Linux-Advocacy Digest #915, Volume #30 Fri, 15 Dec 00 19:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux lacks ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Linux lacks ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Unuther UNIX sight doun! (Peter Hayes)
Re: Security (was Re: Several items) (kiwiunixman)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Steve Mading)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Steve Mading)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 23:25:41 GMT
Steve Mading writes:
>>> I just was looking for a new modem yesterday. I went to three different
>>> stores: (Specifically Best Buy, CompUSA, and, a local university supply
>>> place called "DoIT"). Out of curiosity while I was there I looked at
>>> the keyboards to see if any of them did not match the following
>>> description: "esc is closer to 'a' than left-arrow is to 'j'."
>>> All of them matched that description. Each and every one.
>> Therefore my keyboard is "weird"? I note that you didn't specify
>> the number of keyboards you looked at.
> Because I didn't count.
Perhaps because you didn't want to? Easier to avoid the question
that way.
> It was *ALL* of them on display. I'd
> guess about 8-ish models in each store.
Funny that I don't have so much trouble finding counter examples.
>>> Okay, then what is the reason you aren't talking about it?
>> What makes you think I haven't been talking about it? I've been
>> telling you about it all along.
> No. You've merely been asserting that yours is different.
I've never tried to argue that all keyboards are alike. I have
argued that my keyboard is not unique.
> Not once have you given the details.
Yes I have; I told you that the cursor keys are closer than the Esc
key. They are. Hardly a unique keyboard, contrary to your claim.
> (Where are your arrow keys, then, if not in the typical location
> (the inverted 'T', with the left-arrow key starting about 1/2 an
> inch to the right of the lower-righmost key on the main group
> (which will either be ctrl, shift, or alt, depending on the layout,
> but if it's a PC keyboard, it's probably 'ctrl'.))
They are closer to the home row than the Esc key.
> Your unwillingness to provide this information make me think
> you are just making it up.
Your unwillingness to admit that keyboards can be different from
yours without being unique makes me know of your arrogance.
> There is an easy way to stop
> making me suspicious, assuming you aren't lying,
There's that arrogance again.
> and that is to just describe it, or better yet give a make and model.
I already have described it. You insist that the keyboard is
"unique". Hardly. Extremely popular.
>>> As you know perfectly well, this is not a comparasin of escape vs
>>> no escape. It's a comparasin of escape vs arrow keys - which one
>>> requires more precision (and therefore cannot just be 'whacked'
>>> with a slap in the general direction.)
>> An illogical comparison, given that one gets you out of a mode,
>> while the other moves the cursor around. Try comparing apples and
>> apples.
> Ahem - if you ignore 'esc' and look at JUST hjkl vs the arrow keys,
> then hjkl looks even faster.
Speed isn't the issue. Intuition is.
> This doesn't help your argument.
It doesn't hurt my argument either, given that speed isn't the issue.
Which isn't to say that you haven't tried to make speed the issue,
what with your stretch and twist arm motions.
> I'm being fair in admitting that I have to take into account the time
> it takes to use the escape key when comparing the two techniques.
Are you also taking into account the time is takes to use the i or a
key to get back into the mode you exited with Esc?
>>> I'm not arguing that esc is faster than not hitting
>>> any key (and you already know this). I'm arguing that hjkL, with
>>> it's associated use of ESC, taken as a whole, is faster than using
>>> the arrows, taken as a whole.
>> And I disagree with your argument. Apparently you don't like
>> that, hence this lengthy discussion. Why do you have such
>> trouble accepting that a different person might find something
>> else more efficient than you do?
> Because you are supporting your argument with premises that
> don't sound believable.
That you can't believe a popular keyboard has cursor keys closer
than Esc is your problem.
> (Namely this alleged keyboard that is so different from what I've
> seen.)
How much difference is "so different", Steve?
>> It's rather arrogant for you to sit there and insist that because
>> you find your way faster, it must be faster for everyone.
> Ahem - pot, kettle, black.
Balderdash, given that I haven't done that, Steve.
> You haven't been stating each and every time "this only applies to
> me" in each post,
Because to do so would be a lie, given that I know others to whom
it applies.
> so don't start getting pissy with me when I don't.
You're erroneously presupposing that you haven't gotten "pissy".
Or is this the younger generation's "South Park" mindset?
>>> Normally I'd assume that common sense would take over from here
>>> on out,
>> Instead, your arrogance has taken over.
> pot. kettle. black.
Yet another example of your pontification.
>>> but in your case I'll spell it out: If hitting esc is slower
>>> than not hitting it, BUT hitting hjkl is faster than using the
>>> arrows, then overall, it is still possible for the hjkl method
>>> to be faster, depending on the ratio of time spent on hjkl vs
>>> time spent hitting escape.
>> "possible"
>>
>> "depending"
>>
>> There, you just agreed with me that it won't necessarily be any
>> faster. So what's your problem?
> The phrases "possible" and "depending" were in the "then" clause
> of the IF.
Doesn't change the fact that it won't necessarily be any faster.
So what's your problem?
> I used those terms because I was still leaving out the other
The other what?
>>> In my experience, hjkl + esc is the faster way.
>> Not my experience. Strange that you don't want to accept that.
> Because you've been phrasing it as something for everyone,
Where have I allegedly done that?
> not just 'in my experience'.
It's not just my experience.
> Kinda like you keep leaving
> off the "for whom" clause of your statements about intuitiveness.
Are you expecting a list of names?
> To start with those qualifiers in place, and then to leave them
> off later is a false equivocation fallacy.
On the contrary, it's a case of you failing to comprehend context.
>>>>>> It can; it can cut the number of keystrokes in half.
>>>>> Only if you have superhuman timing, of your key-repeat rate
>>>>> is amazingly slow. Getting exactly two keypresses and no more
>>>>> by using the key repeat is hard. Slowing the repeat down to the
>>>>> point where this is possible leads to other annoyances (taking
>>>>> a long time to type something like /*---------------------*/).
>>>> Not nearly as annoying as your argument. Do you really think that
>>>> autorepeat is used for two instances?
>>> No, I don't. That was precisely my point,
>> On the contrary, you were talking about moving a long way, probably
>> gearing up to tout the count prefix of vi.
> No. Your ESP has failed you again.
You're erroneously presupposing that I have ESP, Steve.
>>, while forgetting that
>> autorepeat prevents me from having to hit the key the number of
>> times I want to move. Thus you rushed in with your two count
>> example.
Note: no response.
>>> Mr. "reading comprehension".
>> How ironic.
Note: no response.
>>> I was showing you that autorepeat doesn't eliminate the need to
>>> hold you hand over the arrow keys for a time while you tap several
>>> keys.
>> I don't need to tap "several" keys. I hold one key down.
> Really? One key to go up/up/left/left?
There you go again, failing to comprehend context.
>>> You recognized that the example I gave doesn't work well
>>> for auto-repeat,
>> The first example you gave works well with auto-repeat, so you
>> engaged in demage control by adding that two count example.
Note: no response.
>>> but failed to see that this was exactly my point.
>> On the contrary, you were talking about moving a long way, probably
>> gearing up to tout the count prefix of vi
> Your failed ESP again.
You're erroneously presupposing that I have ESP, Steve.
>> , while forgetting that
>> autorepeat prevents me from having to hit the key the number of
>> times I want to move. Thus you rushed in with your two count
>> example. By the way, it's often slower to try and count the
>> number of lines I might want to move, so the count prefix of a vi
>> movement command can be slower than using autorepeat and simply
>> stopping when you get there.
Note: no response.
>>>> Yet that's the example you
>>>> tried to use. (Note that your example came AFTER my reference to
>>>> "autorepeat", which followed your reference to "several times".
>>>> Is "two" your idea of "several"?)
>> Note: no response.
> No response my ass.
Where is your alleged response? Count the number of indentations.
Notice how it skips one level.
> Do I have to repeat every goddamn thing I say twenty times?
No; you should say something once, however.
> I had already responded to this point up above.
By ignoring context?
>> But thanks for leaving the evidence intact
>> that you referred to "several times" originally, not "two".
> Two can be "several".
Yet another peculiar notion of yours.
> "Several" does not imply "lots of".
On what basis do you make that claim?
> [rest snipped, as your replies were written in ignorance of
> things I said later in the thread
Yet another example of your pontification.
> - that I presume you hadn't read yet when you wrote this reply.]
Another erroneous presumption on your part, Steve.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 23:29:36 GMT
Russ Lyttle writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Steve Mading writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not exactly uncommon. When my VCR is "off", it's still on by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enough to keep a clock running and monitor its programming to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> determine whether to turn "on" (or should I say "more on") and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> record a program. Doesn't make the power switch any less
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intuitive.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Actually, I would say that that sort of power switch is highly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unintuitive. Intuitively, you'd expect that turning something
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> off would, you know, actually turn it off.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Depends on what you consider "off" to be. When you turn your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> microwave oven off, do you expect it to lose the time? (Yes,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that does presuppose an oven with a clock on the display.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are there any new models that don't have one of those built in?)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I haven't seen any microwaves with an on/off button lately.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Okay then, "Start/Stop", if you must be pedantic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If they had them, then yeah, I'd expect them to at least turn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the display off, and go down to a trickle that only serves
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to maintain a few K of RAM (for the clock and maybe some programs)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (which takes very little power, as evidenced by calculators and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> watches, and could be done by battery like it is for CMOS
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> settings on computers.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Even with the display on, it could still be a trickle.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> All this "unintuitive" behavior of power switches is causing a major
>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem in California.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Illogical. It is quite possible that people will generally know what
>>>>>>>>>>>> to do with a power switch without needing to consult a manual, but will
>>>>>>>>>>>> not generally know how much power is consumed in the on and off states.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Consider the AC adaptor for a modem, for example. The power switch is
>>>>>>>>>>>> on the modem, not the AC adaptor.
>>>>>>>>>>> Logical. The behavior of the power switch changed from its traditional
>>>>>>>>>>> role. People *think* it still works the way it did 10 years ago.
>>>>>>>>>> Oh really? Your Curtis Mathes is older than that. You claim it kept
>>>>>>>>>> the power on.
>>>>>>>>> Yes, but it was very unusual for its time.
>>>>>>>> Really? I had a clock-radio that when "off" kept the clock on. Very usual
>>>>>>>> for its time.
>>>>>> Note: no response.
>>>> Note: still no response.
>> Note: still no response.
Note: still no response.
>>>>>>>>>>> Its behavior isn't capable of being comprehended without logical thought.
>>>>>>>>>> And with logical thought, the average consumer will know how much power
>>>>>>>>>> is still being consumed by a unit even when the switch is in the off
>>>>>>>>>> position? That's not the issue here.
>>>>>>>>>>> (See definition of intuitive).
>>>>>>>>>> Practice what you preach.
>>>>>>>>>>> They are still trying to make decisions
>>>>>>>>>>> based on the traditional use of the power switch - power cord setup.
>>>>>>>>>> On the contrary, sounds like your example involves a mislabeled
>>>>>>>>>> button. There is a difference between "video blank" and "power off".
>>>>>>>>>> You've described the former. I've been talking about the latter.
>>>>>>>>> No, they concern the device that serves as a power switch these days.
>>>>>>>> An "off" switch that leaves 10 amps of power running isn't much of an
>>>>>>>> off switch.
>>>>>> Note: no response.
>>>> Note: still no response.
>> Note: still no response.
Note: still no response.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The issue of all these devices still drawing power is keeping a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> load on the system that it wasn't designed to handle.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you suggesting that systems outside of California were somehow
>>>>>>>>>>>> designed to handle it?
>>>>>>>>>>> No. Outside CA, NY, and MA, there have been more plants built. These
>>>>>>>>>>> plants are now selling some of their excess off peak power to CA. In the
>>>>>>>>>>> past CA would sell power to Texas during the peak time in Texas and
>>>>>>>>>>> Texas would sell to CA during the peak time there. Now the transfer is
>>>>>>>>>>> all one way. To CA. But it is getting difficult for Texas utilities to
>>>>>>>>>>> justify building more plants just to have power to sell to CA. They have
>>>>>>>>>>> to justify the need for plants based on need in Texas.
>>>>>>>>>> That has nothing to do with being designed to handle the load.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> That coupled with lack of new power generation in California is putting
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a strain on the system now, promising a major breakdown in the near
>>>>>>>>>>>>> future.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Sounds like those Californians are going to have to do without their
>>>>>>>>>>>> 72-inch projection televisions. (Did your Curtis Mathes need 10 amps
>>>>>>>>>>>> to keep its filament going?)
>>>>>>>>>> Note: no response.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Relying to much on intuition and not enough on reason is going
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to get a lot of people killed.
>>>>>>>>>>>> The power consumed by a device in the off state has absolutely
>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing to do with the issue of whether the power switch itself
>>>>>>>>>>>> is intuitive.
>>>>>>>>>> Note: no response.
>>>>>>>>> OK, what is your intuitive concept of the operation of a power switch?
>>>>>>>> One position is "on" and the other position is "off".
>>>>>>> The switch marked "on" and "off" on my 1903A4 Springfield is a Power
>>>>>>> Switch?
>>>>>> Show me your 1903A4 Springfield.
>>>>> Next time you are in Arizona, give me a call.
>>>> What's your number? I usually get to Arizona at least once a year. It's
>>>> a big state, however. Don't expect me to look you up in Yuma.
>>> Tucson/Pheonix. E-mail me.
>> Most trips are to Tucson. Somewhat fewer to Flagstaff, which usually
>> involves arrival at Sky Harbor.
>>>>>>> Not all switches marked thus perform the same functions or
>>>>>>> perform the same functions the same way!
>>>>>> Irrelevant, given that I didn't say they do.
>>>>> Looking at your post you definately said your concept of a power switch
>>>>> has "One position is "on" and the other position is "off"."
>>>> Yet you illogically turned that around and tried to make it sound like
>>>> every switch with an "on" and an "off" must be a power switch.
>>>>> So if that isn't your concept of a power switch, what is?
>>>> Something that changes the state of the power applied to a device:
>>>> power on, power off. That doesn't mean every switch with an "on"
>>>> and an "off" is a power swtich. That's just plain illogical.
>>> You said the intuitive concept of a power switch was a switch with one
>>> position "on" and the other "off".
>> I said my concept of a power switch is that one position is "on" and
>> the other position is "off".
Note: no response.
>>>>> And why did you say it was your concept of a power switch?
>>>> Because you asked me about my concept of a power switch.
>> Note: no response.
Note: still no response.
>>>>> why won't my computer fire 30-06 rounds from the magazine when
>>>>> the power switch is in the "on" position.
>>>> You're erroneously presupposing that your computer has a magazine
>>>> from which it might be able to fire rounds.
>>> No, I'm supposing my computer has a switch with one position marked "on"
>>> and the other marked "off".
>> Why did you mention a magazine from which rounds are fired?
Note: no response.
>>> The '03A4 loads from a magazine when in the switch is in the "on"
>>> position.
>> Is it a power switch? If not, then it is irrelevant to the present
>> discussion.
Note: no response.
>>> Therefore it is intuitive that the computer would do the same.
>> Illogical, given that the discussion is about power switches, not
>> some other kind of switches.
> Your definition of a power switch :
On the contrary, you asked me for a concept of a power switch, not a
definition.
>>>>>>> One position is "on" and the other position is "off".
> Therefore, by your define both are power switches.
Illogical. All pulsars are neutron stars. Does that mean all
neutron stars are pulsars? No. Classic illogic on your part.
> Want to change your definition?
I didn't give you a definition. You asked for a concept. I gave
you a concept.
Want to change your accusation?
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux lacks
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 16:29:10 -0700
SwifT - wrote:
>
> I fully agree. The day before yesterday, I gave an introduction to KDE on
> a computerclub (95% Windows, 3% Macintosh, 1% Atari and 1% Linux). I got
> the answer that my presentation wasn't going to convert them into
> Linux-users. I asked them what they want. The main reason was that they
> all want to develop apps, but using Visual Basic. Although I tried to
> reason them that support for VB isn't going into Linux (since VB 100%
> relies on Win-API's) they didn't bow. Even informing them that Kylix
> ("Delphi for Linux") is coming into the scene, they wanted a
> user-environment, visually programmable, that copes with databases (esp.
> MDB's - MS Access) without writing 100 lines of code.
I've got two words for you: Python and Zope.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux lacks
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 16:40:22 -0700
Pedro Coto wrote:
>
> Well, my magazine tells me to write in Word 97, and then they
> format the pages ... so ... I have not really choice, have I? In any
> case, I find LyX more scientific oriented. LaTeX is the best
> document language, but ... if you do not know it, perhaps is a
> little waste of time to learn it just to write a letter.
Why? You only need to know about five tags to write a letter in
LaTeX . . . but why would you use LaTeX, or Word, for that matter, to
write a letter?
Seems kinda like overkill to load hundreds of mega-bytes worth of stuff
onto your HDD just to write a letter.
> > Despite dubious "advances", Windows still doesn't cut it for me.
>
> So tell me how does aviplay or xmps at your machine perform
> compared to a Windows player please.
It is infinitely faster . . . since Windows wouldn't install on my
machine.
> Or tell me how Java,
> Javascript, VBScript or ActiveX perform under Mozilla.
I use Netscape. Java and JavaScript work just fine on Netscape.
VBScript and ActiveX I won't use, even when I am working on a Windows
box.
To risky.
> Or
> the porcentage of games available for a GNU/Linux desktop
> platform.
http://www.linuxgames.com/
http://freshmeat.net/
http://sunsite.auc.dk/lgdc/
http://happypenguin.org/
http://news.tucows.com/ext2/
Try the above sites for game info.
> I know that you may have the ones you want, but
> as a worl wide desktop OS it suffers from some limitations that
> is honest to point even if you (as I do) like GNU and GNU/Linux
> philosophy. We do not need to lie as we always point Microsoft
> to do, we have a OS that is improving very fast and that we hope
> to be ready, but I have no problem admitting that if fails for some
> things just now.
Every platform fails for some things now. Windows, as much as any other
platform.
> May be for you or for me. But when a ext2 filesystem (and Reiser or the
> kind are just now beginning to be widespread) tell a new Linux user
> to enter root password to check a filesystem by hand, he gets annoyed.
Versus what? A simple and persistent crash?
Trust me, most users will never need to check a file system by hand . .
. and only an expert *COULD* check a file system by hand, anyway.
Or maybe you didn't mean what you wrote? I'm capable of hand checking a
file system, but truth be told, I wouldn't, 'cause the effort would be
to much, for to little return.
It's faster/easier to just restore from backups.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Peter Hayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.society.anarchy,talk.politics.misc,alt.christnet,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unuther UNIX sight doun!
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 23:40:26 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 14 Dec 2000 22:10:05 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Travis) wrote:
> And Chad Myers spoke unto the masses...
> >
> >What?
> >
> >You mean that EFNET doesn't run on the Internet server? You know,
> >because the whole Internet runs on that one Internet Server.
> >
> >-Chad
> >
> >
>
> Well duh! It all runs off this tricked out little TI82 I put together. Fitting
> that 56K in there was a bitch though :).
No, no. It runs on a Commodore 64 located on the Isle of Tiree off the west
coast of Scotland. You get more ram that way...
Peter
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Security (was Re: Several items)
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 23:49:07 GMT
Yeah, I saw the lastest Volvo on DW TV, pretty sporty. Personally like
like merc's and beama's (BMW).
kiwiunixman
<snype>
--
"Like a midget at a urinal, you gotta keep on your toes"
Naked Gun 33 1/3
"Like a blind man at an orgy, you gotta feel your way out"
Naked Gun 33 1/3
____
Unix Programmer:
"If it an't broken, don't fix it"
Microsoft Programmer:
"If it an't broken and working perfectly, then their must be a problem"
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: 15 Dec 2000 23:46:45 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: Steve Mading writes:
:>>> so I invite any onlookers to just look upward in this thread at other
:>>> posts by tholen.
:>> And they'll see me talking about the use of those keys for cursor
:>> movement, the qualifier that you conveniently left out.
:> It's irrelevant to the argument.
: On the contrary, it's central to your claim that I left out the
: qualifier.
:> It's not a qualifier on to whom it is intuitive.
: Huh?
I'll spell it out for you. My claim is that while you claim you
know intuitiveness is all relative to the observer, you still
make statements about intuitiveness that contradict this, because
you leave out the relevant qualifiers, thereby rendering it into
a statement claiming universal (non-)intuitiveness. In this case,
while you included a qualifier, it had nothing to do with WHO would
find it intuitive, and that's what matters. The qualifier "for
cursor movement" doesn't say a damn thing about WHO would find it
non- intuitive for cursor movement. It's WHO would find it intuitive
(or not) that needs to be qualified.
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: 15 Dec 2000 23:49:14 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: Steve Mading writes:
:> I admitted it when I made the error. You still kept up with the
:> claim that I didn't know what Aaron meant.
: Because you kept up with the claim that he said "nothing is intuitive".
Bullshit. You lie. I stopped.
:> That makes you a liar.
: Balderdash, Steve. I haven't lied about what you wrote.
No - you lied about what I thought.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 18:52:56 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Steve Mading writes:
>
> >> Very good, Steve. Now, if your reading comprehension were are good
> >> as you claim, you wouldn't have needed to invert anything.
>
> >>> (This is the negation of "nothing about a computer is intuitive.)
>
> >> Funny how you previously translated that into "nothing is intuitive",
> >> or erroneously atrributed someone else's statement about that to Aaron.
>
> > Note: already replied elsewhere. Shut up about it already.
>
> Too embarrassed?
>
> >>> The problem with this statement is that natural languages like English
> >>> often lead to anbiguous statements,
>
> >> What is "natural" about English?
>
> > A "natural language" is one that evolved on its own rather than being
> > deliberately artificially designed at the outset. (Typically it refers
> > to 'normal' languages like English, as opposed to designed ones like
> > Pascal, C, Lisp, or Esperanto.) I didn't make up the term "natural
> > language". It's been around for a while.
>
> Not an "intuitive" term. Furthermore, those programming languages have
> evolved. Spoken languages have evolved. Unfortunately, we don't have
> historical knowledge of the development of spoken language, so information
> on just how much design went into them isn't available.
>
> >>> especially when the qualifiers "some" or "all" are left off - because
> >>> both are often equally valid ways to interpet the statement, depending
> >>> on the situation. There are two ways, both equally valid, of interpeting
> >>> the statement "Some things about a computer are intuitive":
> >>>
> >>> A) Some things about a computer are intiutive to all people.
> >>> B) Some things about a computer are intiutive to some people.
>
> >> And if you understood context, namely the statements I've made that
> >> intuition isn't an absolute, you'd already know which case applies here.
>
> Note: no response.
>
> >>> If your statement is (B), I agree with you.
>
> >> You mean you're unsure?
>
> > Yes, because you say it's relative, then turn around and make
> > statements that are incompatable with that stance.
>
> Which statements have I made that are incompatible with that stance?
>
> >>> But I think Aaron is assuming you are meaning (A),
>
> >> Illogical, given that intuition isn't an absolute, which is something
> >> else I've made perfectly clear to him.
>
> > Ahem - I wasn't trying to defend his interpetation, just stating
> > that this is what it looks like it is to me.
>
> So it looks to you like Aaron is being illogical?
>
> >>> since that is often what it means when someone leaves a qualifier
> >>> off on a statement like that.
>
> >> Evidence, please.
>
> > 28 years of context as a speaker of English.
>
> Is that all?
it's enough
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
** 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 by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
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
******************************
