Linux-Advocacy Digest #470, Volume #32 Sun, 25 Feb 01 16:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited (Mike Flournoy)
Mircosoft Tax (Brent Pathakis)
Re: NT vs *nix performance ("Bartek Kostrzewa")
Re: Something Seemingly Simple. ("-hs-")
Re: Could Linux be used in this factory environment ? (Monte Milanuk)
Re: Mircosoft Tax (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ] (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: RTFM at M$ (Bob Hauck)
Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ] ("Les Mikesell")
Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ] ("Markus G")
Re: Microsoft says Linux threatens innovation (Ed Allen)
Re: [OT] Was: Re: Something Seemingly Simple. (Bloody Viking)
Re: M$ doing it again! (mlw)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (Craig Kelley)
Re: Something Seemingly Simple. (Bloody Viking)
Re: Something Seemingly Simple. (Ben Pfaff)
Re: Something Seemingly Simple. ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Mircosoft Tax ("J")
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else (Byron A Jeff)
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else (Byron A Jeff)
Re: Something Seemingly Simple. (Mark McIntyre)
Re: Something Seemingly Simple. (Mark McIntyre)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited
From: Mike Flournoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 18:38:53 GMT
in article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Matthias Warkus at
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 2/25/01 6:55 AM:
> It was the Mon, 19 Feb 2001 14:51:57 +0000...
> ...and pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>> Your turn. (Extra Credit - name 2 Microsoft innovations.)
>>>
>>> Drop shadow mouse cursors!
>>>
>>> Fading menus!
>>
>> Ohhhh, actually I have one:
>>
>> Menu items that don't show up: in MS-office 2000
>> if you click on the menu's - you (wait for it)
>> don't see all the menu items! Yes - it is true -
>> you have to physically move your mouse cursor down
>> the menu - indicating that you'd like to "reveal" all
>> the menu options.
>>
>> Obviously the programmers knew it was brain-dead
>> as they have added the option to disable this default
>> annoyance.
>
> It's not a bad idea, but it's done in a thoroughly broken way. The
> programs seem to keep some basic menu items always in the menu and
> show or hide the others according to a most-recently-used algorithm.
> That is, items not used for a couple of hours disappear; if you recall
> them by clicking the arrow, they reappear and, again, stay for some
> time. The order of the menu items always stays the same.
>
> My solution to the problem of too many menu entries: Count clicks
> (like MS does), sort the most frequently used ones at the top and the
> least frequently used ones at the bottom, under a separator, and in a
> smaller font maybe. Folding them away should be a last resort only.
> Oh, and of course there should be a preferences entry to either
> disable the behaviour completely or alternatively constrain the system
> to keep some items always on top or always at the bottom.
>
> mawa
Much better answer: Do a little research, find out where most people expect
to find certain features and put them there. DON'T move them, that flys in
the face of all logic. Quick, where are your car keys- where you last put
them. Where is the cheese grater? Where you last had it. That's how humans
find things.
If over time you accumulate so many more things that it all becomes a
jumble you sit down, think of a good logical way to organize everything, do
that, and then leave it alone again.
What MS is doing is displaying their complete disconnect with their users.
They are acknowledging that they don't have a clue how their customers work
or think. They write for the showroom not the road, like a car with a seat
that readjusts itself every time you sit down but is contoured for an
Orangutan not a human.
Mike
------------------------------
From: Brent Pathakis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Mircosoft Tax
Crossposted-To:
alt.linux.sux,alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.os.linux,alt.os.linux.mandrake,comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 18:54:23 GMT
Saw this article:
http://www.osopinion.com/perl/story/7698.html
Leaving out the ms vs linux arguments, MS supporters, explain to me how MS
can justify charging licenseing fees and a machines where no products are
installed?
------------------------------
From: "Bartek Kostrzewa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 19:55:28 +0100
"Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:3a97347b$0$2432$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> <snip good stuff>
> >
> > 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.
>
> given that hotmail isn't a decade old we find our very first problem with
> this lie.
> given that the hotmail appliation itself runs on solaris identifies
another
> problem
> given the fact that there isn't a single BSD box serving web content for
> hotmail - that they've all been replaced by window 2000 boxes puts the
nail
> in the coffin.
errm... the only w2k boxes @ hotmail are the frontends, all backends are
FreeBSD, no Solaris around on there m8
------------------------------
From: "-hs-" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Something Seemingly Simple.
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 19:57:13 +0100
Bob Hauck a écrit dans le message ...
>On Sun, 25 Feb 2001 15:57:35 GMT, Gregory Pietsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Edward Rosten wrote:
>
>>> Is there an official place where a definition of PI is meant to reside?
>>
>>No.
>
>How about in the trig functions:
>
>#define A_PI (4 * atan (1))
>#define B_PI (2 * asin (1))
>#define C_PI (2 * acos (0))
For the records
Borland C 3.1
A_PI = 3.14159265358979312000
B_PI = 3.14159265358979312000
C_PI = 3.14159265358979312000
DJGPP (gcc)
A_PI = 3.14159265358979311600
B_PI = 3.14159265358979311600
C_PI = 3.14159265358979311600
Test program:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <math.h>
#define A_PI (4 * atan (1.0))
#define B_PI (2 * asin (1.0))
#define C_PI (2 * acos (0.0))
int main (void)
{
printf ("A_PI = %.20f\n", A_PI);
printf ("B_PI = %.20f\n", B_PI);
printf ("C_PI = %.20f\n", C_PI);
return 0;
}
--
-hs- Tabs out, spaces in.
CLC-FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
ISO-C Library: http://www.dinkum.com/htm_cl
FAQ de FCLC : http://www.isty-info.uvsq.fr/~rumeau/fclc
------------------------------
From: Monte Milanuk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Could Linux be used in this factory environment ?
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 11:13:12 -0700
This is why they make the industrial 'enclosures' and terminals that are
designed to protect the computer from the environment. I worked at a
steel mill as a motor control tech, and every computer that wasn't
inside an air-conditioned room was in a shielded enclosure to provide
EMI protection, plus had filtered air, since there was literally steel
dust and what not glittering in the air constantly -- not good for the
guts of a PC. Additionally, they make special terminals that have the
membrane type keyboards and either joystick or arrow button controlled
mice. The downside? They are definitely not cheap. But then, neither
is downtime on the production line because a commodity off-the-shelf
monitor or keyboard just failed.
Monte
"Brett I. Holcomb" wrote:
>
> Use an industrial mouse - they last a little bit longer <G>.
>
> --
> Brett I. Holcomb
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Microsoft MVP
> AKA Grunt<><
>
> "Paul Repacholi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > > Of course the workers would have to access the system to enter data,
> > > > etc, so the user interfaces can't be too complicated (GUI?).
> > >
> > > Your workers would know how to use a web browser, so why not make the
> > > inventory system accessible through any web browser? The MySQL database
> >
> > Never worked in afactory have you? How long will the mouse keep working
> > after it has been grabbed by a paint/glue/oil... covered hand?
> >
> > --
> > Paul Repacholi 1 Crescent Rd.,
> > +61 (08) 9257-1001 Kalamunda.
> > West Australia 6076
> > Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 19:13:29 GMT
Brent Pathakis wrote:
>
> Saw this article:
>
> http://www.osopinion.com/perl/story/7698.html
>
> Leaving out the ms vs linux arguments, MS supporters, explain to me how MS
> can justify charging licenseing fees and a machines where no products are
> installed?
Here's a continuation:
http://www0.mercurycenter.com/svtech/news/indepth/docs/dg022501.htm
with a little excerpt:
"PCs are becoming obsolete, you say? Wrong.
They're still selling in huge numbers, because
they're enormously useful devices whose
utility keeps expanding. The only component
in the average PC that hasn't come down
sharply in price is -- you guessed it --
the operating system. Microsoft continues
to spin off monopoly profits, with no end
in sight."
By the way, you misspelled Microsoft in your Subject line.
It is actually spelled "Crimosoft".
Chris
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ]
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 19:18:40 GMT
Bob Hauck wrote:
>
> Removed comp.security.ssh from the xpost since this is no longer about
> SSH but rather Chad's attempting to confuse innocent bystanders with
> lies and propaganda.
Take your pick:
Chad ::= ASSHOLE
Chad ::= LYING PRICK
Chad ::= ARROGANT JERK
Chad ::= FAT-HEADED TROLL
Chad ::= MANIC DEPRESSIVE W/OCD
Chad ::= NET KOOK
Chad ::= UNINTELLIGENT FAILURE
We've yet to see him prove otherwise.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: RTFM at M$
Reply-To: bobh = haucks dot org
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 19:43:44 GMT
On Sun, 25 Feb 2001 18:02:28 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Said Bob Hauck in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 25 Feb 2001 16:43:53
>>On Sun, 25 Feb 2001 04:55:07 GMT, Norman D. Megill
>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> I thought the most common DoS attacks were SYN floods. I've never
>>> heard of a DoS attack with normal, short, non-broadcast pings
>>
>>Imagine if 10,000 people all started sending one ping/sec to the same
>>site. Now imagine one guy planting a remote-control trojan like Back
>>Orifice or trinoo on a few hundred systems and sending 100 pings/sec.
>
>That's the point, Bob. Notice that this is an imaginary example.
>NOBODY has ever heard of a DoS attack with normal pings.
If you say so Max. I could swear that I heard of this years ago, but it
doesn't matter. It is a theoretical possibility, which is all I was
trying to say. It is arguable whether blocking echo reply is "clueless"
even though it is against RFC's. OTOH, I agree with you that blocking
all ICMP is a bad idea, as that breaks things besides just
troubleshooting.
There _have_ been attacks based on pinging broadcast addresses using
packets with forged source addresses. Blocking ICMP to the broadcast
address is a sensible thing to do and doesn't break any functionality.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.security.ssh
Subject: Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ]
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 19:53:38 GMT
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:Vs9m6.9562$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Chad Myers wrote:
> >
> > > Is this how security is treated in the Open Source realm? With
> > > childish insults and assinine comments and no real concern?
> >
> > You've shown no concern, so this wouldn't apply.
> >
> > Trolls and bozos are treated as such.
>
> <sigh> You ignore obvious facts so that you can get in a personal
> insult.
>
> I have shown nothing but concern. In fact, the only reason I still
> post to this thread is because I'm concerned that there are thousands
> of people out there happily using SSH1 and are completely unaware
> that it is "fundamentally flawed".
Why don't you first solve the problem of all the people using the
Microsoft OS versions that have NO concept of security, and then
the ones that pretend to have security but don't. Especially the ones
that refuse to use cleartext passwords in order to break samba but
still accept the LanMan hash as a password equivalent in a way that
is even less secure.
> Whereas some of the creaters are just immature jerks.
Tackle the most ubiquituous and insidious problem first. It isn't ssh.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Markus G" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.security.ssh
Subject: Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ]
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 20:59:48 +0100
> Tackle the most ubiquituous and insidious problem first.
> It isn't ssh.
The problem is *ALWAYS* sitting in front of the monitor
=)))
Markus
------------------------------
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Microsoft says Linux threatens innovation
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ed Allen)
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 20:01:02 GMT
In article <T25m6.1251$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >Netscape was *NOT* the better product.
>>
>> Of course it was.
>>
>> >IE3 and IE4 were roughly equivelant,
>> >but IE4 started leaving Netscape behind in the dust, especially in W3C
>> >standard support.
>>
>> What a pathetically softheaded perspective you have. If IE4 was so
>> technically superior, why is it exactly that MS spent the millions for
>> the exclusive bundling deals and strong-armed OEMs into "knifing the
>> baby" by including IE updates that some customers specifically didn't
>> want and excluding Netscape?
>
>I think it's pretty obvious from the context that I meant IE3 and NS4 were
>roughly equivelant. I made a mistake.
>
So that is reason enough to ignore Max's point ?
I too want to know why M$ needed to force OEMs to include this
"superior" product ?
The reason Netscape began to fall behind could have something to do
with their management realizing that whatever improvement they
created M$ would copy it in their next version and that the longer
it went on the deeper into the hole they would get.
When you are in a whole and it is time to get out, stop digging.
--
How much do we need to pay you to screw Netscape?
- BILL GATES, to AOL in a 1996 meeting
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking)
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: [OT] Was: Re: Something Seemingly Simple.
Date: 25 Feb 2001 20:02:08 GMT
Edward Rosten ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: >>That fun problem has the further challenge of taking into account the
: >>attitude of the car during ballistic flight. Air friction only adds more
: >>math fun! Use fins for attitude control for ballistic flight across the
: >>Grand Canyon.
: > I think anyone willing to do that should be a nominee for a Darwin
: > award.
: Only if they remove themselves from the gene pool in the process.
That's why you do your homework prior to your flight. (and no, I'm not going
to attempt the flight even after doing the homework)
--
FOOD FOR THOUGHT: 100 calories are used up in the course of a mile run.
The USDA guidelines for dietary fibre is equal to one ounce of sawdust.
The liver makes the vast majority of the cholesterol in your bloodstream.
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: M$ doing it again!
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 15:20:42 -0500
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> Those API's are not intended to be used outside of the kernel. I can
> reverse engineer the windows kernel too, doesn't make it any more
> "published".
I have a real problem with what you write sometimes. While we often have
differences of opinions, you usually seem fairly reasonable, then there are
times when you will create a paragraph as above. You can't possibly believe it,
do you? You must say these outlandish things just to be an idiot.
How can you say that open, "published," source code can in anyway be
undocumented. In the linux kernel there is nothing that is undocumented, one
can see every single API and what it does. Just because someone didn't dump the
comments to a separate text file, does not mean it is undocumented.
--
The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time.
The terror of their tyranny, however, is alleviated by their lack of
consistency.
-- Albert Einstein
========================
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Date: 25 Feb 2001 13:18:30 -0700
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
> > Give it up Pete.
>
> No.
>
> > Install PageMaker for Windows and come back to tell us about the
> > printing on it.
>
> I'd have to buy it first. Why should I buy something that is of no
> interest to me?
>
> > Certain layout applications use their own printer definitions so that
> > WYSIWYG actually works correctly.
>
> Maybe some do, but the ones I use don't.
Some linux application do as well (gimp, WordPerfect 7), but the vast
majority don't.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking)
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Something Seemingly Simple.
Date: 25 Feb 2001 20:11:39 GMT
Dan Pop ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: Degrees are a meaningless unit in trigonometry, which is not exactly
: high end math. I've learned most of it in junior high school.
Trig is not high-end math at all. You're right. But when it is taught, it is
taught using degrees for the angles, never radians.
: OTOH, *all* the programming languages that I'm familiar with use radians
: for the arguments of the trigonometric functions. So, I'm tempted to
: believe that they're the standard in the computing industry. I'm also
: tempted to believe that there must be a good reason for that.
Most normal people never take up programming computers. Working-class people
who programme for amusement are about as rare as humans with full-scale fur
coats.
--
FOOD FOR THOUGHT: 100 calories are used up in the course of a mile run.
The USDA guidelines for dietary fibre is equal to one ounce of sawdust.
The liver makes the vast majority of the cholesterol in your bloodstream.
------------------------------
From: Ben Pfaff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Something Seemingly Simple.
Date: 25 Feb 2001 15:15:23 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking) writes:
> Dan Pop ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> : Degrees are a meaningless unit in trigonometry, which is not exactly
> : high end math. I've learned most of it in junior high school.
>
> Trig is not high-end math at all. You're right. But when it is taught, it is
> taught using degrees for the angles, never radians.
Not true. I was taught trig using both systems of angle
measurement. There was probably more emphasis on radian
measurement, in fact.
--
"Large amounts of money tend to quench any scruples I might be having."
-- Stephan Wilms
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Something Seemingly Simple.
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 20:25:29 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Bob Hauck"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Feb 2001 15:57:35 GMT, Gregory Pietsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>>Edward Rosten wrote:
>
>>> Is there an official place where a definition of PI is meant to
>>> reside?
>>
>>No.
>
> How about in the trig functions:
>
> #define A_PI (4 * atan (1))
> #define B_PI (2 * asin (1))
> #define C_PI (2 * acos (0))
No, that would be horribly slow, calculating PI every time you needed it.
You'd be better off pulling a numeric constant for PI off some website
and using a #define.
Besides, despite not being in the standard, most compilers probably come
with a definition for PI. If you wanted portability, you could just get
the number and put it in your own #define or const.
-Ed
--
| u98ejr
| @
Share, and enjoy. | eng.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
From: "J" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 20:40:39 -0000
also spelt linux wrong....
its LINsUX.
"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Brent Pathakis wrote:
> >
> > Saw this article:
> >
> > http://www.osopinion.com/perl/story/7698.html
> >
> > Leaving out the ms vs linux arguments, MS supporters, explain to me how
MS
> > can justify charging licenseing fees and a machines where no products
are
> > installed?
>
> Here's a continuation:
>
> http://www0.mercurycenter.com/svtech/news/indepth/docs/dg022501.htm
>
> with a little excerpt:
>
> "PCs are becoming obsolete, you say? Wrong.
> They're still selling in huge numbers, because
> they're enormously useful devices whose
> utility keeps expanding. The only component
> in the average PC that hasn't come down
> sharply in price is -- you guessed it --
> the operating system. Microsoft continues
> to spin off monopoly profits, with no end
> in sight."
>
> By the way, you misspelled Microsoft in your Subject line.
> It is actually spelled "Crimosoft".
>
> Chris
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Byron A Jeff)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Date: 25 Feb 2001 15:47:03 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
-
-
-Byron A Jeff wrote:
->
-> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
-> Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
-> >
-> >
-> >Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
-> >>
-> >> On Tue, 20 Feb 2001 23:58:52 -0500, Aaron Kulkis wrote:
-> >>
-Thank you for conceding my point.
-
-
-
-So is the price of bread in the store.
-
-Here's the rule:
-
-If you are productive, you get to buy more.
-
-
->
-> 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.
-
-
-Fuck that. Once again, you're penalizing those who work for the
-benefit of those who mooch.
-
-
-> >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.
- ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
-
- You misspelled Government-sponsered THEFT.
-
-> I believe in it because income and net worth
-> acquistion isn't fair.
-
-Says who?
-
-If you want to make more money, you are free to seek a whatever
-form of work pays a higher income.
-
-
-> 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
-
-Other than the disabled, do you disagree?
-
-
-> we are not all born into the same circumstance. We don't all have the
-
-So what?
-Life's not fair. And it never will be.
-Deal with it.
-
-
-
-Let me work and KEEP MY MONEY, free to INVEST IT UNTAXED...and TAX
-***ONLY*** that which I take from society (i.e. what I use up => sales tax).
-
-QUIT TAXING ME FOR WHAT I ***CONTRIBUTE**** TO SOCIETY.
-
->
-> 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,
->
-> 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.
-
-The only fair tax is every able-bodied adult pays the EXACT SAME AMOUNT.
Well I started a point by point rebuttal, but my editor locked up. So here's
the short version:
Those who have more should pay more. It's not fair, but neither is how
those who have more got it, no matter how you try to deny it.
That's my proposal to "deal with it." as you state above.
BAJ
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Byron A Jeff)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Date: 25 Feb 2001 15:51:16 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
-
-
-Peter Hayes wrote:
->
-> On Sat, 24 Feb 2001 03:20:43 -0500, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
->
-> > Byron A Jeff wrote:
-> >
-> > > 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.
-> >
-> > The only fair tax is every able-bodied adult pays the EXACT SAME AMOUNT.
->
-> But some are more able-bodied than others.
-
-Does your grocery store change they charge for food on the basis
-of how much you earn?
No but the govt. subsidizes the poor with food stamps and the Earned Income
credit.
The govt isn't in it for a profit, but for the benefit of their constituents.
They need not be fair about their practices when their practice has a higher
overall benefit for all their constituents.
But as I said from the jump, we agree to disagree, so this is my last post on
the subject.
BAJ
-
-
------------------------------
From: Mark McIntyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Something Seemingly Simple.
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 20:57:36 +0000
On Sun, 25 Feb 2001 13:26:36 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lawrence
Kirby) wrote:
>In article <979mmq$i3t$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Edward Rosten" writes:
>
>>> There are 2 pi radians in a full circle, so the conversion is pi /
>>> 180.0:
>>>
>>> double deg_to_rad(double degrees)
>>> {
>>> return degrees * 3.14159265358979323846 / 180.0;
>>> }
>>
>>
>>It would be easier to use M_PIl as #defined in math.h
>
>Any compiler that defines that or anything similar in a standard header
>is in direct violation of the C standard.
I'm not sure that this is strictly true - don't you mean "any compiler
that defines this in the standard header, when compiled in strict ansi
mode, is violating the standard, What the compiler defines in
ansi-with-extensions mode is its own business".
--
CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
------------------------------
From: Mark McIntyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Something Seemingly Simple.
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 20:59:00 +0000
On Sun, 25 Feb 2001 16:26:40 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chris Kern)
wrote:
>On Sat, 24 Feb 2001 22:51:14 +0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted the
>following:
>
>>Chris Kern wrote:
>>>
>>> On 24 Feb 2001 12:41:40 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking) posted
>>> the following:
>>>
>>> > Why isn't it in degrees as is the standard?
>>>
>>> While degrees may be the standard for many people, mathemeticians
>>> always (or nearly always) use radians.
>>>
>>> -Chris
>>
>>*real* mathematicians don't really care
>
>real mathemeticians don't bother with calculations of things like
>degrees and radians. Group theory doesn't generally deal in circles
Bet you occasionally work with elliptical surfaces tho...
--
CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
