Linux-Advocacy Digest #735, Volume #32 Fri, 9 Mar 01 23:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: What does IQ measure? (Scott Gardner)
Re: What does IQ measure? (Scott Gardner)
Re: What does IQ measure? (Scott Gardner)
Re: What does IQ measure? (Scott Gardner)
Re: What does IQ measure? (Scott Gardner)
Re: What does IQ measure? (Scott Gardner)
Re: What does IQ measure? (Scott Gardner)
Re: NT vs *nix performance (Scott Gardner)
Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time (Jay Maynard)
Re: The Double Fucking ala MS... (Roy Culley)
Re: NT vs *nix performance (Scott Gardner)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 03:11:33 GMT
On Fri, 09 Mar 2001 09:38:04 -0500, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>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.
I disagree, and I've seen this too many times in my own experience to
believe otherwise. I took the SAT three times in the space of three
months. I knew I woud be accepted into the college of my choice based
on the first score, but I wanted to see if I could score higher than
one of my brothers, so I took it twice more in rapid succession. My
scores were 1320, 1400, and 1450. That's a larger improvement than
can be accounted for by simple distribution, even if there hadn't been
an upward trend to boot. My mother went to college after having been
out of school for 30 years, and was terrified of taking the SAT, and
later, the GMAT. She was almost shaking the first time she took one
of the *practice* tests, but she was admitted to school, and was a
phenomenal student. Her overall GPA when she was done (3.97) was
higher than most people get in any given semester, and she didn't
pester the TA's, or rely on test banks. She's intelligent, but thrown
into the situation of having her aptitude officially "tested" for the
first time in over three decades made her justifiably nervous,
especially considering that her admittance to college was riding on
it. I don't see where you have to be of below-average intelligence to
be intimidated in a testing situation.
>
>> 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).
>
>
See above.
>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.
>
I still say that my assertions hold true if a person, though
experience, can become more careful and thoughtful about their
answers, and learn to relax in testing situations.
>
>> 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.]
The precious four paragraphs are an interesting diversion, but they
don't address my statement. All I was saying was that the S-B IQ
test, like any other test or tool, is going to be most accurate around
the expected mean score, and progressively more inaccurate the further
away from the mean you get. At what point can we say that the S-B
test, or any other test, is no longer giving valid results?
>
>> 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.
>
No, it doesn't. I can say "I only missed five less questions than the
smartest person in the world", but that still doesn't adequately
express the huge gulf in our intelligences, because we used a test
that was not up to the task of accurately measuring her intelligence.
>Of course, by the argument you used at the beginning of your post,
>Marilyn only got her high score because she practiced....or something.
I don't know who's post you were reading, but it wasn't mine. Perhaps
you'd care to quote? I only said that a person could increase their
score to a certain extent by becoming more familiar with the testing
environment and testing methods, NOT that such practice or familiarity
was a *prerequisite* for a high score. Marilyn got a high score
because she's phenomenally bright, and I never claimed otherwise.
>
>
>> 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.
AND I'VE ALREADY ACKNOWLEDGED THIS!!! I'm just using this example to
demonstrate that the S-B test, like all the others, is only accurate
over a relatively narrow scale, taking into account the wide disparity
of intelligences out there in the world.
Using the S-B test, perhaps you'd like to tell us what range it
measures with an acceptable error. 50-150? 90-110? And be sure to
tell us how you came upon these numbers.
Scott
>
>
>>
>> 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: [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: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 03:17:22 GMT
On Fri, 09 Mar 2001 11:22:34 -0500, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>turtoni wrote:
>>
>> 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 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.
>>
>> true. although all these concepts are pretty broad band.
>
>Actually not true.
>
>The little boy in the story was Karl Gauss, a notable scientist of
>the 1800's.
>
Thanks for confirming that for me. I had originally heard it
attributed to Gauss, but also to other great geniuses, and I couldn't
find an authoritative source, hence my caveat that the story might not
be historically true.
Scott
------------------------------
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: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 03:19:59 GMT
On Fri, 09 Mar 2001 10:04:44 -0500, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>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?
>
>>
Exactly the opposite. I said that his was the more intelligent and
elegant solution, even if it *had* taken him longer to figure out than
the brute-force method employed by the rest of the students. I don't
know where you could have gotten any other impression from my post.
Scott
------------------------------
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: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 03:22:34 GMT
On 9 Mar 2001 22:45:56 GMT, Steve Mading
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>: 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?
>
>Read his post. He was implying just the opposite. That even
>though he took *longer* to figure out what to do, his was a
>*better* solution in the long run. He was trying to counter
>your notion that intelligent == fast. The problem with his
>approach is that Karl's solution was *also* faster, since he
>had his answer first.
>
Hence the parenthetical disclaimer in the last sentence of my post. I
have also posted examples on this thread where the solution that took
longer to develop was the more elegant, intelligent solution, but
you're right, Gauss' solution didn't serve my purpose well because it
was both faster AND more elegant.
Scott
------------------------------
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: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 03:25:24 GMT
On Fri, 09 Mar 2001 10:09:35 -0500, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>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
I'm not going to ping on the bureaucrats too much, because in his
case, he now either goes to the same person for measurements, who
understands his situation, or he just opts for the pinch test, the
electrical resistance test, or the submersion test, all of which
immediately make his low body fat apparent, and the hassle ends there.
Scott
------------------------------
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: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 03:26:34 GMT
On Fri, 9 Mar 2001 08:59:14 -0800, Brock Hannibal
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Fri, 9 Mar 2001, Aaron Kulkis wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>> To others, the man is a laughing stock who's out of his league, and
>> should consider himself lucky to have ever been near the White House.
>> Some of those people even think the JFK was not well-served by having
>> a man of such meager abilities on the White House staff.
>
>I think you are confusing JD Salinger, the reclusive author of "Catcher
>in the Rye", with Pierre Salinger, former white house press secretary
>under JFK.
>
>--
>Brock
>
>
oops!--lol
------------------------------
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: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 03:32:07 GMT
On 9 Mar 2001 23:16:56 GMT, Steve Mading
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Scott Gardner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>: True. Hollywood is one of my almost-pet-peeves. (I only allow myself
>: three or four full-blown pet peeves, so I have to be selective about
>: what I let bother me.)
>: Why is that we (speaking about the American culture here) pay these
>: people millions of dollars, practically worship them as dieties or
>: royalty, pay them to endorse our products, and generally emulate the
>: hell out of them when their only talent that they exercise publicly is
>: their ability to act!?!? I know that some of them have other
>: talents--hell, Kris Kristofferson was a Rhodes scholar, for goodness
>: sakes, but he's not famous for his thinking, he's famous for reciting
>: lines given to him by a writer! I've always wondered if the writers
>: for the show "Friends" get to wash the stars' Porsches as part of
>: their contract!
>
>It seems that the best shows on TV are the ones where the actors also
>participate in the scriptwriting. I don't necessarily think this is
>because they make better scripts, but because it's a litmus test that
>ensures the actor knows more than one aspect of his field, and isn't
>a moron.
>
I've stopped trying to figure out what makes a "best show". My
favorite show is "Law & Order" which, after umpteen years, has finally
lost the last of the original cast members. So it must be the
writing, right? Well, some of the episodes are as predictable and
trite as the worst TV has to offer. But for whatever reason, the show
works for me, and millions of other people. I don't think the
producers even know what makes a show successful, or they'd have it
down to a science by now.
Scott
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Scott Gardner)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT vs *nix performance
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 03:46:19 GMT
On Sat, 10 Mar 2001 00:43:50 GMT, T. Max Devlin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> If someone designed the perfect car that never broke down,
>>looked beautiful, and got 200 miles to the gallon, but had to run on
>>blue-painted asphalt, I wouldn't be able to make very good use of it.
>
>What a stupid analogy. I get your point, and you're trying to say that
>it is the application barrier which maintains the monopoly, but the
>pre-load lock-in that it is founded on. Still, its a stupid analogy.
>;-)
>
>--
>T. Max Devlin
> *** The best way to convince another is
> to state your case moderately and
> accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Not my best work, and it was late...All I can do is apologize. You
and the rest of the readers deserve better. The worst part is that I
realized it wasn't the best analogy when I wrote it. You said it
best- "The application barrier maintains the monopoly." I would add
"hardware barrier" as well, if you consider the numbers of systems out
there that weren't built with Linux in mind, but whose owners would
like to run Linux.
Scott
------------------------------
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: 10 Mar 2001 03:45:44 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 9 Mar 2001 20:46:29 GMT, Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>So will you admit then that sometimes the total amount of freedom
>can be increased BY placing certain limits on people? In this case,
>the freedom of the populace is increased by limiting the freedom of
>the government.
Nice try, but I'm not falling into your trap.
The freedom of the populace is *guaranteed* by limiting the *powers* of the
government. Governments don't *have* freedoms. They only *take* them from
their citizens.
This is in no way analogous to the GPV's putative guarantees of freedom, as
the freedoms the GPV claims to guarantee are already guaranteed by law. The
additional restrictions in the GPV are designed for one purpose, and one
purpose only: to infect as much software as possible in order to bring about
RMS' communist utopia.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roy Culley)
Subject: Re: The Double Fucking ala MS...
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 03:16:22 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Peter Hayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 7 Mar 2001 08:48:05 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking) wrote:
>
> M$ will rewrite their bloatware more efficiently. More efficient routines
> and tighter code in general will produce a faster more reliable product
> which they'll market as something new. Benchmarks will encourage the
> unknowing to re-invest in what they already have, or more accurately what
> they should have been sold in the first place. I wouldn't be surprised if
> this was already part of M$'s game plan. Maybe they write tight code and
> bloat it up so they've ensured a fall back position for when things go
> wrong.
They don't have time to rewrite their code for the performance gains
necessary. As the recently leaked benchmark comparison of sql server
on NT and W2K showed that NT was twice as fast. Now with code tweaking
you may get 10% to 20% performance increase but anything more than
that requires major redesign. At the same time they must develop new
features that customers so badly need to get them to buy into the
next round of Microsoft upgrades. Difficult for any company and
looking at Microsofts' record they have no chance.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Scott Gardner)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT vs *nix performance
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 03:55:34 GMT
On Sat, 10 Mar 2001 00:43:58 GMT, T. Max Devlin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>The RIAA does indeed "worry about" individual acts of copying, or
>Napster wouldn't be having legal problems. Napster doesn't make any
>copies or distribute any copies. People who get MP3s from Napster are
>the ones doing the copying; not the owners of the hard drive file which
>they're copying. Obviously, the 'permission' to copy is implicit, so
>those providing files are as liable as those receiving. Still, to
>declare that the issue is simple is to prove you've misunderstood it.
>
>--
>T. Max Devlin
> *** The best way to convince another is
> to state your case moderately and
> accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
I think of Napster the same way I think of the owner of a bar that
knows full well there are drug deals going down in his bathrooms and
prostitution going on in his parking lot, but pleads "Hey, I'm just
here to sell drinks!" Napster has known all along what its service
was predominantly being used for, and it wasn't to allow unsigned
artists to get their music out into the mainstream. By allowing
anyone to anonymously log on and download songs as an alternative to
buying the music, they are facilitating and promoting theft, no matter
what their service's original or stated intent is.
Scott
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
