Linux-Advocacy Digest #437, Volume #32 Fri, 23 Feb 01 21:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else (Byron A Jeff)
Re: Linux Threat: non-existant (Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=)
Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited ("Edwin")
Re: Is innovation a blessing? (was Interesting article) (Giuliano Colla)
Re: How Microsoft Crushes the Hearts of Trolls. (Giuliano Colla)
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else (Byron A Jeff)
Re: Does anyone know how much computer power we have/ (Peter Hayes)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (Giuliano Colla)
Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Interesting article ("Les Mikesell")
Re: NT vs *nix performance (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Amusing Aaron Kulkis Anagrams (Michael Vester)
Re: Kulis revelation! ("mmnnoo")
Re: Why don't we see more advocacy for Linux/MPI? ("mmnnoo")
Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited ("B.B.")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Byron A Jeff)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Date: 23 Feb 2001 19:05:59 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 20 Feb 2001 23:58:52 -0500, Aaron Kulkis wrote:
>>
>> >Wrong...Because the Demoncrook party has ALWAYS been in the business of
>> >protecting the financial interests of the socio-economic elite in this
>> >country.
>>
>> That's why Bush's plan primarily benefits the richest 1%, right ? And it's
>
>
>
>Wrong, on three counts.
Aaron,
A long time ago we agreed to disagree on this subject. However I can't
resist responding.
>
>
>First:
>Suppose you earned $2,000,000 this year...putting you into the
>top 0.1% of income. Would that mean that you are one of the
>top 0.1% richest people in the country?
Nope. It's the difference between total net worth and total net/gross income
for one year.
To clarify: B. Gates would be one of the richest people in the world even if
he never earned another dime in his lifetime.
Point taken.
>
>
>
>Come on...you have a strong, math background, worthy of someon
>
>Clue for the clueless. The slope of a curve is NOT the same
>thing as the area beneath it.
>
>This is why SALES TAXES are far more ethical than income taxes.
Here's the problem with sales taxes (which by definition taxes one's
consumption instead of one's income): its normally presented as a flat tax.
Its regressiveness impacts the folks with the least disposable income the
most.
If you proffered a progressive sales tax, I might bite:
1) All sales tax on the first X dollars spent exempted.
2) Sales tax becomes steeper as you spend more total dollars.
3) Luxury taxes on items over a certain amount.
4) No income or capital gains taxes.
This might work. One is taxed on what one spends, and one is taxed more as
one spends more. No tax at all unless you spend it.
Might work.
>
>Second:
>Under Bush's plan, the top wage earners STILL pay the higest tax rates.
Not really relevant for two reasons:
1) Lots of tax loopholes.
2) The resulting disposable income is still significant.
Go back to your $2,000,000 income earner. Even after paying the top 28%
tax, the over $1 million is disposable income is infinitely more than
the thousands of $50000 earners who has little or no disposable income yet
are still being taxed.
That's why I kind of like the progressive sales tax, because it can target
those with the most disposable income. Also it'll spur savings/investing
across the board because those dollars won't be taxed.
>
>
>Third:
>
>Do you have some particular problem with tax-relief being proportional
>to how much taxes a person pays?
Yes. You knew that was coming.
Like many Democrats, I do believe in income redistribution. Forced charity
is probably what you'd call it. I believe in it because income and net worth
acquistion isn't fair. I know you believe that if you work hard, you'll become
rich, or at least comfortable. Those who do not or are incapable of raising
their standard of living you have labeled as lazy or stupid in the past. But
we are not all born into the same circumstance. We don't all have the
opportunity to be that $2,000,000 earner, or Mark Cuban, or Gates. We don't
all get a chance to inherit, like a Rockerfeller. Many of the richest
people in the world became that way be being married to, family of, or
children to someone who built the fortune. They got all the benefit without
doing the hard work. Income/asset acquisition isn't fair, not by a long shot.
So yes I do believe that taxation according to disposable income, or net worth
should in fact be a bit unfair. so as to provide benefit to the maximum number
of people, instead of benefitting a select few, who in fact need the benefit
the least.
So I do have a problem with any equal taxation (flat rate). Through exemption,
proportial taxation, and targeted refunds there should always be a positive
flow of dollars from those with the highest disposable income to those with
little or no disposable income. I could agree with the sales tax outlined
above for example. But unless the $2 million earner either saves, invests,
or gives money to charity, they'll be taxed and the benefit will go to
folks who don't/won't make $2 million over their whole lifetime.
If you take $10000 away from a $2 million earner or a $2 billion net worth,
there's barely a drop, much less a ripple. However take that $10000 away from
someone earning $26500 a year and watch the devestating impact.
It's about disposable income Aaron. Those who have it should give. Those
who don't should get help. It ain't fair in your world view. But life isn't
fair. Which is exactly my point.
BAJ
------------------------------
From: Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Threat: non-existant
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 01:36:51 +0100
Edward Rosten wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Peter Köhlmann"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Chad Myers wrote:
> >>
> >> I really could care less about what IBM's doing because they will
> >> change their focus again in 6 months just like every other 6 months.
> >>
> > A true chaddyism again. First he dismissed several times the 1 billion $
> > from IBM as not existant (he had not heard of it etc etc). Now that he
> > can not any longer deny that, he "could care less".
> >
> > Chad is truely the dumbest wintroll ever. Even MS-lovers must be
> > ashamed of company like that.
>
> A troll implies some kind of intelligence (see the jargon file). Chad is
> simply a net.kook.
>
He for sure makes statements unbelievable dumb. Otherwise he sure can
read the MS stuff thrown at him to be a good MS-sock-puppet. So that
implies he has at least something resembling intelligent behaviour. I´m not
yet convinced he would / could pass the turing-test (probably not), but
sometimes he does say something one can comprehend.
So wintroll could apply, although kook would be a good selection.
Peter
--
The sticker on the side of the box said "Supported Platforms: Win 95,
Win NT 4.0 or better", so clearly Linux was a supported platform.
------------------------------
From: "Edwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 18:19:29 -0600
"B.B." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Woofbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> @> Sounds like an argument for unarmed police.
> @
> @You there! Stop! Stop, or I shall say "Stop!" again!
> @
> @The other week, some Oakland rookie cops shot and killed an undercover
> @cop who was holding a car thief at gunpoint.
>
> Police need to spend some time and money investigating (mostly)
> non-lethal weapons. It would cut down on this kind of shit.
Cut down on it? How often do you think something like that happens?
What do the cops do when they come up against criminals with lethal weapons?
Ask the criminals to wait until they come back with their guns?
> --
> B.B. --I am not a goat! [EMAIL PROTECTED] @airmail.net
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Is innovation a blessing? (was Interesting article)
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 00:25:39 GMT
Edward Rosten wrote:
>
> > used thereafter, but just looking at the grooves, and at a normal
> > railway the similarity is striking. Given the very limited knowledge of
> > the author on the subject, I don't believe his opinion being more
> > founded than mine.
>
> No, but it does show that the choice of guage is farly coincidental since
> there were many guages in the US until one was standardised on. They
> could have standardised on any one.
>
No, they couldn't.
Also on that point the author doesn't show a deep knowledge on the
subject.
They standardized on the gauge of the most popular engines, which were
imported from England. That's why they standardized exactly on the same
gauge that is used in Europe.
However I've made my homework, and a little research on the net.
Here's a photograph of a Roman road in northern Italy, carved in the
rock, where wheel ruts are clearly visible, even if not as deep as
others I've seen.
http://www.unc.edu/courses/rometech/public/content/transport/Adam_Pawluk/nicewife.JPG
I believe it to be near Aosta, not far from French border, at the roots
of the Mont Blanc. At least there I've seen a road very similar to this
one. And this goes for the "smooth roads".
This link comes from the Library of the Michigan University:
http://www.lib.umich.edu/ummu/standards/roads.html
and I deem it more reliable than a reference from a guy who doesn't know
where the standard railway gauge comes from, and that roman roads had
ruts.
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: How Microsoft Crushes the Hearts of Trolls.
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 00:31:46 GMT
Matthias Warkus wrote:
>
> It was the 22 Feb 2001 20:58:54 GMT...
> ...and Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Matthias Warkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > : It was the 20 Feb 2001 23:52:24 GMT...
> > : ...and Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > :> I don't understand your defense of EBCDIC on mulitnational
> > :> grounds. It's even worse than ASCII in that regard.
> >
> > : I did not defend EBCDIC.
> > : You did not read my posting.
> >
> > Context. It was in a thread comparing ASCII to EBCDIC.
>
> How could I defend EBCDIC? It's a thoroughly sick family of codes.
> However, I think that your pro-ASCII arguments are pretty moot in
> today's world where any decent software can and should be
> internationalised.
>
Maybe you forget the meaning of the first A of ASCII: it's American
Standard Code for Information Interchange. In Europe we came late and we
must be content of what we get. However the x86 machines have a nice
native instruction XLAT, which converts a string of bytes or words using
a look-up table. This may help.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Byron A Jeff)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Date: 23 Feb 2001 19:27:48 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Wed, 21 Feb 2001 23:14:47 -0500, Aaron Kulkis wrote:
>>2. Death Taxes are the LEADING cause of failure for businesses
>>that last more than 10 years....not to mention an INCREDIBLE burden
>>upon farming families.
>
>Must be very well-to-do "farming families". What's the threshold again ?
>IIRC you don't pay a cent unless you're a millionaire.
I did want to address this one point. The problem with many farms is the
disparity between the net worth of the farm vs. its yearly income. It
becomes an issue of a farm being worth more dead than alive.
Consider the situation where the farm is valued at $2 million because of
the land, stock, and equipment. However the farm only generates $75000 a year.
Millionare on paper, ordinary guy in reality.
The owner dies. Two equally horrible outcomes ensues:
1) The family goes into debt to pay the estate tax. One bankrupt family.
2) The family sells the farm and pays the tax. They cannot buy another farm
with the resulting cash. One dead farm, and one displaced family.
What the family probably wanted was to simply continue to own the farm and work
it, making the $75000 a year. But that dream is gone.
Now dropping the estate tax isn't the way to solve the problem either. Then you
get the situation where billions of dollars get passed from one estate to
another completely untaxed.
Better would be a system where the tax only comes due in a couple of
situations:
1) The estate is in fact sold. You liquidate within 5-10 years of death, you
pay the tax.
2) The estate is worth enough that it can withstand the tax hit. This
probably need to be computed using a mix of actual worth and income potential.
But it isn't cut and dried. Raising the estate limit could serve the same
purpose. Say $15 million or so. A $15 million farm could be sold, taxed and
the proceeds used to buy another farm. Or it could be determined that the
$15 million valuation only returns $350k a year which isn't enough income
to support the tax hit. Like I said, it's fuzzy.
In this new situation, the family simply keeps and works the farm, which is
what they wanted to do anyway.
But what something's worth isn't the same as what it can earn. That's where
the problem occurs.
BAJ
------------------------------
From: Peter Hayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Does anyone know how much computer power we have/
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 00:46:29 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 23 Feb 2001 12:20:01 -0500, Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Ironically, the MC68000 is still used for a lot of embedded
> applications, which goes to show you that old technologies never become
> obsolete: they just find new uses. Hmmm... I wonder if Microsoft
> believes this?
I believe the Z80 still sells in embedded systems in vast quantities.
Peter
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 00:56:50 GMT
nuxx wrote:
>
> "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > nuxx wrote:
> >
> > > No luck about it. If you apply datacentre type methodologies in design
> and
> > > change control as you would with any Unix server, NT is very reliable.
> Some
> > > Oracle processes tend to leak memory which would eventually cause a
> problem
> > > but they are killed and re-started for cold backup purposes on my
> systems,
> > > so the OS stays up all the time. Recent hardware used is stock Intel
> server
> > > boards with Adaptec hardware RAID. No BSODs, no crashes, nothing
> special.
> >
> > Sorry, we simply have not found this to be the case.
> >
> It's probably best you leave it to people that know what they are doing.
>
It's always been a source of wonder for me how Windows is so simple and
user friendly when they try to sell it to you, and requires experts in
order not to crash, once you have it.
On the contrary Unix, Linux, AIX etc., are represented as very difficult
and abstruse, but users who can keep a Linux box running for one year
without problems are apparently not competent enough to keep a Windows
box running for a couple of days.
There's something in this logic which I fail to grasp.
Could you please clarify it for me?
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 03:02:43 +0200
"B.B." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Woofbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> @> Sounds like an argument for unarmed police.
> @
> @You there! Stop! Stop, or I shall say "Stop!" again!
> @
> @The other week, some Oakland rookie cops shot and killed an undercover
> @cop who was holding a car thief at gunpoint.
>
> Police need to spend some time and money investigating (mostly)
> non-lethal weapons. It would cut down on this kind of shit.
There is no non-lethal weapon that you can mass produce which would've the
same advantages as guns.
Cheap, able to neutralize an enemy quickly, robust, mobile, etc.
Non of the other method (sonic bullets, electric shock, drugs) can fill
those demands.
Some of the sonic bullets can be stopped by a heavy rain coat, for crying
out load.
A tranquilazir gun is impracticale for several reasons:
A> You can't have one-doze-fit-all, the average doze would do nothing to
some people, and kill others.
B> There isn't a *single* sleeping drug that you can count on immobilizing
the enemy without killing in (take a moment to think why there is a person
whose sole job in oporations is to decide how much drugs the sick guy need.
C> How are you going to deliver this magic drug?
Electrical shock guns are very bad, energy consumtion, missed shots, and
energy levels (same problem as tranquilaizer gun)
Other methods are just as troublesome, rubber bullets are too often lethal
too be really useful, but they are the best at the moment.
Beside, a criminal that have a gun, with guns that have non-lethal weapons,
have *much* greater incentive to shot his way out of a tough corner, the
cops can't kill him, after all.
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Interesting article
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 01:39:25 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:976jp7$706$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > > :>
> > > :> It demonstrates exactly the opposite.
> > >
> > > : How do you get that? If it has to be done over it means it was done
> > wrong
> > > : the first time. Do you want to encourage users to make their own
> > > : mistakes with the security of their files?
> > >
> > > Some things have to be done over and over even if they are done right
> > > the first time, because circumstances change. In my example, you will
> > > note, I described a department with new people coming into it that
> > > weren't there when the groupd was first made.
> >
> > But when circumstances change, they change globally. Why would
> > you want every individual to apply ACL's and have to update them
> > on every file when the circumstances change as opposed to letting
> > the system administrator take care of updating the groups as
> > the groups change?
>
> Only shows that you don't understand how ACLs works.
> You can define ACLs for users or groups, so the *nix method has no
advantage
> over it.
Yes you can do it right, just like you can use only styles to format a
word document in a way that can be sanely modified later. However
letting every user do it his own arbitrary way pretty much guarantees
that it won't be done right.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.linux.sux,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT vs *nix performance
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 01:42:12 GMT
In article <976oqq$ani$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
>I've been doing some reading on Java when I encountered this article:
>
>http://www.objectwatch.com/issue_24.htm
>It's a very interesting article, on a very interesting site. But what really
>captured my attention was point three, about scalability.
><Qoute>
>...industry standard TPC-C benchmark. This benchmark shows that a $745,000
>COM+ system can process more than 56 million transactions per day, a higher
>rate than any documented web-based commerce system processes today. In order
>to meet this level of scalability with a UNIX system, you will have to spend
>at least $2,250,000.
></Qoute>
>
>This is a much discussed topic on this kind of newsgroups, so I would've
>ignored it, if it didn't mentioned this as well:
><Qoute>
>A web-based benchmark was recently conducted by Doculabs and PCWeek. [6, 7]
>This benchmark measured the number of web pages delivered to client browsers
>in a web commerce environment and the cost of the underlying hardware and
>software for both Microsoft and UNIX platforms. The Doculab report [6] is
>informative for any company planning a web commerce system.
>If we add together the hardware and software costs of the various platforms
>in the Doculabs benchmark, we find that a $208,000 Windows DNA system
>delivered 3,500 web pages per second, whereas the fastest measured UNIX
>system (a Progress system) delivered only 1,360 web pages per second at a
>cost of over $500,000. The average UNIX system cost $594,459 and delivered
>1009 pages per second, less than one third the Windows DNA performance at
>more than two and a half times the cost.
>And these tests were run on NT 4.0. A later, different benchmark run by
>PCWeek clocked Windows 2000 at between 25% and 100% faster than Windows NT
>4.0 [8]. If these numbers hold true for a Doculabs benchmark scenario, then
>we would expect to see a $208,000 Windows 2000 DNA system delivering
>anyplace from 4375 to 7000 pages per second, whereas a $594,459 UNIX system
>will be straining to deliver one quarter of that.
>The Doculabs benchmark predicted that in real-world scenarios, UNIX system
>web servers will be able to process over 10,000 concurrent real-world users
>while maintaining an acceptable response time, whereas a Microsoft Windows
>DNA implementation will handle upwards of 100,000 simultaneous users. Ten
>times the number of users for about one third the system cost! Now that's
>scalability!
></Qoute>
>
>I followed the trail of URLs and found the following comments:
>
>http://www.zdnet.com/eweek/stories/general/0,11011,409114,00.html
>"The results show that Microsoft so dominated the test--in terms of price
>and performance--that it looks downright embarrassing for the competitors"
>
>http://www.zdnet.com/eweek/stories/general/0,11011,409389,00.html
>"...its [microsoft] C++-based bookstore was so fast that it was bottlenecked
>by the 100M-bps test network."
>
>More information about this can be found here:
>http://www.zdnet.com/eweek/stories/general/0,11011,409380,00.html
>
>I know that this is quite old(almost 2 years), but is there some new data on
>it?
>
>BTW, I also checked tpc.org (new design, nice) and found this:
> DYNIX/ptx 4.5.1 Microsoft Internet Information Server 5.0
>
>on http://www.tpc.org/tpcw/results/tpcw_perf_results.asp
>How come IIS run on DYNIX?
>
What I find hillarious about this is the author appearently
has never heard of HOT MAIL and how Microsoft has been trying
for the last decade to replace the FreeBSD servers which RUN
HOTMAIL with Windows counterparts.
They spent several million dollars in those attempts also.
The last attempt was with Windows 2000.
And they all failed. They can't keep the system up for
more than 3-4 days. And rebooting thousands of boxes
is completely crazy.
And at the rate Linux is obiously whooping up on MS asses
at the marketplace, anybody who's waiting for affordable,
workable scalability thru Microsoft will have to wait
for Christ to return to get it.
--
Charlie
**DEBIAN** **GNU**
/ / __ __ __ __ __ __ __
/ /__ / / / \/ / / /_/ / \ \/ /
/_____/ /_/ /_/\__/ /_____/ /_/\_\
http://www.debian.org
------------------------------
From: Michael Vester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Amusing Aaron Kulkis Anagrams
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 18:16:58 -0700
meow wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> > meow wrote:
> > >
> > > I've been coming up with some anagrams of Aaron Kulkis name and i
> > > thought id share them with you
> > >
> > > Aaron Kulis = Miserable piece of shit
> > > Aaron Kulis = Toss Pot
> > > Aaron Kulis = Argumentitive fuck wit
> > > Aaron Kulis = Arrogant wank stain
> > > Aaron Kulis = Numb nuts
> > >
> > > thats all i have so far
> > > I think there surely must be some more
> > > Anyone got any others?
> > >
> > > Meow
> >
> > Please change your fake name. I like cats and I find your
> > usage of "meow" to be inappropriate and insulting to the
> > Feline species
> No can do
> Your obviously mental like kulkis
> Its hard to imagine but it looks like Kulkis actually has a friend in
> the world
Kulkis has earned my respect. He is a dedicated and relentless
advocate of Linux. He is also one of the most technically
knowledgeable posters here. I presume you are "woof" too.
Your postings surprise me. I can't imagine you having enough
intelligence to operate a computer. You certainly don't know
anything about them, evident by your posts.
--
Michael Vester
A credible Linux advocate
"The avalanche has started, it is
too late for the pebbles to vote"
Kosh, Vorlon Ambassador to Babylon 5
------------------------------
From: "mmnnoo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Kulis revelation!
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 01:53:46 GMT
The only way Kulkis' reputation will suffer from your babbling is if we
find out that he and you are one and the same.
------------------------------
From: "mmnnoo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why don't we see more advocacy for Linux/MPI?
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 01:58:42 GMT
Good advocacy.
To answer the question posed in your subject line, the reason we
don't see more advocay for Linux/MPI is because it hasn't been
brought 'down to earth.'
If you wrote a distributed encoder for mp3 and movie clips,
or perhaps a good distributed compilation system, you might start
to see some college dorms transformed into supercomputing centers.
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "mlw"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Has anyone played with MPI lately? For those who don't know, MPI is a
> package used to create and run parallel "clustered" (distributed)
> programs. It is standard in RedHat since 6.1 (I believe).
<snip>
------------------------------
From: "B.B." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 20:06:26 -0600
In article <976umo$nboei$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Edwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
@"B.B." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
@news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
@> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
@> Woofbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
@>
@> [...]
@>
@> @> Sounds like an argument for unarmed police.
@> @
@> @You there! Stop! Stop, or I shall say "Stop!" again!
@> @
@> @The other week, some Oakland rookie cops shot and killed an undercover
@> @cop who was holding a car thief at gunpoint.
@>
@> Police need to spend some time and money investigating (mostly)
@> non-lethal weapons. It would cut down on this kind of shit.
@
@Cut down on it? How often do you think something like that happens?
@
@What do the cops do when they come up against criminals with lethal weapons?
@Ask the criminals to wait until they come back with their guns?
An unconcious/dizzy/stunned/blinded man can't fire back. Also, the
cops don't necessarily have to switch completely to non-lethal weapons.
Since they often work with partners, have one partner armed with
non-lethal weapons, and one armed with a standard pistol. Or, maybe all
cops can carry both lethal and non-lethal weapons.
The situation where a rookie shoots an undercover officer is pretty
rare. More often, they shoot suspects. Recently there was a rather
loud uproar about the disparity between accidental or premature
shootings of black and latino suspects vs. white suspects. I was
thinking of this, specifically.
Like it or not, sometimes suspects (criminals, in this case) take the
pistols from officers and use them to shoot at the officers. Non-lethal
weapons would be preferable in this case. That's why guards in prison
are usually unarmed.
--
B.B. --I am not a goat! [EMAIL PROTECTED] @airmail.net
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
