Robinhood stole from the tax collectors and returned the money to
>> >> > > > the people.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Law-abiding means paying taxes. What part of that do you not
>> >> > > understand?'
>> >> >
>> >> > Taxes collected for the purpose of giving the money to someone else
>> >> > are unjust, and, by the Constitution, Illegal.
>> >>
>> >> The first article gives Congress the power to both collect taxes and
>> >> provide for the general welfare.
>>
>> > GENERAL WELFARE means running a court system, jails, etc. EVERYBODY
>> > benefits when criminals are incarcerated.
>>
>> How does everybody benefit from John Delany being given a 10 year sentence
>> in los angeles for posession of 2 marijuana cigarettes?
> When did I ever hold that contraband laws are proper?
So what are criminals then, exactly, if not people who commit crimes? Are
they just people who happen to break laws that you agree with?
=====.
------------------------------
From: dc <[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: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 08:12:39 -0500
On Fri, 06 Oct 2000 07:52:35 -0400, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"." wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>
>1. I'm neither a Republican nor a Democrat
>2. State-run Welfare is a plank of the communist platform.
>3. Property taxes are a plank of the communist platform (they turn
> one from an owner into a mere renter with equity interest in the
> property...failure to pay property taxes => eviction from the same
> property which you *supposedly* own...but the very fact that you
> can be evicted from the property proves that you do not own it.)
>4. State-run schools are a plank of the communist platform.
>5. Social Security is a plank of the communist platform.
>6. Prohibition of child labor a plank of the communist platform.
>7. Estate taxes are a plank of the communist platform.
>8. Graduated income taxes is a plank of the communist platform.
So? They're also planks of the Democrat, Republican, and just about
every other non-Neo-Nazi platform in America. So what?
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 10:45:24 -0300
El jue, 05 oct 2000, Richard escribió:
>Roberto Alsina wrote:
>> El mié, 04 oct 2000, Richard escribió:
>> >Roberto Alsina wrote:
>> >> >immortal = animate object that does not age
>
>> Ok, I suggest you use "ageless". Webster defines it as "not growing old or
>> showing the effects of age".
>
>Why the fuck should I, cretin?
Because using the right word for the intended meaning is good practice.
> Haven't you ever been around political
>activists long enough to know they *do* call corporations immortal as
>a matter of course?
Well, I've seen muslims call the US satanic. Should I call them the united
states of satan?
>> "Corporations ... are animate beings", you just said, if I agreed with that,
>> I would agree with the whole. I won't even guess what animate objects are
>> supposed to be, so I won't agree or disagree to that.
>
>Animation is not the same thing as beinghood. Unless of course, you have
>a broad definition of will. So in *my* case, animation might be the same
>as possession of will. In your case, since you "won't even guess" about
>what you're thinking ....
I won't guess what your words mean, because I don't think I could guess right.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 10:49:31 -0300
El jue, 05 oct 2000, Richard escribió:
>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.
I have not infected others, since my personal positions and values are not
imposed on them. I don't believe in proselitism.
> > >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?
Not at all. And I don't conform to their ideals any more than theirs conform to
mine. I call that "choosing where I work".
>> >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.
Since analogy in general is not abstraction, you shouldn't.
>> > They beat up annoying shareholders over there.
>>
>> You saw Black Rain once too many.
>
>Is that some kind of movie?
Yup. Maybe you saw Rising Sun, instead.
>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.
So, corporations in general don't have a tendency to psychopathy, except in
some circunstances?
>> rather, the shareholders, (which BTW, in another subthread you declared had no
>> corporate decision-making power)
>
>Reference.
Memory, really.
>> 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.
You are imposing schizoid behaviour on people.
>Shareholders have limited power over the corporation. That corporate executives
>are "professionals" is the major contributing factor to corporate psychopathy.
Whatever.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 10:53:08 -0300
El jue, 05 oct 2000, Richard escribió:
>Roberto Alsina wrote:
>> What aliens? The aliens that are like hamsters only dumber? No.
>
>Fictional aliens count as aliens. Are Vulcans human?
Spock had a human mother, so they probably fit into the DNS based definition.
>> >If so then *why*? Produce a FORMAL definition of human that will *NOT*
>> > need to be updated regularly (geez, ever heard of mathematics?)
>>
>> Not everything is mathematics.
>
>What a pathetic excuse for failing to adhere to the highest standards
>possible.
What an intellectually lame thing to say. And I say it as a mathematician at
heart.
>> >And if not then can they be psychopaths?
>>
>> If who not what?
>
>Are Vulcans human? If not, then can they be psychopaths?
Vulcans seem to be human. I'd say it requires testing to be sure. Vulcans can
not be psychopath, however, because they behave only based on logic, in a way
that even leads them to self-sacrifice for the good of others, as in ST3, IIRC.
>> >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!
>>
>> You are doing it again, Richard. You are not rigorous all the time (you said it
>> above). You are _sometimes_ rigorous.
>
>Imbecile.
Yes, you are sometimes imbecile, too.
>> >> >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!
>>
>> I don't see any inconsistence in "My having a religion doesn't impose any
>> religiousness on you."
>
>It's a non sequitur meathead. You aren't even talking about the same
>thing in the same sentence.
non sequiturs are not necessarily inconsistent. If you wanted to say it was a
non sequitur, you should have done so.
>> No. I don't impose the religion's guidelines, values, rites or ablutions on
>> you. What am I imposing? You could not even be able to notice the religion,
>> even trying.
>
>Such a "religion" is not a religion at all. A religion is a power structure,
>that's what differentiates it from spirituality or even mythology.
Explain that to sufi practicioners.
>> > A religion is an inherently public structure, like a corporation.
>>
>> You have a very limited view of religion.
>
>Spend some time on alt.atheism.moderated, cretin.
Why should I? I am already an atheist.
>> >And now we're ALL the way back to the beginning *AGAIN*.
>>
>> Because what you said didn't work.
>
>Putting 100 grams of lead in your brain has a better chance of enlightening
>you than mere words ever could.
What a childish display of rage. Do you really feel so inadequate?
>> In that case, what happens if an employee quits?
>
>Their stock is liquidated and the proceeds turned over to the employee.
You can't force him to liquidate his stock. Want more trouble? Usually, the
employees just don't have enough money to buy all the corporation.
>> >You have a poor grasp of EVERYTHING, including Godel's incompleteness theorem
>
>> I could fax you the 120 page thing I wrote on it.
>
>You can't even say anything intelligent about what it means to be human,
>and I'm expected to believe you have anything intelligent to say about
>the incompleteness theorem?
The incompleteness theorem doesn't involve anything about being human. It's a
rather dry mathematical thing. It's pretty complex, though.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: David M. Butler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 2.4!
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 09:58:00 -0400
Todd wrote:
> How many more benchmarks do you need?
I tend to use my own benchmarks... no, Linux doesn't win all the time, but
it wins in a lot of areas. For my particular hard drives, Linux is quite a
bit faster. For my video card, it's a bit slower with Linux. For my
internet connection, it's much faster under Linux, but with my current ISP,
I don't stay connected very long without whatever Window's is doing to hold
the connection (also in part due to the fact that I live in the currently
ignored section of town for technology advancement... glad I'm moving
soon). Booting for both is about equal... Linux pauses for about 5
seconds to detect hardware, I haven't noticed this in Windows though it's
checking. Uhrm... games run a varying speeds, really depends on what game
and what it does. Webserving has been argued heavily on both sides, but
most of the benchmark quotes are outdated and I haven't tried anything
myself.
In any case, my point is that I tend not to believe ANY benchmarks
regardless of which system they point to. In general, they're a least
slightly skewed one way or another... and they don't always apply to all
hardware.
D. Butler
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
