Linux-Advocacy Digest #718, Volume #32 Fri, 9 Mar 01 10:13:06 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux Joke (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: GPL Like patents. (Roberto Alsina)
Re: > 40 Bank's hacked by russion mafia: NT servers of course ("Frank Crawford")
Re: What does IQ measure? (Roberto Alsina)
Re: What Linux MUST DO! - Comments anyone? ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Take an ATOM - Leave an ATOM ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Is Bill Gates MAD?!?!? ("Edward Rosten")
Re: What does IQ measure? (jim dutton)
Re: The merits of the BSD license. (Darren Winsper)
Re: Windows API (Was Re: Mircosoft Tax) (Giuliano Colla)
Re: What does IQ measure? (chrisv)
Re: Linux Joke ("Chad Myers")
Re: Computing Power to Peak SOON! (WAS: Moore's Law, continued...) (chrisv)
Re: GPL Like patents. ("Les Mikesell")
Re: What does IQ measure? (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Anyone else get this Konqueror error? (Salvador Peralta)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Linux Joke
Date: 9 Mar 2001 13:11:00 GMT
On Fri, 09 Mar 2001 04:42:28 GMT, J Sloan wrote:
>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!
Can't reach the server. (maybe their httpd was compiled with that alpha
compiler !!!) And I still stand by my comment.
It seems that the purpose of Redhat's major releases is to sabotage
compatibility with the previous release.
gcc 2.96 is not only incompatible with 2.95.2 (int terms of the name
mangling scheme), it's also incompatible with 3.0. The ABI is in a
transitional state. Redhat appear to be going out of their way to
be incompatible with the rest of the world, and this time they have
blown up my silly-ometer. Linus himself described RH 7.0 as "unusable"
as a development platform, and both him and the gcc developers have
been shaking their heads at the sheer stupidity of the move.
Even if you can justify the non-release in terms of its compliance, to
release it with a distribution unnecessarily screws up compatiblity
with everything else. There are enough compatibility problems between
distributions as it is without Redhat going out of their way to create
more of them.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: GPL Like patents.
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2001 10:18:58 -0300
Rob S. Wolfram wrote:
> Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Rob S. Wolfram wrote:
>>> Bottomline is, he who writes the code gets to choose the license, and if
>>> the author chooses the GPL, he wants his code to be used accordingly. He
>>> who does not agree is free not to use it just like you are unable to use
>>> the code of proprietary software.
>>
>>You miss an important thing: the GPL advocates don't want people to know
>>the true meanings of the GPL upfront. If they did, they would include
>>clarifications (for instance, that static and dynamic linking are
>>tainting) as addendums to the lengthy section 0.
>>
>>They don't.
>>
>>You only learn those things when you dig in mailing lists, and position
>>papers, and such.
>>
>
> I consider myself a GPL advocate, and I digress. An author should know
> the true legal implications of *whichever* license he chooses, including
> both the GPL and the BSDL.
> As a pedant point, someone could take a piece of BSD licensed software,
> package it as his own with or without first enhancing it and giving
> everyone free use of "his" package but denies any usage to the original
> developer(s). Yes, it it highly unlikely and highly immoral, but not
> impossible. That too, should be known up front by any developer who
> chooses the BSD license for her code.
>
> IANAL, but upon reading section 0 I get the clear impression that both
> static and dynamic linking do taint.
Section 0 is not a legally binding part of the license. It's a preamble.
> Upon describing a "derivative work"
> there is no timeframe specified when the "derivative work" should
> contain (a portion of) the Program, so you should consider the worst
> possible case, i.e. in any moment, even only during runtime.
The issue is not derivative work, because it's not the GPL that defines
that. It's "greater work" or "larger work", which the GPL does. There is no
doubt that a dynamically linked program is not a derivative work of the
library in all cases, only in some cases.
> I don't need addendums or mailing lists to come to that conclusion. This
> distinction is not as clear IMHO when you consider a program that runs
> on distributed systems and interfaces via some protocol (e.g. CORBA
> objects). I would tend to consider such parts as distinct code, not part
> of each other. Some clarification about this part is very due IMHO.
RMS says using a component through CORBA is not tainting. I can dig a
reference if you really want it. That's how GNOME expected to use the
Netscape code when it was not dually licensed under the GPL.
It does make the GPL kinda useless, since almost anything can be turned
into a omponent.
>>The author gets to choose the license? Sure. He should also know what he
>>is choosing. I know I regret licensing a lot of things under the GPL
>>because I believed the propaganda.
>
> Mabbe I have no right of talking because I never released any piece of
> code. You, OTOH, have released quite some, and I for one am very
> grateful for the wonderful work you've done, even though I don't use KDE
> (nor Gnome for that matter). I personally still believe the propaganda,
> but only the propaganda that I read in the actual words of the GPL. So
> far, I have not seen that propaganda proven wrong.
I have. I regret ever releasing a line of code under the GPL. I know I am
not the only one ;-)
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: "Frank Crawford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: > 40 Bank's hacked by russion mafia: NT servers of course
Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 13:11:55 +0000
On Fri, 09 Mar 2001 12:27:32 +0000,"Frank Crawford"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote (in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>):
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/8/17456.html
What appaling punctuation & spelling from a linux user! let me correct myself:
"> 40 Banks hacked by Russian mafia: NT servers of course."
(Must stop typing so quickly :) )
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[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, 9 Mar 2001 10:26:33 -0300
Brock Hannibal wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Mar 2001, . wrote:
>
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>> > > It may be an advantage in many situations but if I can get further in
>> > > a problem than someone who thinks more quickly, who is the most
>> > > intelligent?
>> > >
>> >
>> > 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?
What about someone that says "about 500" in 0.2 seconds?
What about someone that says the exact answer in 10 seconds, after he
reaches for his calculator?
What about someone who says "why the fuck do you want to know?"
> However person, A costs me 11 times more per hour than person B.
>
> Now who's solution is best?
Your lack of imagination about possible solutions is indication of a low IQ
;-)
> Oh, but I needed the answer in under 5 seconds or I died.
Oh, but it was the first of 100 arithmetic questions that had to be soved
in 2 minutes, so searching for the calculator saved you.
> Now what?
>
> Define best.
Best: it depends.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What Linux MUST DO! - Comments anyone?
Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 13:30:48 +0000
> 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
Most distros provide easy and reliable booting and install.
> work with, not several.
> 99 times out of 100, it's preinstalled
> easy to have eye-candy
> The file format bullshit pisses me off to no end nowadays. .PDF,
> incompatible
pdf isn't too bad. It's open so anyone can make PDF files. Otherwise,
it's basically compressed, simplified postscript with hyperlinks. It's
good for some things where html doesn;t fit the bill.
> .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
Surely postscript for printing? As a wordprocessing format, it's quite
poor. How about SGML? or TeX/LaTeX?
The thing is, it doesn't matter if you have thousande of file formats as
long as they are all open. If they're open, then anyone can write a
converter to from one to the other.
-Ed
--
| Edward Rosten
| u98ejr@
This argument is a beta version. | ecs.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Take an ATOM - Leave an ATOM
Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 13:36:06 +0000
> Pretty soon wave packets will be the operating medium of choice. See,
> electrons will be too big and fat for the super ultra high-density
> microchips of the future. Optical computing is one such technology.
Yeah. It all stems down to the electrones not being abl to fit through
the holes in a semiconductor :-)
-Ed
--
| Edward Rosten
| u98ejr@
This argument is a beta version. | ecs.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Is Bill Gates MAD?!?!?
Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 13:43:48 +0000
> In England I seen the use of "traffic circles" At first it seem not a
roundabouts?
> 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.
Depends on the roundabout. The A3/M25 interchange is foolproof. The A3
roundabout at Tolworth is impossable to use proberly if you tried :-)
And you haven't seen some of Essex's best: a huge 2 way roundabout with
smaller roundabouts at each exit. The signposts confusingly, but
correctly pointed to London in both directions.
> Generally there would be three roads connected to a traffic circle.
Really?
Is this off topic?
-Ed
> 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
--
| Edward Rosten
| u98ejr@
This argument is a beta version. | ecs.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (jim dutton)
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: 9 Mar 2001 13:56:12 GMT
In article <988v7f$si2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Interconnect <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> No I believe what Kulkis said. Why else would it take him so LONG to
>> figure out that his .sig is unwanted, and that everyone has him on
>> killfile as a result. It's his minuscule IQ.
>>
>> Now I just have to wait for Kulkis to respond with a lie on how large
>> his IQ is (note to Aaron: it only tests effectively up to 130 or so, so
>> don't make it a impossible #, like 25 billion).
>
>Well I believe Aron does have a high IQ and IMO ego.
His IQ is as big as the man and the myth. He is a war hero and has
also been an astronaut. So what some poindexter sitting behind a computer
flagellating himself has to pontificate about is completely 100% meaningless.
-Jeem, To him you are a burr on the backside of humanity
========================================================================
http://www.ejeem.com Autococker2000/Dye SS
Steatopygias's 'R' Us. doh#0000000005 That ain't no Hottentot.
Sesquipedalian's 'R' Us. ZX-10. DoD#564. tbtw#6. s.s.m#8. There ain't no more
"The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little long
er. " -- Henry Kissinger
========================================================================
------------------------------
From: Darren Winsper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The merits of the BSD license.
Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 13:59:07 +0000
Ian Pulsford wrote:
> - With the BSD license you can use make a binary and NOT release code,
> if you so desire, and make money yourself! You can release the code at
> any time you please.
You can with GPL software, if you own the copyright to that software.
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Windows API (Was Re: Mircosoft Tax)
Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 14:03:29 GMT
"." wrote:
>
> > > But there are many criteria to judge something by.
> >
> > According my criterium Windows works much better when left within the
> > box. It's when you take it out of the box that the problems start :-)
>
> Microsoft Support tell me you can fix nearly all those problems with a
> simple re-box ;)
Except getting your money back!
--
Giuliano Colla
Before activating the tongue, make sure that the brain is
connected (anonymous)
------------------------------
From: chrisv <[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 14:07:51 GMT
Brock Hannibal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>chrisv wrote:
>> Well, no reasonable person can deny that their are different talents
>> related to your brain that are not measured by IQ tests. In my own
>> case, I do plenty well on IQ tests, but, if asked to draw something
>> artistically, I do very poorly. Am I "smarter" than a person with
>> more artistic talent but less mathematical talent than me?
>
>Well, if you redefine intelligence to include artistic talent you
>have a point. Fortunately , artistic talent is called artistic
>talent, not intelligence. Musical talent is not intelligence.
>Athletic prowess is not intelligence. Emotional empathy is not
>intelligence. Why do people try to equate things that are not the
>same?
Well, I think that's the heart of this issue. You may in fact be
right, in that this narrow definition of "intelligence" is
scientifically correct. However, it's common for popular usages of
terms to become broader than what is strictly correct. Thus, you have
some people arguing that IQ tests are not a good way to measure
intelligence. I think both sides of this issue have good points.
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux Joke
Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 13:58:43 GMT
"Donovan Rebbechi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Fri, 09 Mar 2001 00:21:03 GMT, Chad Myers wrote:
>
> >I was complaining that people out there are blindly trusting SSH
> >for secure information transfer and there are several ways in which
> >that information security could be compromised
>
> We've already been through this. It's very unlikely to happen. People
> who care enough about security that they're unwilling to take any risks
> at all do not "blindly trust" anything.
The fact remains that there are thousands of installed Linux and
BSD systems which have an older version of SSH installed on them.
There hasn't been a concerted effort to educate them to the faults
of the "flawed" SSH1 protocol they're still using. The worst I've
seen so far is a posting to the SSH developer's group complaining
about the same thing I've been saying. No one seems to care.
>
> > and the SSH folks
> >don't seem to care
>
> Yes they do. They take bugs very seriously. The OpenBSD developers are one
> of the few groups who proactively stomp out potential security holes (AKA
> bugs)
They fix the bugs, yes, I never said they didn't, but they're not
letting people know that there are serious issues with the SSH1 protocol
and that people should upgrade their older SSH software to the newer
versions ASAP.
>
> > let alone attempt to warn the community of
> >the problems in the "fundamentally flawed" SSH1 protocol.
>
> It is considerably less "fundamentally flawed" than the vast
> majority of services. Perhaps if there were large amounts of users
> running nothing besides ssh, it would be an issue. However, on a
> "typical UNIX machine" that is running NFS, NIS, telnet, ftp, httpd,
> sendmail, and lpd, ssh is the least of your concerns (even if it's the
> "fundamentally flawed" version)
>
> BTW, OpenSSH supports ssh2.
But it also _STILL_ supports SSH1, even though it's known to have
serious and compromising flaws.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: chrisv <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 14:18:40 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking) wrote:
>It's going to be awful hard to keep a chip cool at a heat flux of 100W/sq.in.
>We will never reach the 10KW chip, not by a long shot. It's already getting
>hard to aircool chips now, and the next logical step is liquid cooling with
>the water jacket integrated with the chip package, a water pump, the
>antifreeze, and a heat exchanger like a hotrod's oil cooler with fans.
Umm.... No. That will ALWAYS be too expensive. Why double the cost
of your machine when your Pentium VI - 10 (GHz) does everything you
need it to do plenty fast?
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: GPL Like patents.
Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 14:35:35 GMT
"Roberto Alsina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:98al9u$16uuu$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Upon describing a "derivative work"
> > there is no timeframe specified when the "derivative work" should
> > contain (a portion of) the Program, so you should consider the worst
> > possible case, i.e. in any moment, even only during runtime.
>
> The issue is not derivative work, because it's not the GPL that defines
> that. It's "greater work" or "larger work", which the GPL does. There is
no
> doubt that a dynamically linked program is not a derivative work of the
> library in all cases, only in some cases.
What RMS or even the GPL itself says in regard to what is a derivative
is pretty much irrelevant. This must be defined by copyright law itself,
since the GPL puts no restrictions on use, and in fact the user is not
bound by the GPL unless he performs an action like distributing a
derived work that would prohibited by copyright law without agreeing
to the terms of the GPL.
It happens to be RMS's opinion (probably with some legal advice) that
a program that requires a GPL'd library to work is a derivative work
even if they are not distributed together. I don't see how this is
different from a literary work that requires the reader to have seen
other referenced works to understand but does not contain a copy
of any prior work.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[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 09:38:04 -0500
Scott Gardner wrote:
>
> 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.
Taking a lot of standardized tests does NOTHING to improve
your mastery of the material. At best, you would learn more
efficient ways to color the little circles or rectangles.
In other words: Big fucking deal.
> 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.
Whenever I hear about somebody who has "test anxiety", I notice that
these people are UNIVERSALLY below-average performers in the rest
of the world, too. Although some do have high homework scores, that's
because they either
a) get the answer from friends,
b) visit each and every TA and prof during their office hours, to get
successive parts of the answer to each problem until they
finally have the complete answer(s).
c) rely on "homework files" maintained by various student groups
(usually social fraternities).
IQ tests are fundamentally different from subject-based tests.
They are specifically designed to not be "error-prone", as, say,
matrix-multiplication is.
> 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.
Your *thoughts* in this matter are not born out by research.
*NOBODY* has demonstrated *any* method for training an individual
to raise their IQ.
You *CAN* train a person for better understanding and mastery
of specific information, but since IQ tests don't test for mastery
of information, you argument has ZERO relevance for IQ tests.
> 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
If you were to follow around one IQ-100 person all day, you would
be appalled by the vast number of incredibly stupid things they do
in the course of a day, and how many completely fucking obvious
connections they miss, how many winning opportunities they pass
up (because they either don't understand them, or they fail to
even recognize that the opportunity exists in the first place).
If you, as a person whose IQ is more than one standard deviation
above the norm, were to be, say "trapped inside the head" of an
IQ-100 person, overhearing their thoughts all day long, you would
be as frustrated as being forced to watch a typical *average* amateur
athlete competing in a professional setting.
One of the reasons I quit watching baseball is because the major
leagues have been diluted with too great a proportion of the
sports equivalent of IQ-100 individual...those that truly don't
have the athletic ability, reflexes, and other qualities that are
supposed to be the mark of a professional athlete. Too many
infielders throwing to the wrong base, etc....the kind of things
that were not overlooked even when I played in high school.
[I think this is due to the fact that not nearly as many kids
are even playing baseball anymore, let alone learning how to hit
a plain old fastball....coupled with a significant expansion in
the number of major league baseball teams.]
> 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
Yes.
Of course, by the argument you used at the beginning of your post,
Marilyn only got her high score because she practiced....or something.
> 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.
Is Stanford-Binet the *ONLY* IQ test
a) yes
B) No.
>
> Scott Gardner
--
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: Salvador Peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Anyone else get this Konqueror error?
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2001 06:42:30 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ray Chason quoth:
> More on the IBM web site and Konqueror:
>
> * The user agent string that Konqueror 1.9.8 sends is, in full:
> "Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; Konqueror/2.0.1; X11); Supports
> MD5-Digest; Supports gzip encoding"
>
> * Setting this string in Junkbuster triggers the error.
>
> * Setting merely the Mozilla part, without the Supports clauses,
> gives a normal IBM page.
>
> * But if you set this string: "All Your Base Are Belong To Us;
> Supports MD5-Digest; Supports gzip encoding", you get redirected --
> and the wireless version of the IBM page appears!
>
> * Further experimentation shows that either of the Supports clauses
> triggers the redirect.
>
> * But "All Your Supports Are Belong To Us" gets the normal IBM page.
>
>
Thanks, ray.
--
Salvador Peralta -o)
Programmer/Analyst, Webmaster / \
[EMAIL PROTECTED] _\_v
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
