Linux-Advocacy Digest #710, Volume #32 Thu, 8 Mar 01 20:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Why Open Source better be careful - The Microsoft Un-American (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Killfile Kookis already! (Was: Re: Information wants to be free, (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: How Microsoft Crushes the Hearts of Trolls. (Giuliano Colla)
Re: Is Bill Gates MAD?!?!? (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: NT vs *nix performance (Steve Mading)
Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time ("JD")
Re: What does IQ measure? (Scott Gardner)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (Steve Mading)
Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time (Steve Mading)
Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time ("JD")
Re: Linux Joke (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: What does IQ measure? (Scott Gardner)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Open Source better be careful - The Microsoft Un-American
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2001 19:07:15 -0500
Interconnect wrote:
>
> > >
> > > The fuel of the future will be Fusion power.
> >
> > Are you talking within the next decade?
> >
> > If so, please go back to jacking off to your copy of Popular Mechanics,
> > Omni, or whatever juvenile trash you read.
> >
>
> The future i.e. 10, 20, 50, 100 years etc..
They've been predicting "A hovercraft in every garage" for 50 years now.
Ain't happening. Why is that?
[Hint: it has *nothing* to do with production costs].
>
> > A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
K: Truth in advertising:
Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shelala,
Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakan,
Special Interest Sierra Club,
Anarchist Members of the ACLU
Left Wing Corporate Extremist Ted Turner
The Drunken Woman Killer Ted Kennedy
Grass Roots Pro-Gun movement,
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....
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
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"
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
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.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Killfile Kookis already! (Was: Re: Information wants to be free,
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2001 19:07:54 -0500
Lars Träger wrote:
>
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > @> Either way, that really has nothing to do with wether or not you're
> > @> wasting huge quantities of bandwidth. To address that: You're not--it's
> > @> only text. Just one of the millions of binaries posted a day takes up
> > @> more than all the .sigs from all your articles for the last few weeks.
> > @> However, your .sig is extremely annoying.
> > @
> > @Check out the bandwidth consumed by ONE jpeg and get back to me.
>
> There are several Binary groups that (together) have less bandwidth than
> Kookis posts. They may be mostly empty, but still hold more information
> than all of Kookis elamorations combined.
>
That's something a jealous loser would write.
> Lars T.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
K: Truth in advertising:
Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shelala,
Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakan,
Special Interest Sierra Club,
Anarchist Members of the ACLU
Left Wing Corporate Extremist Ted Turner
The Drunken Woman Killer Ted Kennedy
Grass Roots Pro-Gun movement,
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....
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
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"
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
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.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
------------------------------
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: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 00:08:53 GMT
LShaping wrote:
>
> "Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
>
> > More seriously: powerful instruments are very good to save time and to
> > provide a cleaner and re-usable code, but you can't use successfully a
> > high level instrument if you don't have a good knowledge of the low
> > level ones. OOP is very good, but when you need to create a new object,
> > or to derive another from an existing one, you aren't programming with
> > objects, you're programming objects instead, and you need a good
> > knowledge of the language objects are written into. And you can't have a
> > good knowledge of a language if you don't know the sort of machine code
> > which will be produced. Usually program bottlenecks are very few and
> > very limited. For 95% of the code you don't care. But the residual 5% is
> > the one which affects overall performance. You can't ignore the
> > resulting machine code.
>
> That is a wild generalization which suggests that a high level programmer
> must not only know the machine language but also be able to redefine
> functions using machine language. Strange, that coming from someone who
> probably is multilingual. Obviously, Giuliano is assuming that there will
> never be progress in programming languages, that all "good" programmers will
> always be stuck messing with machine language. Or he is assuming that
> machine language will always stay in step with high level languages. The
> more likely scenario, if this is not already the case, it that high level
> programmers must leave the details to low level programmers. Human
> languages certainly do not require the user to know every detail, heaven
> help us if they did.
> LShaping
There's a general rule: programmers tend to use constructs which are
faster to write in the selected language, as opposed to the ones which
execute faster. Sometimes they avoid constructs which do not produce
code at all, but are lengthy to write. Therefore the problem isn't the
progress in programming languages, but in computing power. If you have
computing power in excess, you may disregard efficiency, but if you
don't, you can't ignore the resulting code. I don't support the idea of
writing code in machine language, unless really necessary, but reading
the low level code your compiler produces may help a lot to write
efficient high level code.
With some compilers just splitting an expression in two steps, to
improve readability, is a very costly choice, with others it comes for
free. When you're in the inner loop of an image processing algorithm,
just to make an example, the wrong choice can make your program take
five minutes instead of five seconds.
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Is Bill Gates MAD?!?!?
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2001 19:09:33 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> In England
> I seen the use of "traffic circles"
Were you raised in a barn?
it's either "I ***HAVE*** seen..." or "I **SAW**"
In this case, the proper usage is "I saw"
> At first it seem not a straigt forward method of moving traffic, and
> turning off.
> Watching the traffic flow shows that it appeared to be quicker and
> safer to turn off left or right, or just go around and work yourself
> into the correct lane to take the road you want.
>
> Generally there would be three roads connected to a traffic circle.
>
> On 16 Jan 2001 01:40:46 GMT, "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >: We have a lot of those in Detroit....major thoroughfares are turned
> >: into boulevards...and to make a left-turn ONTO one of them, you have
> >: to do a right, and then do a U-turn through the median.
> >
> >
> >According to the folks on misc.transport.roads, that is called a
> >"Michigan Left," and is somewhat different than a jughandle, although
> >both serve a similar purpose.
> >
> >
> >: Actually, it does keep the throughput on the main roads quite high.
> >
> >
> >That's the purpose.
> >
> >Wish we had them here in the Cleveland area, which has a fourth of
> >metro Detroit's population and damn near 100% of its traffic mess,
> >especially in the suburbs.
> >
> >
> >
> >Joe
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
K: Truth in advertising:
Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shelala,
Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakan,
Special Interest Sierra Club,
Anarchist Members of the ACLU
Left Wing Corporate Extremist Ted Turner
The Drunken Woman Killer Ted Kennedy
Grass Roots Pro-Gun movement,
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....
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
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"
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
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.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT vs *nix performance
Date: 9 Mar 2001 00:17:03 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Scott Gardner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: This is a farcical example, I know, but a lot of potential
: linux converts already have computers, and those computers were likely
: built with Windows in mind, not Linux. Until novice users can go to
: the hardware manufacturer's web site and download self-installing
: drivers to make their hardware work under Linux, this will always be a
: barrier to Linux's widespread acceptance into the desktop arena.
This is all very true, but what can be done to fix it? The
problem is that it's a technical problem that is being
caused by cultural marketplace forces. A technical solution
can't fix it. Nothing can be done TO Linux to change the
'political' situation: A large number of hardware manufacturers
are perfectly willing to forego smaller markets if that
means not having to put forth as much effort. (It's expensive
to pay a highly competent guy to program a driver, so unless
you know you are going to be selling a *lot* of units, you
have a hard time recouping that cost.) As it stands now,
what typically happens is that the hobbyists have to write the
drivers themselves, but they can't begin until the model is
already out on the shelves at the computer store. By then the
Windows driver has already been written in-house by the
manufacturer. It's a case of Linux being hampered by a completely
non-technical, non-programmer type of problem. Since most of
the people pushing Linux are of the programmer/technical bent,
they aren't really in a position to tackle this type of problem.
I have no idea what the solution is. How do you program around
the "hardware companies are short-sighted" bug?
------------------------------
From: "JD" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2001 19:25:31 -0500
"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> JD wrote:
> > >
> > > The original code can NEVER be made non-free. It is now and forever
> > > available.
> > >
> > Apparently, the GPL crew are just selfish, and want everyone to give all of their
> > work away. Who cares if Microsoft has added some of their own stuff to the
> > BSD code and hasn't given it to the GPL crowd?
> >
> > The BSD code is certainly still free :-). Microsoft cant take that away. Alas,
> > the GPL crowd is also against free code (yet uses the term incorrectly.)
>
> You need to actually read the GPL.
>
I probably read the GPL before you had ever programmed :-)... By overtly re-defining
the term 'free' in the preamble (or text), that doesn't make it so generally.
Just because Microsoft uses BSD licensed source codes, it doesn't make FreeBSD or
OpenBSD proprietary :-). The GPL is a way to create a scheme for making sure that
add-on works are not as economically flexible for those who actually do the work,
but 'helps' the marketeers who already have efficient means of exploiting the
developer.
Any claims of 'code' being exploited are roughly equivalent to claiming 'code freedom'
is something like 'freedom of speech.' It doesn't only show a lack of understanding of
law, but shows a lack of understanding of the natural language used in communications
or worse: a psychotic understanding of reality :-).
John
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Scott Gardner)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: What does IQ measure?
Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 00:23:06 GMT
On Wed, 07 Mar 2001 06:43:45 -0800, Brock Hannibal
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The only thing that IQ tests measure is how good you are at IQ tests.
>
>That's something dumb people say.
>
When said in that exact trite manner, I would agree. I would argue,
however, that it contains a grain of truth. Tell me honestly that a
person that takes a lot of standardized tests (IQ tests and other
types) isn't going to get progressively better at it. Their
problem-solving skills are going to get better, they are going to
become more comfortable in a test-taking environment, reducing the
chance of panic attacks or just plain stupid mistakes, and regardless
of how the questions are asked, the likelihood of the test-taker
having seen a similar problem in the past is increased.
I think the only way an IQ test could be accurate would be if
there were some way to ensure that the test-taker were an "IQ
Virgin", for want of a better term. Even that wouldn't be fair,
because what about the intelligent person that simply doesn't take
tests well, and either reads the question wrong, or is subject to
excessive anxiety. To be fair to him, you would have to give him some
experience in being tested before the true depth of his intelligence
could be known.
You also have to have a rough idea of the subject's IQ before
you administer the test. By definition, a person with an IQ of 100 is
"average", and a test, like any tool, is the most accurate near the
middle of its range. If you wanted to torque a bolt to precisely 100
lbf-ft, you wouldn't use a torque wrench with a scale of 10-100
lbf-ft, you would find a specialty tool that measures from 90 to 110
lbf-ft and use that. My Stanford-Binet score is right at 170. Do I
think I'm that smart? No, I don't. But if you look at the scoring
scale on the Stanford-Binet test, once you get up above the 120-130
range, getting one question right or wrong can make a difference of
5-10 points on the final score. The same thing happens when you get
into the very low scores.That particular test is meant to be
administered to a group of people that represent the whole
cross-section of society, not the extremely smart or the almost
vegetative. Do you think the S-B test, or any other IQ test for that
matter, can accurately measure everyone from the barely-conscious to
the supra-genius? Think again. If Marilyn vos Savant (highest
recorded IQ, if the name doesn't ring a bell) and I both took the same
IQ test, one that was meant to be given to the population at large,
she might miss one or none, and I might miss four or five. Do you
really think that those five questions would accurately portray the
*huge* disparity between the two of us? No, you would need to come up
with a test that truly challenged her, and then she might miss a few,
and I would miss a LOT. Since this test is geared for people of
above-average intelligence, the few I got right might still qualify me
for an honest 140-150, and the fact that she didn't blow the test out
of the water would lend credence to that test being an accurate
measurement of her abilities as well.
Scott Gardner
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Date: 9 Mar 2001 00:27:27 GMT
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:> In the Windows world the printer manufacturers write the drivers for
:> Microsoft, whereas we have to do it by hand. It's one of those silly
:> monopoly issues that we keep talking about.
: In the Windows world there appears to be a unified printing model.
: Constrast this with the chaos that appears in the Linux world.
There is no difference, as you have already been shown. In BOTH,
there exist standard ways all apps on the system can print through
the same 'drivers', and in BOTH, there exist apps that circumvent
this service the OS provides.
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time
Date: 9 Mar 2001 00:24:45 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Peter Seebach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: In article <988tq6$i1e$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Jay Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:>: On 7 Mar 2001 23:56:51 GMT, Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:>: The only rules that need to be attached are those that prevent people from
:>: taking code released freely and making it no longer available at all to
:>: anyone under the terms it was originally released. Fortunately, it is not
:>: necessary to write such rules into the license; they are inherent in the
:>: body of law that licenses are a part of. BSD-licensed code can NEVER be made
:>: non-free, even though the BSDL contains no explicit provisions to guarantee
:>: that.
:>BSD socket code was put into Windows, a non-free (in both senses of
:>the word) product.
: Are you saying that BSD socket code thereby became non-free? Can you point
: me at the historic moment when FreeBSD and NetBSD were required to stop giving
: away copies of BSD socket code?
You guys just don't get it. Proprietary extensions from a work, when
put into a popular OS, CAN undermine the original through embrace-and-
extend-and-make-incompatable. If 0.0001% of the code in a derived
product is different from the original open version, but that 0.0001%
causes incompatabilites, and the majority goes with the new version,
the open version becomes useless. Think "Kerberos". MS's version of
the BSD TCP stack will remain compatable only so long as doing so is
necessary for them to operate on the net. If they can achieve their
goal of dominating both the server and client market, then they won't
have any reason to 'play nice' with the original TCP protocol.
------------------------------
From: "JD" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2001 19:36:23 -0500
"David Masterson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > The BSD code is certainly still free :-). Microsoft cant take that
> > away. Alas, the GPL crowd is also against free code (yet uses the
> > term incorrectly.)
>
> I was with you up until the last sentence. How are you using the term
> "free" here (in the sense of cost or freedom)? And if they are using
> the term incorrectly, in which sense do you perceive them as using it?
>
By advocating the non-fact that 'GPL' is a free license, it competes against
much more free licenses. There are numerous cases of the GPL 'souring'
corporate legal divisions against free code, by the 'GPL-being-free' groups
exploitation by misuse of the term.
Non-facts as espoused by GPL-being-free crowd:
Untruth1) Free software causes chaos.
Untruth2) GPL software is free software.
Untruth3) One recipient of free software can make future copies
of software received by others non-free.
Untruth4) LGPL is a 'lesser' license.
In the sense of free software,
the library GPL is a freer and superior license to the GPL.
The ONLY really honest benefit for the GPL-being-free crew calling the
GPL 'free' is that it causes people to have to more carefully review licenses.
Before, free meant that the code was 'free.' Now, it means that the code can
be 'freely' used and/or redistributed if you follow alot of constraints. Of course,
that becomes true of commercial software :-)... Commercial software is free
to use and reuse if you follow the rules :-).
When I moved back into commercial software, from the free software world,
and started back with a commercial perspective of software, the GPL becomes
yet another commercial license, with significant constraints. When making the
assumption that the GPL software is free, then it is indeed quite difficult to
judge the license as being very good.
John
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux Joke
Date: 9 Mar 2001 00:32:54 GMT
On Fri, 9 Mar 2001 10:07:40 +1300, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Well you've spent most of the thred claiming that it's insecure. So if
>> there are no root exploits, what are the real-world problems faced by
>> someone running ssh ? (I'd argue that there aren't any, not any caused
>> by ssh anyway)
>
>The only vulnerability I've heard of with ssh is a man in the middle
>attack, and that will only work if you accept a new key when you connect
>to your server.
Yes, it's an inherent an unavoidable problem with public/private key based
schemes.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Scott Gardner)
Subject: Re: What does IQ measure?
Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 00:34:42 GMT
On Wed, 07 Mar 2001 19:46:13 -0800, "Paolo Ciambotti"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Donovan Rebbechi"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>Give some examples of highly intelligent people like this.
>>
>> I'd give myself as an example. But then, I didn't score poorly on the IQ
>> test I took. I suppose some speedier types may have scored slightly
>> higher.
>>
>> It may be possible that there are people who are statistical anomolies
>> (for example, maybe someone with a learning disability takes twice as
>> long, but produces accurate answers) and anyone who believes a single
>> number to be a comprehensive measure of man needs to have his IQ
>> tested(-;
>
>I guess I'm one of those anomolies. I have a disability call Asperger's
>syndrome. I got tested three times in school between the fifth grade and
>graduation because of my learning problems. My Stanford-Binet varied
>between 148 and 166, but according to my SAT scores I couldn't even
>spell my name right. Go figure.
>
>Actually, it's sort of a neat disability. A lot of Asperger's sufferers are
>inclined toward the computer industry. For instance, if I'm programming
>an application that requires an N-dimensional array, I can actually
>visualize such an array in my mind where non-sufferers are stuck with
>only two or maybe three dimensions. I think in pictures, everything is
>graphically represented. Verbal communications sucks, and writing
>something like this is a chore you wouldn't believe because I've already
>multitasked to the end of this document and I have no idea how to accurately
>convey my thoughts in such a dimensionless medium as sequential text.
>
>See what I mean?
I know exactly what you mean. I have the opposite problem, although I
don't think it's actually a condition or a disability, I think it's
just something I'm not particularly good at. I have a hard time
thinking in three dimensions, and N-dimensional space makes my brain
hurt. I've always done extremely well on standardized tests and IQ
tests, but there are types of problems I just don't do well on at all.
For example, the problems where you're given a patterned cube, shown
unfolded, and have to tell what the cube will look like when it is
folded together stump me.
There were also questions on the Naval Aviation test that I
had a hard time with. They would give you a view out of the cockpit,
and you had to match it with the correct birds-eye external view of
the plane. The surroundings were comprised of air, water, beach, and
the coastline, and the plane could be banking, climbing, diving,
inverted, headed out to sea, in towards the land, or paralleling the
coast. For all I know, those questions could be the reason I'm a
Naval Flight Officer today and not a Pilot!
Scott Gardner
LT US Navy
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
