Linux-Advocacy Digest #517, Volume #32 Tue, 27 Feb 01 06:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Who is the most heavily killfiled person on cola? (Rob S. Wolfram)
Re: Something Seemingly Simple. ("Z")
Re: Does anyone know how much computer power we have/ ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Microsoft seeks government help to stop Linux ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited (Peter Hayes)
Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited (Peter Hayes)
Re: Microsoft seeks government help to stop Linux ("Edward Rosten")
Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ] ("Donal K.
Fellows")
Re: Something Seemingly Simple. (Richard Heathfield)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! ("Edward Rosten")
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else ("Edward Rosten")
Re: why open source software is better (Craven Moorehead)
Re: VA Linux cuts 25 per cent of staff, sees 212% increase in revenue ("Donal K.
Fellows")
Re: Something Seemingly Simple. (Mathew Hendry)
Re: M$ doing it again! (Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=)
Re: [OT] .sig (Richard Heathfield)
Re: Business (Shane Phelps)
Re: How Microsoft Crushes the Hearts of Trolls. ("Donal K. Fellows")
Re: [OT] .sig (Gergo Barany)
Re: Mircosoft Tax (Ketil Kyrre Kolstad Nordstad)
Re: State of linux distros ("Reefer")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob S. Wolfram)
Subject: Re: Who is the most heavily killfiled person on cola?
Date: 27 Feb 2001 09:46:40 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>parts of RFC 1855 are akin to laws stating that all mechanized
>conveyances must have a life-sized horsehead sculpture on the
>front so that the horses don't get scared.
>
>RFC 1855 was concocted when USENET posting accounted for well over
>50% of ARPANET bandwidth, and the ARPANET backbone was 56k, and
>the typical disk had a capacity of 20MB.
RFC1855 is *not* Usenet specific. A whole chapter is devoted to "One to
One communication", and even there the .sig rules apply.
Either way, your comment about the rules accounting to the old ARPA days
and thus implying that the rules have been invalidated by current
technology do not apply, because at first, the rfc dates from October
1995 (which is quite a few years after the ARPANET saga) and secondly,
the number of NNTP servers have increased along with the bandwith, and
with the fact that NNTP is a "push" protocol the amount of bandwith
wasted on your stupid .sig increases exponetially.
If you really are that megalomaniac to think that your .sig prevents
people from issuing personal attacks just as you do to them, I'd say
continue the system. But if you would round-robin the items you would
still have every current item of your .sig in 3 of your posts *daily* in
COLA only (given your current posting rate).
Then again, I think this paragraph is wasted bandwith in itself, because
you're such an egoistic moron that nothing can pursue you to change this
behaviour. Even worse, you used a major subthread to convince the rest
of the lurkers here to change *their* behaviour for skipping your
obnoxious signature. If that does not constitute egoism, I don't know
what does.
>Any and all jpeg groups violate RFC 1855.
Maybe you could elaborate for the people who still read your posts which
section actually is being violated?
But then, alt.binaries.* groups constitute more than 95% of Usenet's
daily bandwith. That is the exact reason why so many newsservers ban
these groups or lower the expire time a lot. You seem to have the
opinion that the mere existence of such groups entitles you to waste
bandwith in the non-binary groups.
>In short, a strict reading of RFC 1855 is like prohibiting the
>use of AC electricity because, as Edison showed, you can kill
>a cow with it.
Hey, if anyone makes remarks you can allways refer to the "ignorance is
bliss" adage, can't you? (And all the time I thought I had a point when
complaining that Microsoft does not stick to the rfc's when implementing
their network protocols...)
[snipped obnoxious .sig]
For the record, I have killfiled you at the suck level. I was hoping to
do this more structural, but that is only possible via e.g. a perl
script *after* the whole article has been downloaded, which is exactly
what I want to prevent. So the next best thing is to prevent downloaing
every article from you.
Be advised that you are the *only* person that I killfile in such a way.
Even the few offensive Wintrolls that I plonked (Boris, "S" etc) are
killfiled in slrn. I think you give Unix users a bad name and I want to
distance myself from your Net behaviour.
Now for the sound that is so familiar to you: *Plonk*
HAND.
Rob
--
Rob S. Wolfram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> OpenPGP key 0xD61A655D
A bore is someone who persists in holding his own views after we
have enlightened him with ours.
------------------------------
From: "Z" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Something Seemingly Simple.
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 10:50:29 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Once upon a while "Aaron Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Gergo Barany wrote:
>>
>> Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Micah Cowan wrote:
>> > >
>> > > And there is no definition of PI in Standard C.
>> >
>> > Standard C doesn define getc(), putc(), printf(), scanf(),
>>
>> Yes it does (assuming "Standard C" means one of the incarnations of
>> ISO 9899 in this context, which I strongly suspect).
>
> Wrong. That's a definition of the STANDARD LIBRARY.
>
> Standard C does not define *ANY* functions.
>
Standard C includes the language definition and the standard
library. If you don't mind to look this up in the C standard.
--
Z ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
"LISP is worth learning for the profound enlightenment experience
you will have when you finally get it; that experience will make you
a better programmer for the rest of your days." -- Eric S. Raymond
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Does anyone know how much computer power we have/
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 09:51:00 +0000
>> If they can ficure out how to grow diamond crystals, and make
>> semiconductors on them, that would solve a lot of problems since
>> diamond has 10 times the thermal conductivity of copper.
>
> Ever hear of "Silicon on Saphire" process?
Yep
> Saphire can be cultured rather cheaply...right now.
Yep, but diamond has the highest thermal conductivity of any known
material. It would be useful to have the entire semici=onductor chip
being that conductive.
-Ed
--
| u98ejr
| @
Share, and enjoy. | eng.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft seeks government help to stop Linux
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 09:54:20 +0000
> Can you guarantee that your gun-ban will keep guns out of the hands of
> criminals?
It was an attempt to prevent unblanced nutters getting guns.
> a) yes B) NO
>
> No more questions, your honor.
good.
--
| u98ejr
| @
Share, and enjoy. | eng.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
From: Peter Hayes <[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: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 09:55:07 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 26 Feb 2001 20:23:38 -0500, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Peter Hayes wrote:
> > Imagine an incident witnessed by a citizen somewhat
> > the worse for drink, or perhaps been smoking something he shouldn't have.
> > Said citizen's judgement is just as impaired as it would be if he were
> > behind the wheelof a car, with the same fatal consequences.
>
>
> By that logic, Florida and Texas would be bloodbaths right now, because
> the laws are VERY relaxed and let just about every non-felon to carry
> concealed firearms legally.
>
> Facts, in other words, disprove your theory.
Some British tourists turned right instead of left (or the other way round)
out of Miami airport in their hire car, into some ghetto community. 10
minutes later they were dead, shot by a mugger.
Sounds to me like Florida is a very dangerous place.
Peter
--
You have added or changed your signature.
Your signature server will now reboot so that
the changes will take effect.
------------------------------
From: Peter Hayes <[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: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 09:55:08 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 20 Feb 2001 06:35:34 -0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donald R.
McGregor) wrote:
> (I'm deeply skeptical of the whole .NET angle, btw. yeah, let's
> replace our path from our bits to the CPU with a medium that's
> about one or two orders of magnitude less reliable than disk.)
Not just "less reliable" but more vulnerable to security breaches.
And just wait till the "de-registration virus" hits Whistler. It'll
de-register every computer in your organisation, and every computer in
every organisation in your OE mailing list. The Microsoft registration
system will seize up, bringing a whole new meaning to Denial-of-Service.
Peter
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft seeks government help to stop Linux
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 09:56:50 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Scott
Gardner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 01:05:24 +0000, "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>> These are the much same criteria my state uses before anyone is issued
>>> a concealed-carry permit, and most states are equally strict, if they
>>> even allow concealed-carry at all.
>>
>>It is not about concealed guns, but guns in general.
>>
> Okay, then simplify the argument. Why don't you wan't me to own a gun?
If everyone was level headed and responsibel, it would not be a problem.
>
> My idea of freedom isn't about guarantees. "Someone unbalanced" can buy
> a car, or a baseball bat, or a brick, and inflict harm on others with
> it.
But you can inflict so much more damage in so much less time with a gun.
They are potentially much more dangerous than the others.
> I just don't feel that depriving EVERYONE of something just because
> wackos can abuse it is the solution. Define some minimum standards, and
> let the responsible people enjoy the freedom.
Minimum standards still let people through the net. Besides why let the
few people (I'm in the UK) enjoy freedom th the expense of the rest of
the population.
-ed
--
| u98ejr
| @
Share, and enjoy. | eng.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
From: "Donal K. Fellows" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ]
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 09:49:03 +0000
Ed Allen wrote:
> You are trying to stir up a stink but I have no expertise that you
> can malign so I have no reason not to call you a Sock Puppet any
> more than the little boy shouting "The Emperor has no close!"
There is a close() syscall in Linux. (I presume by "Emperor" you were
referring to an emperor penguin... :^)
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- This may scare your cat into premature baldness, but Sun are not the only
sellers of Unix. -- Anthony Ord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 09:52:27 +0000
From: Richard Heathfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Something Seemingly Simple.
Aaron Kulkis wrote:
>
> Gergo Barany wrote:
> >
> > Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Micah Cowan wrote:
> > > >
> > > > And there is no definition of PI in Standard C.
> > >
> > > Standard C doesn define getc(), putc(), printf(), scanf(),
> >
> > Yes it does (assuming "Standard C" means one of the incarnations of
> > ISO 9899 in this context, which I strongly suspect).
>
> Wrong. That's a definition of the STANDARD LIBRARY.
No, ISO/IEC 9899:1999 is the definition of the language. The library is
part of that Standard, so the library is part of the language. If you
think that isn't how C started out, I'd be tempted to agree, but it /is/
how C is /now/.
>
> Standard C does not define *ANY* functions.
Yes, it does.
> > Well, this subthread *is* about PI's presence in C headers. And, it
> > turns out, an implementation that defines a PI macro violates the
> > ISO C Standard. And since the ISO C Standard and related issues
> > are the topic of comp.lang.c, this is rather significant.
>
> None of which is relevenant to whether or not a *COMPILER*
> is conformant to standards or not.
I don't know what you mean by "relevenant", but a C compiler is part of
a C implementation (which is not to say that all C implementations
contain compilers - some C interpreters exist). If the C implementation
defines a PI macro within one of the standard headers in a way which is
detectable by a strictly conforming C program (e.g. via a diagnostic),
then that implementation is non-conforming.
--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place." - Dennis M Ritchie, 29 July 1999.
C FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
K&R Answers: http://users.powernet.co.uk/eton/kandr2/index.html
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 10:06:04 +0000
> Gimp doesn't HAVE its own printer drivers.
It looks that way. Are you sure?
> What it has is its own user
> interface for talking to the SAME drivers that all the other apps use.
The drivers are inside the GhostScript executable. All apps access these
drivers by sending PS to the queue and the spooler passes it through GS.
> The dialog box that lets you pick those settings you mention is not the
> driver. Those are settings that would be open to other programs to pick
> as well, but they never bothered to make a user interface to access
> them.
I don't agree. Gimp gives me a list of the print queues. It also gives me
a list of drivers, which are not the same set of drivers that GS has. I'm
pretty sure it has its own drivers here.
> This is also where the mistake in Gimp is coming from - it lies to
> the print queue (where the driver is {called a 'filter' in Unix
> parlance}.), telling it "Here's some raw data for you in the printer's
> own native codes", when in fact this is not the case and it's just
> giving out postscript just like every other app is.
Yep. But GIMP can also give out raw printer codes for the printers it has
drivers for.
-Ed
--
| u98ejr
| @
Share, and enjoy. | eng.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 10:11:38 +0000
>> You wonder how they seem able to justify it to them selves to tell bare
>> faced lies, and how they want to mindlessly presue party dogma despite
>> mounting evidence that is is crazy. If it goes through, then the fisrt
>> big air crash will probably see them out at the end of ofice.
>>
>> -Ed
>
> So, you're saying that government ownership prevents crashes?
>
> Spot the idiocy.
Your post?
The fact is that after the government privatised the railways, safety
went down the tube and they're having to bail out the company that owns
th railways with more public money.
The fact is that it costs money to keep it safe and when you have a
private company, that money is not going to the shareholders. Skimping on
safety is a good way to save money, and increase profits. Since the
government is under no obligation to make a profit, they can put safety
first.
It is plain madnedd to put such a safety critical task (like air traffic
control) in the hands of people that consider profit to be the most
important thing.
-ed
--
| u98ejr
| @
Share, and enjoy. | eng.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
From: Craven Moorehead <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: why open source software is better
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 21:11:02 +1100
On Mon, 26 Feb 2001 16:20:56 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lance Purple)
wrote:
>Craven Moorehead <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>Personally, I am in favour of open source Beatles music.
>>Too bad Paul, George, Ringo and the demon lady want to get paid and
>>increasingly so.
>
>Actually, Beatles music is somewhat "open". You're allowed to record
>and sell 'cover' versions of any song they've put out, so long as you
>pay the compulsory licence fee. They can't withhold permission, even
>on awful covers like William Shatner's "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds".
Yes, still have to pay.
>Moreover, when we talk of "Open Source" software, we're not talking
>about ripping somebody else's warez and trading it on Napster. We're
>talking about the AUTHOR him/herself agreeing to give out the source.
>You do agree they can give away their own property, yes?
Sure, absolutely. but very few people do. few engineers, few
songwriters, even fewer lawyers everyone likes to be paid (99%)
I find this thread curious. Open source is better the closed ?
What it REALLY means to most people is free is better then paying for
something.
50 million people use Napster, how many would if they had to pay
commercial rates for the songs ? 1-2 million MAYBE and they would be
very choosy in what they downloaded.
What do you hear all the time ? Linux guys downloading the latest ISO
of Linux, clogging up the net with downloads.
Would they do it if they had to pay a fee ? No, most would not.
All Linux has got really going for it is that it is free.
You can crap on about the "AUTHOR him/herself agreeing to give out the
source" rubbish. If everyone had to pay for Linux and the price was
the same or more then Windows (the price of Windows could be very
elastic if MS wants) it would be as dead as a Dodo from a popularity
perspective.
The only really bad thing about Windows is that it costs money. If it
was free Linux would not even be heard from.
Craven
------------------------------
From: "Donal K. Fellows" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: VA Linux cuts 25 per cent of staff, sees 212% increase in revenue
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 10:09:50 +0000
Rex Ballard wrote:
> Something like this has happened before. In 1978, Microsoft offered a
^^^^^^^^
> reduced cost version of Windows NT 4.0 at $49 per copy when students
> began snapping up Red Hat Linux in quantities greater than Windows NT
> 4.0. In another move, Corporate customers were offered the opportunity
> to purchase a "dual release" license for both Windows NT 4.0 and NT 5.0
> (Windows 2000) for roughly 1/2 the original $400/copy retail price.
> Nearly 80% of the current licenses of Windows 2000 shipped since it's
> release are actually "upgrades" which were "sold" in 1998 and 1999.
I'm sure you didn't mean to write that date. What did you actually intend?
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- This may scare your cat into premature baldness, but Sun are not the only
sellers of Unix. -- Anthony Ord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: Mathew Hendry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Something Seemingly Simple.
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 10:18:05 +0000
On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 09:42:53 +0000, "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Well, this subthread *is* about PI's presence in C headers. And, it
>> turns out, an implementation that defines a PI macro violates the ISO C
>> Standard. And since the ISO C Standard and related issues are the topic
>> of comp.lang.c, this is rather significant.
>
>Out of curiosity, which part of the ISO standard does it violate?
>From the 3 Aug 1998 draft, 4 - Conformance
| 6 [...] A conforming hosted implementation shall accept accept any strictly
| conforming program. [...] A conforming implementation may have extensions
| (including additional library functions), provided that they do not alter
| the behavior of any strictly conforming program.)
A footnote to that clause then says
| This implies that a conforming implementation reserves no identifiers other
| than those explicitly reserved in this International Standard.
The following strictly conforming program
#include <stdio.h>
#ifndef PI
# define PI 123
#endif
int main(void) { printf("%d\n", PI); return 0; }
would have its behavior altered if PI happened to be defined (to something other
than 123 :) in <stdio.h>.
-- Mat.
------------------------------
From: Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: M$ doing it again!
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 11:14:26 +0100
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > Hey, shit-for-brain (I'M TALKING TO *YOU* FUNKENBUSCH)....if you
> > mean something *OTHER* than API, then don't use the term API.
> >
> > Now...here's some ... advice.
> >
> > sit down
> >
> > and SHUT THE FUCK UP
> >
> > you miserable, uneducated, lying fool.
>
> And once again, we see that when Aaron makes a fool of himself and is
> called on something, he can only result to name calling and vulgarity.
>
> You didn't answer the question, but instead tried to dodge it by acting
> like a child.
>
As much as I disagree with Ericīs pedantic definition of "published" API,
here I must say I am with him.
Aaron Kulkis is a shame for onyone using Linux, IF he uses linux at all.
His header shows Win98, and he tells us that he fakes it.
It is about as believable as his claim that his shitty signature acts as
a deterrent for the guys mentioned in it. Whoever believes that is about
as braindead as A R Kulkis. I think he should be killfiled by everyone
here until he stops posting in this manner AND he trims doen his sig.
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.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 10:10:29 +0000
From: Richard Heathfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: [OT] .sig
Aaron Kulkis wrote:
>
> When I'm overseas, I blend in very well with the locals.
Usenet is a foreign country. Everything you post here is readable all
over the world.
> I observe
> the local customs for behavior, and observe local laws.
Usenet has local customs for behaviour. comp.lang.c has local customs
for behaviour. You seem to be prepared to ignore those with carefree
abandon.
> In fact,
> when waiting in hotel lobbies (when there is a line), I often engage
> whoever is around to play a game I call 'Spot the American',
In Usenet, it's not difficult to spot clueless Americans.
> The usual telltales are:
> a) dressed like a slob or a whore
Poor spelling, punctuation, grammar, or some combination of those are
the Usenet equivalents.
> b) talks way too loud
Has huge sig blocks.
> c) thinks that he/she should only be required to observe the laws
> that apply in his/her hometown, even though they are
> thousands of miles from said jurisdiction.
Thinks that he or she should only be required to observe the laws that
apply in his country, even though Usenet is an international community.
Bangs on about the Bill of Rights and the Constitution as if they had
any relevance to Usenet whatsoever.
> At this moment, I am well within the borders of the United States.
Ah, a clueless American.
> The only applicable law which has jurisdiction over me is the First
> Amendment of the Constitution....which gives me the right to say
> pretty much whatever I damn well please.
The American constitution is a local ordinance that only applies in your
home country.
>
> On the other hand, if I post from a location OUTSIDE of the United
> States, then I observe whatever laws apply to the jurisdiction from
> which I am posting.
Where you are when you post isn't really that relevant on Usenet.
>
> The Bill of Rights was *NOT* written to protect those who are
> popular with the powers that be.
The Bill of Rights has no relevance on Usenet.
>
> Deal with it. If you can't then I invite you to go fuck yourself.
Go and wash your mouth out with soap and water before posting again.
--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place." - Dennis M Ritchie, 29 July 1999.
C FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
K&R Answers: http://users.powernet.co.uk/eton/kandr2/index.html
------------------------------
From: Shane Phelps <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Business
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 21:39:27 +1100
Jan Johanson wrote:
>
> "Shane Phelps" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >
> > Jon Johanson wrote:
> > >
> > > Hey Aaron,
> > >
> > > Are you still beating your wife and molesting your children?
> > >
> > > "Aaron Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >
> > > > Hey, Drestin
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Still pimping out your wife?
> > > >
> >
> >
> > Aaron's taunt wasn't in particularly good taste (alright, it was
> > bloody appalling taste) but bears some basis in fact.
> > Drestin runs a porn site of some sort, and his wife is one of the
> > stars. This was all according to Drestin, about a year ago.
>
> Hardly pimping I'd say. And it looks like just some nakid pictures, not porn
> by any means. Besides, so what? If she is proud and wants to show off, so be
> it. Hell, I wish my wife looked so good!
>
> <snip>
>
Wasn't that what I just said?
[ wot ya snipped :-) ]
> > Maybe I use a different definition of pimping, but getting your
> > gear off in public (even for money) doesn't have the same legal
> >or social stigma as prostitution.
> > ...and shouldn't that be "when did you stop beating your wife....."?
>
> works both ways.
------------------------------
From: "Donal K. Fellows" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How Microsoft Crushes the Hearts of Trolls.
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 10:37:04 +0000
"Roy.Culley" wrote:
> tcl is the bastard language from hell as far as statement terminator is
> concerned.
Obviously, I disagree.
> Why he chose end of line I will never know. Python suffers
> from the same abonimation except that if it knows a statement isn't
> complete it will ignore it. The good thing about tcl is tk and thankfully
> there are nice tk modules for perl and python.
I've heard some unflattering reports about what python does with syntax,
and the Perl version (which I've actually looked at) did not impress me
one little bit.
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- This may scare your cat into premature baldness, but Sun are not the only
sellers of Unix. -- Anthony Ord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gergo Barany)
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: [OT] .sig
Date: 27 Feb 2001 10:44:50 GMT
Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At this moment, I am well within the borders of the United States.
> The only applicable law which has jurisdiction over me is the First
> Amendment of the Constitution....which gives me the right to say
> pretty much whatever I damn well please.
Quote chapter and verse, please.
Gergo
--
If you want to make God laugh, tell him about your plans.
-- Woody Allen
------------------------------
From: Ketil Kyrre Kolstad Nordstad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 11:52:49 +0100
>
>
> OTOH, I could stick with my Slackware 3.0 install from 95
> if I want, and still be fine, no bit rot, and no pressure to
> upgrade.
>
> jjs
Heh.. Hope you rememered to remove the default example user which comes with
no password.. :)
--
Homepage : http://www.stud.osir.hihm.no/~ketilkn/
icq : 69584239
------------------------------
From: "Reefer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: State of linux distros
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 11:02:51 GMT
"Aaron Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev i meddelandet
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Your marijuana-induced fog of non-comprehension problem is not my problem.
Clearly u have big problem, concerning your lack of ability to communicate
with other people in a proper manner......
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
