Linux-Advocacy Digest #719, Volume #32 Fri, 9 Mar 01 10:13:06 EST
Contents:
Re: What does IQ measure? (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: GPL Like patents. (Roberto Alsina)
Re: NT vs *nix performance ("Isak Lytting")
Re: What does IQ measure? (Aaron Kulkis)
Linus Torsvald's machine specification (Woof)
Alan Cox shaves his beard of for comic relief! (Woof)
Re: What does IQ measure? (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: What does IQ measure? (Roberto Alsina)
Re: What does IQ measure? (Aaron Kulkis)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 09:42:08 -0500
Uncle Davey wrote:
>
> "Aaron Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Interconnect 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.
> > >
> > > However I would like to make a point that IQ is only one small measure
> of an
> > > individuals worth. If IQ was the sole determinate of individual
> > > effectiveness for ALL tasks and situations then we would choose our
> > > partners, hair dressers, mechanics, politicians etc.. based exclusively
> on
> > > IQ. There would be no job interview, you would just sit an IQ test and
> that
> > > would be the end of the selection process. We would only read books by
> > > Authors with the highest IQ. We would only consume entertainment
> produced
> > > by Artists with the highest IQ etc..
> > >
> > > Also individual brillance is insignificant compared to collective
> effort.
> > > Consider the SETI project. (NB: not the merit of it's objectives) but
> HOW
> > > it is going about achieving it's objectives. The collective utilization
> of
> > > powerful and less powerful computers is contributing to a result that
> would
> > > not be possible even with the most powerful *individual* super computer.
> > > The KEY to this effort is the ability to communicate, and a common
> desire /
> > > goal by participants contributing to the project.
> > >
> > > The corallaroy being that individual brillance is at best mediocore, if
> that
> > > person can't interact with their peers to leverage their combined
> knowledge
> > > and produce by a factor of exponent significantly more than acting
> alone.
> >
> > Which is precisely why I work in systems engineering.
> >
> > My efforts leverage up the work of hundreds or even thousands of people
> > within a company....including the management at the top.
> >
> > Thus, I get paid utterly ridiculous amounts of money for basically
> > hanging around and playing (yes, PLAYING) with their equipment....
> > oh, that, and drafting wish-lists of MORE toys for them to buy
> > for me to play with.
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Aron Kulkis "YOU are the weakest link good-bye"
> >
> > See above.
>
> Do they show the weakest link in America? Is it with Anne Robinson or do you
> have your own version of it?
>
> Uncle Davey
Ask interconnect. The only TV I watch in the US is hockey games,
and The History Channel, Arts & Entertainment channel, The Learning
Channel, Discovery channel, and a couple of "old movies" channels
(American Movie Classics and Turner Classic Movies)....
I currently watch about 10 hours/week, which is more than at any
time in the last 15 years.
--
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: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: GPL Like patents.
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2001 11:49:09 -0300
Les Mikesell wrote:
>
> "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,
Oh, but there's a catch there. The GPL SAYS it puts no restrictions to use.
Ask RMS about "user-does-the-linking", and he will come up with something
that looks suspiciously similar to a restriction in use:
I asked RMS if a program developed to use the intergace of GDBM (GPLd
library) and compiled against a binary compatible do-nothing library would
be legal.
Consider that in this case I, the developer, don't even need to own a copy
of the GDBM lib. Since I have never licensed it under the GPL, I can NOT
violate the GPL :-)
However, he told me that when the user receives the binary of my program
and installs it on his system, and then the system links it to the GDBM
library, there is a violation of the GPL.
I was honestly sick of the argument so I didn't push it further, but since
the developer never licensed GDBM, the GPL violator must be the user. Since
the user is not making copies, distributing, etc, he must be violating it
by use, which the GPL specifically says he can't do.
This is one example of the things RMS claims are illegal and that I can't
see any remotely reasnoable way that can be so. I belive RMS to be
intelligent. I believe he is lying to himself.
> 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.
Neither do I.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: "Isak Lytting" <[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: Fri, 9 Mar 2001 16:00:45 +0100
Chad Myers wrote in message <4Gto6.11825$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>I cannot, however, make copies and distribute them to my friends. Most
>people do, and it's rather like speeding, it's not a big deal and most
>people (even the RIAA) don't worry about it much. They're much more
>worried about the people who make a business out of selling these
>copies to their friends.
Right!! Of course! You must be right! That's why they expended
so much energy to shut down Napster which basically ensured
there was no market for people who wanted to "sell" to their
friends: their friends could just download it themselves!
Can't do that anymore, can they?! Something tells me the black
market for music will INCREASE, not decrease, with the prevention
of napster users sharing their music with others, for which
they never received a dime.
Isak Lytting
--
Isak Sebastian Lytting
[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 09:59:46 -0500
Scott Gardner wrote:
>
> On Fri, 9 Mar 2001 10:18:10 +1300, . <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.
>
> Very true. Given a pile of bricks and a ball stuck in a ceiling
> rafter, one person might instantly come to the conclusion that he can
> stack the bricks into a ladder and reach the ball, while the other
> person might think on it for a minute, and simply dislodge the ball
> with a thrown brick.
>
> After all, if the first or most intuitive solution were the best, we'd
> still be using bubble-sort in our programs!
Define BEST.
You see, if the problem is "develop an algorithm to sort data",
then all solution are equal. Quick Sort vs Bubble Sort vs Merge
Sort vs Heap Sort, etc.
However, if the problem is "develop an algorith to sort data
EFFICIENTLY" then, and ONLY THEN is one sort better than another sort.
It all depends upon what qualifications you put in the problem.
QuickSort is VERY good for randomly-ordered data, but is even
worse than Bubble sort for mostly-ordered data. Conversely,
MergeSort is incapable of dealing with randomly-ordered data,
but, (as the name implies), approaches the limit of efficiency,
O(n) run-time behavior) when dealing with 2 or more sets of
data which are internally ordered already. Likewise, depending
on the data, Insertion sort can either be very good, or very
very bad.
You are failing to distinguish between requirements and
non-requirements.
In fact, there ARE cases where Bubble Sort ***IS*** the
best sort. For example, an embedded application, in which
there is processor speed to spare, but memory is severely
limited.
(Even these days, Bubble sort *IS* the best solution, such
as a system using a Motorola 68HC11 microcontroller, in which
all of the on-chip I/O ports are used, so the only RAM available
is the on-chip RAM (depending on model, anywhere between 768 bytes
and 8kb).
>
> Scott Gardner
You need to spend less time soaking in the propaganda of various
socialists and other closet-dictator egalitarians and more time
investigating the discoveries made by the people who actually DO
intelligence research.
Start with "The Bell Curve" by Murray and Hernstein.
--
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: Woof <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Linus Torsvald's machine specification
Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 15:01:40 GMT
I read an interesting article recently where Linus was quoted as saying
he develops Linux on a 386 running Windows 3.1
"I like the slow speed, it gives me chance to think" he says
------------------------------
From: Woof <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Alan Cox shaves his beard of for comic relief!
Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 15:04:15 GMT
I read an interesting quote from Alan Cox recently saying he was going
to shave off his beard that he has had since childhood off for Comic
Relief.
A BBC spokemans reporting on the story said "Who the fuck is Alan Cox?"
------------------------------
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 10:04:44 -0500
Scott Gardner wrote:
>
> On Wed, 07 Mar 2001 22:49:34 -0500, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Part of the definition of intelligence is arriving at the correct
> >answer quickly.
> >
> >If you gave a 13-year old child the following math problem:
> >
> > X = 20 / 4
> >
> > What is X?
> >
> >
> What about the (possibly apocryphal) story of the classroom that is
> given the assignment to add up all the integers from 1 to 100? All of
> the students but one immediately see the method to the solution, and
> start adding 1+2+3+4+5..., while one lone student just stares at his
> paper in silencScott Gardner wrote:
>
> On Wed, 07 Mar 2001 22:49:34 -0500, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Part of the definition of intelligence is arriving at the correct
> >answer quickly.
> >
> >If you gave a 13-year old child the following math problem:
> >
> > X = 20 / 4
> >
> > What is X?
> >
> >
> What about the (possibly apocryphal) story of the classroom that is
> given the assignment to add up all the integers from 1 to 100? All of
> the students but one immediately see the method to the solution, and
> start adding 1+2+3+4+5..., while one lone student just stares at his
> paper in silence. The teacher notices this, and goes over to help the
> student along. When she approaches him, he looks up and says "The
> answer is 5,050." He figured out that the 100 numbers in question
> could be grouped into 50 pairs of numbers (1,100), (2,99), (2,98),
> etcetera, and that furthermore, each of those pairs of numbers summed
> to 101. The product of 50 times 101 is a pretty easy calculation, and
> results in the correct answer of 5,050. Additionally, he could do the
> same thing with an arbitrarily long string of sequential integers, so
> even if his exercise had taken longer than the other students, (which
> it probably didn't), it could be argued that his was the more
> "intelligent" approach, even if he didn't figure out this method as
> quickly as the other students figured out the "brute force" method.
That was Karl Friedrich Gauss (1777-1855).
Are you implying that Gauss was not a VERY intelligent man?
>
> Scott Gardner
> LT US NAvy
--
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.
e. The teacher notices this, and goes over to help the
> student along. When she approaches him, he looks up and says "The
> answer is 5,050." He figured out that the 100 numbers in question
> could be grouped into 50 pairs of numbers (1,100), (2,99), (2,98),
> etcetera, and that furthermore, each of those pairs of numbers summed
> to 101. The product of 50 times 101 is a pretty easy calculation, and
> results in the correct answer of 5,050. Additionally, he could do the
> same thing with an arbitrarily long string of sequential integers, so
> even if his exercise had taken longer than the other students, (which
> it probably didn't), it could be argued that his was the more
> "intelligent" approach, even if he didn't figure out this method as
> quickly as the other students figured out the "brute force" method.
>
> Scott Gardner
> LT US NAvy
--
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: 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 12:06:14 -0300
Aaron Kulkis wrote:
> 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.
So you say. Got any references?
>> 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.
Nobody has tried and failed either, AFAIK.
You are reaching a conclusion based on itself. IQ measures intelligence
because you can't train for IQ tests. You can't tests for IQ tests because
they measure intelligence.
Such poor thinking should have shown in your IQ tests.
That's silly. I don't claim to know. I say, someone should actually make an
experiment, a cheap, simple, quick experiment, before we keep on spending
billions on a subject that has no scientific basis (so far).
Because, you see, there ARE some scientists that disagree with you ;-)
http://www.nsoe.uconn.edu/siegle/espy360/intecrea.htm
"The testing movement is significant because the tests began to drive
theories of intelligence, rather that theories forming the basis for
developing tests , a situation Sternberg (1985) maintains the test he is
currently developing rectifies. "
That article has a nice historical overview of the history of IQ testing,
for anyone interested.
It is, as I said in a previous post, trivial to prove that a specific IQ
test doesn't measure intelligence, by verifying its "trainability".
Even passing that test doesn't prove the test measures intelligence, of
course, since a simple random-questions-with-random-answers test is also
untrainable.
The biggest problem here is the very concept of measuring something that is
intangible. We can measure a physical object because we can measure one
against the other. This rock is wider than my foot is long => This rock is
over a foot wide.
In the case of intelligence, the only "objects" with intelligence are
humans. We should, if we want to measure them, measure them against each
other. The theory of IQ testing is that we take a "thing" and measure each
person against the thing. Taking the test. Then we compare how each one did
against the thing.
This rock reaches the notch that says "30" =>This rock is about a foot long.
Of course, in order for that to be meaningful, we must always keep in mind
that we are NOT measuring intelligence, we are measuring whatever the test
measures. If we are lucky, it will be intelligence, or something correlated
to it.
The biggest problem is that every IQ test book I've seen starts... by
defining intelligence in a different way. Usually, a way that relates it to
whatever test the book is peddling. We are now defining intelligence as
"whatever the test measures". Which is fine, if you really want it. But we
should not call it intelligence ;-)
Before anyone says anything: I spent a summer reading IQ testing books. And
my IQ increased about 25 points in the Stanford-Binet test. Of course I
stopped believing in IQ tests ;-)
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
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 10:09:35 -0500
Scott Gardner wrote:
>
> On 8 Mar 2001 03:55:49 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
> wrote:
>
> >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)
>
> True. Like I've said here before, any test or tool is only going to
> be accurate near the middle of the expected range of values. Just as
> you wouldn't use an oral thermometer to try to bake fudge, you can't
> take mass-produced height/weight charts and apply them to people who
> have much more than the average amount of body mass accounted for by
> muscle. There's a guy in my squadron that is 5'10" or so, and weighs
> 270 pounds. He has to go through all sorts of heartache twice a year
> because he's off the scale (no pun intended) on the Navy height/weight
> charts, but he has very little body fat and can benchpress a small
> imported car.
Army has similar regs.
They should amend the regs to say that if you pass the body-fat
percentage calculations by a certain percentage, then you're just
EXEMPT from having to do it again for 12 months. (Obviously, if
you're doing whatever combination of work-out routines and physical
labor to get such a physique, there should be no need for the
fucking paper pushers to get alarmed that the same guy who is
***ALWAYS*** off the height/weight scale due to extreme muscle
mass is...lo and behold...off the h/w scale yet again.
Fucking bureacrats.
>
> 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.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
