Linux-Advocacy Digest #714, Volume #32 Fri, 9 Mar 01 00:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: The merits of the BSD license. (Craig Kelley)
Re: What Linux MUST DO! - Comments anyone? (Craig Kelley)
Re: What Linux MUST DO! - Comments anyone? (Bloody Viking)
Re: Computing Power to Peak SOON! (WAS: Moore's Law, continued...) (Bloody Viking)
Re: The merits of the BSD license. ("Adam Warner")
Re: What does IQ measure? (Brent R)
Re: The merits of the BSD license. ("Adam Warner")
Re: Linux Joke (J Sloan)
Re: I say we BAN "Innovation" ("Adam Warner")
Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time (Jay Maynard)
Re: NT vs *nix performance (J Sloan)
Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time (David Masterson)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! ("Jim Richardson")
Re: What does IQ measure? (Brock Hannibal)
Re: Mircosoft Tax ("Jim Richardson")
Re: Sun Blade 100 (J Sloan)
Re: Windows API (Was Re: Mircosoft Tax) (J Sloan)
Re: Linux Joke (J Sloan)
Re: What does IQ measure? (Brock Hannibal)
Re: Sometimes, when I run Windows... (J Sloan)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The merits of the BSD license.
Date: 08 Mar 2001 20:22:39 -0700
"Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Mind you, If you look on the Solaris CDROM it has, "Portions may be derived
> from Berkley BSD Systems., licensed from U. of CA", it is quite suprising
> how SUN acknowledges the use of BSD code in its OS, however, Microsoft
> doesn't, it clearly says something about Microsoft and its ethics.
NT4, the NT Resource Kit and NT Services for UNIX all recognize the
reagants of CA, Berkely in their licenses. I've hardly used 2000, so
I can't comment on whether it does or not.
--
It won't be long before the CPU is a card in a PCI slot on your ATX videoboard
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What Linux MUST DO! - Comments anyone?
Date: 08 Mar 2001 20:32:29 -0700
"Paolo Ciambotti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Charlie Ebert"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > http://www.netslaves.com/comments/983976069.shtml
> >
> > Charlie
> >
>
> Slow news day, clueless journalist, rant mode switch stuck in the
> "on" position.
I thought it was a great article. Not terribly accurate, but it
reflects the *perceptions* of those that use Windows all the time.
They think Linux should be easy to install, and yet they have never
installed Windows so they don't know how bad it really is.
Her gripes about Word were pretty much all valid; us geek-types
really hate those products anyway so we have zero interest in coding a
replacement (to replace what, exactly? emacs? I hardly think anyone
could pry it from me.). Corel's offering was... creative, to put it
nicely.
Many of her arguments are dated, which is a tribute to how far we've
come in the last 2 years.
The "beta" comments were amusing, considering that no large product
ever leaves that state. Open Source developers are just more honest
than commercial people. (when was the last Windows title you bought
that didn't have an "update" or two or two dozen on the company's
website -- how often did you have to buy a new version to fix the bugs
[Adaptec Easy-CD 3 was horrible!]). If she really wants a happy
dot-zero release number then use Windows, I suppose..
Technical standards? Umm, let's see how standard Microsoft's
"standards" are: bad unicode in HTML, MSDNS, MSDHCP, MSCHAP,
MSKerberos, ActiveX, MSSOAP, etc. etc. etc.
--
It won't be long before the CPU is a card in a PCI slot on your ATX videoboard
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking)
Subject: Re: What Linux MUST DO! - Comments anyone?
Date: 9 Mar 2001 03:41:55 GMT
Charlie Ebert ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: http://www.netslaves.com/comments/983976069.shtml
I took a look at the YRL. The writer is looking at it from the average end
user viewpoint. Quite a few points are valid. The file is big, with LOTS of
comments from people.
Linux has its advantages all right, but Windows has some items that the end
user want, like:
easy install
reliable booting
the apps as programmers have one GUI to work with, not several.
99 times out of 100, it's preinstalled
easy to have eye-candy
Of course, we all know about the problems with Windows, but end users are not
pissed off, at least not yet. The thing that got me pissed enough to switch to
Linux was the prices of software, and that was back in 1994! Now, it's
software prices, file formats, greed, no possibility of making homemade
programmes, etc.
The file format bullshit pisses me off to no end nowadays. .PDF, incompatible
.HTML extensions, idiots uploading Word 6 files, and who knows what else. We
could really use standards:
Postscript for word processing.
Plain text for spreadsheets.
A bitmap .pic format.
Plain text for databases.
PGP for encryption.
UUENCODE for binary mail attachments.
Tar for archiving.
Gzip to zip tarballs with.
As far as a .pic format, all you need is like this:
200 by 300
fgjfuuuu656865iyktttmmmm66..............
A line of text with the pixels, and the rest, the raw bitmap pixel data. Do we
REALLY need all those file formats?
--
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.microsoft.sucks,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Computing Power to Peak SOON! (WAS: Moore's Law, continued...)
Date: 9 Mar 2001 03:45:18 GMT
SoneoneElse (SomeoneElse) wrote:
: Actually i think those overclockers actuyal use smething like liquid
: nitrogen.
Not yet at least. The wildest of the bunch use watercooled peltiers to cool
their overrevved CPUs. Check out alt.comp.hardware.overclocking for a good
laugh. (:
--
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: "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The merits of the BSD license.
Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 16:45:37 +1300
I think ZDNet put it quite nicely:
http://www.zdnet.com/eweek/stories/general/0,11011,2690587,00.html
---Begin Quote---
In the meantime, we're sympathetic to Allchin's preference for the BSD
license, which does not "contaminate" products based on open-source
foundations with carry-forward open-source requirements. Yes, this would
make taxpayer-funded software a foundation for both open-source and
proprietary software products. We're sympathetic, but that doesn't mean
we're persuaded: First, someone needs to establish that taxpayer-funded
proprietary software is good for (they started it) the American way.
---End Quote---
I am sympathetic to Microsoft's plight. Doesn't mean I'm convinced though.
Regards,
Adam
------------------------------
From: Brent R <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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 03:52:20 GMT
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
> On Thu, 08 Mar 2001 01:32:23 GMT, Brent R wrote:
> >Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> >>
>
> >JD Salinger had an IQ score of 115, still above average but not showing
> >his true ability. To some the man is a complete genius. I also so a show
> >where a man with an IQ of 75 (he's mentally disabled) could craft
> >picture perfect animal replicas out of clay in very short time. His
> >pieces sell for millions at some art galleries. He's also considered a
> >genius.
>
> Like I said, anomolies can fool the test. Especially if the person has
> some kind of disability, the test is unlikely to be reliable.
>
> The most obvious examples are people with learning disabilities. These
> people may well understand course material, but need to be given extra
> time. They actually benefit from the extra time (whereas another student
> would not benefit substantially)
>
> The problem with testing people with disabilities is that they may be very
> deficient in one small area, and OK with everything else, and most
> tests are not capable of conveying that information (it's sort of
> like height/weight charts that tell you that bodybuilders are all overweight
> when they actually have less than 10% fat)
>
> >Also, it seems I have been dealt several hands of bad karma today after
> >making that unwarranted attack on Aaron. I guess I will apologize now, I
> >wasn't in the best of moods at the time.
>
> We all understand -- just about everyone here has felt the urge to make
> an "unwarranted attack" on Aaron at some time.
> --
> Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
> elflord at panix dot com
How the fsck did this get posted to COLA anyway? It seems to have posted
to several "advocacy" computer NG's and soc.singles. Either way, a part
of me feels that it is socially irresponsible of me to continue this
discussion, based on it's initial mass cross-posting.
--
Happy Trails!
-Brent
http://rotten168.home.att.net
------------------------------
From: "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The merits of the BSD license.
Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 03:56:15 GMT
A small point Ian,
Note your statement here:
> - You cannot "steal" that which is freely given. BSD licensed code is
> for all to use without restriction.
Directly conflicts with your sentiments here:
> You thought it would be greedy to take BSD code and make a proprietary
> derivative, I consider it rude that the GPL attempts to take other
> open-source licensed code as its own too.
If you truely believe that BSD code is licensed for all to use without
restriction you should not consider it rude that the code can be used in
GPLed software.
...
> The main point is that the *BSD projects (and XFree, python, perl,
> etc...) prove that the restrictive clauses in the GPL (blocking closed
> source reuse of code and infecting other source with its license) are
> completely unnecessary to keep opensource "free".
You are confusing necessity with helpfulness. The GPL is indeed useful in
helping to keep free software free. It is very good at limiting embrace and
extend tactics.
Regards,
Adam
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux Joke
Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 04:05:48 GMT
Chad Myers wrote:
> The vulnerabilities in SSH would only indirectly cause a root
> exploit (transmittal of a telnet-able user and pass, and then
> the transmittal of the su and pass strings), as far as I can
> tell.
And then, only if they are clueless enough to press
on blindly in the face of the warning that says e.g.
********************************
***** warning ****
********************************
This could be a "man in the middle attack"!
Proceed at your own risk!
All your base are belong to us!!!
********************************
***** warning ****
********************************
------------------------------
From: "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I say we BAN "Innovation"
Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 17:11:39 +1300
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Flacco" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Not the concept - the word. It's seriously getting over-used.
http://www.satirewire.com/news/0103/buzz_phrase.shtml
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jay Maynard)
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 04:15:46 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 9 Mar 2001 00:24:45 GMT, Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>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".
Bzzt.
Kerberos *explicitly* included a field for vendors to use in their
implementations. M$ used it. This is not a failing of free software. This is
a vendor taking advantage of something that was put there for them to take
advantage of. Further, it is *extremely* unlikely that M$ would have used
the original Kerberos code at all if it had been GPVed. Those who think they
would have are deluding themselves.
> 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.
There is, however, no reason that the original BSD source code cannot be
extended to interoperate.
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NT vs *nix performance
Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 04:22:41 GMT
Just a thought - it would have been very easy to buy 100%
linux compatible hardware, so you have to take some of the
blame if Linux isn't liking some of your hardware.
Scott Gardner wrote:
> You've been luckier than I have. I installed RH 7.0, and here's the
> list of stuff that wouldn't work:
>
> Video Card - Diamond Viper II with the Savage 2000 chipset. Works,
> but only as a standard SVGA card, and none of the whiz-bang 3D
> capabilities are supported yet.
And that's well known. There is a list of cards on which hardware
3D acceleration is known to work, and that's not on the list.
(However, it might be supported by 3rd party X server.)
> Sound card - I actually had two, one in the machine and an older one
> lying around. Neither chipset is supported in linux (ESS Canyon 3D
> and whatever the Diamond Monster Sound MX300 uses--it's slipped my
> mind right now)
I've had to look pretty hard to find a sound card Linux didn't like.
If you want to be safe, stick with a sound blaster though...
> PIE SCSI Scanner - Color flatbed scanner on a proprietary half-card
> SCSI interface. I could probably connect it to an honest SCSI
> controller, but it doesn't work as is, and since all of the above
> problems force me to boot into Windows at one time or another, in the
> meantime I'm just doing my scanning in Windows.
I made sure to get a good scanner - the hp 5200 C USB scanner
works great here, sane supports it and I have a choice of apps.
jjs
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2001 23:27:32 -0500
Subject: Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time
From: David Masterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>>> "JD" == JD <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "David Masterson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> 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.
Cutting through the rhetoric, now that you've moved from free to
commercial software developer, your basic problem with the GPL seems
to be that it restricts the right of developers to create proprietary
derivative works and, therefore, make money through the use of
restrictive copyright enforcement. I am quite sure that many
commercial software development organizations share this gripe
(especially with those organizations looking for new revenue after the
Internet economy downturn).
On the one hand, I also see this as a problem with the GPL in that it
prevents many software *development* organizations from embracing and
further developing GPL'ed software. Basically, they feel that it is
highly unlikely that they can recoup their investment in doing this
development if the GPL forces them to give their work away (or
certainly at way below cost). Therefore, if they want to move into
doing something similar to already available GPLed software while
still making money, they have to consider redeveloping it from scratch
so that they are not bound by the "derivative work" clause of the GPL.
This is the business view of the GPL.
On the other hand, if it was completely embraced, I also see the GPL,
more than any other open-source license (AFAIK), preventing the
potential for "one-off" incompatibilities of programs that do
essentially the same thing (ie. no MS-TCP, IBM-TCP, Sun-TCP,
Apple-TCP, etc., that don't quite work the same). These type of
problems cause considerable consternation for users of software and
the problems become progressively worse with each generation of
software. In a GPLed world, software is more likely to be extended
rather than cloned (and we all know how clones are never quite equal)
because there would be no reason to duplicate previous efforts. This
is the utopian view that users (like RMS) hope for from the GPL.
As a software developer who not only likes to play with computers, but
also needs to make a living doing it, I can understand both sides of
the argument. Some have said that one way of being a software
developer and bringing the two sides together is to be one who
develops custom GPLed software on contract. I'm still considering the
implications...
--
David Masterson ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Rational Software (but I don't speak for them)
------------------------------
From: "Jim Richardson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2001 20:46:17 +0800
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "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.
>
So unified that the postscript LJ at work, tied to a novell server,
prints differently when I copy file.ps lpt1 or click and drag to "print"
on the menu item Copying the ps file to the printer works fine,
clicky-pointy results in a page that is 91%x92% or so of the size it
should be.
Real unified...
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2001 20:33:18 -0800
From: Brock Hannibal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: What does IQ measure?
"." wrote:
>
> > > > The person who solves the problem first.
> > >
> > > I'd claim the person who solved it best.
> >
> > Here's a problem.
> >
> > 25.312 X 19.598 = ?
> >
> > Person A gets the correct answer in 2.3 seconds.
> >
> > Person B gets the correct answer in 23 seconds.
> >
> > Who's solution is the best?
> >
> > However person, A costs me 11 times more per hour than person B.
> >
> > Now who's solution is best?
> >
> > Oh, but I needed the answer in under 5 seconds or I died.
> >
> > Now what?
> >
> > Define best.
>
> I can only define best for a specific instance.
precisely
> The point I was trying
> to make is that there is often more than one solution to a problem,
Well, duh.
> and
> in my own experience, there is often a way that appears simple, and you
> might jump straight into doing it... only to find it it actually makes
> things more difficult than a second, less-obvious method.
Yes that's true enough, but why would the lower IQ score person be
more or less likely than the higher IQ score person to pick the
better, but slower and non-obvious way? Or are you constructing a
mythical scenario that's pretty damned unlikely?
> For a simple math problem, who gives a fuck? A calculator will give you
> the best answer, in under 5 seconds provided you have some manual
> dexterity, and it wont cost you anything. ;)
> I don't consider a simple multiplication a test of anyone's intelligence,
> only a very simple test for the lack of it.
OK, let's make it a word problem that requires the solution of a
differential equation then. What then? Is it likely the lower IQ
person will come up with the "better" solution? Or once again are
you just constructing a fantasy story to try to refute the validity
of IQ tests?
--
Brock
"Put a $20 gold piece on my watch chain so the boys'll know I died
standin' pat"
------------------------------
From: "Jim Richardson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2001 20:48:45 +0800
In article <ASDp6.25$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik Funkenbusch"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Donovan Rebbechi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On 7 Mar 2001 09:22:03 GMT, Bloody Viking wrote:
>> >
>> >Donovan Rebbechi ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>> >
>> >: Why should the operating system go down in price ? Has it
>> >: become cheaper to design and write operating systems ?
>> >
>> >Yes. Mass distribution and cheap H1-B imported labour.
>>
>> I know some of the "cheap H1B imported labour", and they're really not
> that
>> cheap at all. I've seen the H1B debate raging on comp.lang.c++, and
>> almost all the protectionists are a bunch of obnoxious stupid bigots
>> who can't
> get
>> a job because they're barely intelligent enough to tie their own
> shoelaces,
>> let alone code. My SO sued to work at a place that employed H1Bs, and
>> suffice it to say, they weren't "cheap" by any stretch of the
>> imagination.
>
> "cheap" is a relative term. I also know lots of H1B's, and while their
> salaries are generally not too far out of line with the average entry
> level salaray, they live under lots of restrictions. For instance,
> they're not allowed to switch jobs. If they lose their job, they get
> deported. That means a company can work their H1B's 10, 14, 18 hour
> days and the H1B has to put up with it or go back. Since they're
> salaried employees, they don't fall under the fair labor practices rules
> when it comes to hours worked.
>
> Further, a company that has a significant number of H1B's doesn't have
> to worry about "fringe benefits" that many people in the industry get
> (Stock Options, Ping Pong tables in the breakroom, free food, etc..).
>
> While i'm certainly not the blather protectionist, I have seen first
> hand how a company that hires mostly H1B's goes quickly to pot.
>
>
>
and with the shortage of technically skilled workers, I have seen
companies actively recruiting H1B workers from other companies, offering
to take over the visa. Frankly I think H1B stinks, there should be no
restriction. If they have a job, let them in, gladly.
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Sun Blade 100
Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 04:36:50 GMT
Matthew Gardiner wrote:
> DOn't waste your time running crap on a Sparc, use Solaris for
> christsake!
There are a number of satisfied sparc-linux users who
would take issue with your statements.
> more stable, developed and hardware support for Solaris
> Sparc than Linux Sparc.
Some people want to run Linux so they can have a single
OS and a single set of management tools across all their
hardware platforms - from handheld/pda to mainframe &
supercomputer.
I know that a few years ago a certain UC campus moved
their CS dept off of Solaris onto Linux - mail, dns, nis, nfs,
shell accounts, file/print services etc - and even installed
Linux on their sparc hardware. It's been a few years now,
but last I heard they claimed it was more manageable with
Linux.
jjs
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Windows API (Was Re: Mircosoft Tax)
Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 04:38:51 GMT
Mike wrote:
> e:\>which qbasic
> C:\WINNT\system32\qbasic.exe
> e:\>
Cute - do the unix-like commands come with
win 2k now or is that an add-on?
jjs
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Linux Joke
Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 04:42:28 GMT
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> I'd used Redhat as long as I've been using Linux (started at RH4.1),
> but I "broke up" with them after they shipped an alpha compiler.
Well that was silly - you should have checked out the facts
about gcc-2.96 before swallowing the anti-redhat propoganda!
http://www.bero.org/gcc296.html
jjs
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2001 20:46:07 -0800
From: Brock Hannibal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: What does IQ measure?
turtoni wrote:
>
> Scott Gardner wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 08 Mar 2001 13:42:44 -0500, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >Actually, those in the top centiles of IQ marry MORE often...especially
> > >the men. The difference is...just like everything else they do...they
> > >do so INTELLIGENTLY.
> >
> > This threw me for a loop at first. I was wondering why, if they marry
> > so intelligently, they're doing it "more often" (ie, repeatedly). Of
> > course I realize what you meant was that people in the top percentiles
> > of IQ are more likely to be married... Was still good for a laugh in
> > my moment of confusion...
>
> personally i would put forward that it's been my observation that people who
> are highly skilled in some areas tend to be lacking in others.
My observations are just the opposite of yours. My observation is
that people that are highly skilled are also good at other things if
they put their minds to them.
> we can only
> just take a look at the sample of very successful people within the media
> only to watch them make a complete mess of their personal life's and fail at
> being able to form successful long term successful relationships.
Actors and actresses are not picked because of their high IQ.
> in fact you might say even go so far as to say that the the least successful
> people are more likely to stay together for economic reasons and also more
> likely to go with the flow and build large families, also for economic
> reasons.
I don't think statistics bear that out.
> so if we were to imagine that being intelligent is genetic
There's no imagine to it.
> and that those
> people are more likely to be constantly putting one's self on the line and
> therefore more likely to die out.
I would think they, being smarter, would take fewer stupid risks
actually, statistically, and maybe get better health care, eat right
and so on.
> we should therefore be on a downward
> spiral intellectually which just imo hasn't been proven to be the case.
No, because the scenario you've constructed is likely an erroneous
one, at least as to causality.
> i think what it spells out is that we all have a capacity to be intelligent
> and that it just needs to be turned on
There are innate differences in the factors which contribute to high
IQ. They are generally present and detectable by testing at very
young ages.
> whilst it's also true to say that
> some people have some abnormality which gives them a drive and/or makes them
> more likely to be what society considers to as define success.
Motivation and intelligence, while linked, are not as tightly
correlated as one might think.
> and i also believe we have become more civilized and that life expectancy
> has greatly improved but we are still essentially the same monkey as our
> distant ancestor.
We just hire out killin' done instead of doin' it ourselves. When's
the last time you went out and killed a large herbivore, gutted,
skinned and butchered it to feed your family? But you think nothin'
of buyin' a steak dinner, the cost of which includes payment for all
those dirty jobs you don't want to do.(That's the general you, not
you specifically Ian)
> turtoni - but there is room for radical movement, imo.
You'd be right there.
Anyway, good to see your posts again.
--
Brock
"Put a $20 gold piece on my watch chain so the boys'll know I died
standin' pat"
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Sometimes, when I run Windows...
Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 04:49:15 GMT
Byron A Jeff wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> WJP <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >And, as an aside, I did a web search the other day for Linux drivers for
> >my ATI Rage 64 video card. And, to my amazement, I found a set of
> >drivers - at a cost of $89 (US) - which is not too far away from the
> >price I originally paid for the video card. It appears that I will be
> >"stuck" with the svga Linux drivers for awhile, at least.
>
> This is one of my favorite cards. The XFree86 Mach64 driver works
> beautifully on it.
Same here -
> What exactly are you looking for in terms of a driver?
Perhaps he means hardware 3D acceleration support?
jjs
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
