Linux-Advocacy Digest #757, Volume #32 Sun, 11 Mar 01 12:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: Why Open Source better be careful - The Microsoft Un-American ("Mart van de
Wege")
The Linux office, a possible future..... (mlw)
Re: What Linux MUST DO! - Comments anyone? ("Weevil")
Re: Macintosh as an alternative to Windows?? (Bob Hauck)
Re: Customising Wrap-Up Screen. (WAS: "It is now safe to shut off your computer")
("Weevil")
Re: No problem with multiple GUI's (Salvador Peralta)
Re: Windows API (Was Re: Mircosoft Tax) (Bob Hauck)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (Bob Hauck)
Re: KDE or GNOME? (Bob Hauck)
Re: What does IQ measure? (CR Lyttle)
Re: Windoze Domination/Damnation (Charlie Ebert)
Middle Aged Fat Asses (Charlie Ebert)
Re: What does IQ measure? (Chris Ahlstrom)
Terms for MAFAM people.... (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Windows API (Was Re: Mircosoft Tax) ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: What does IQ measure? (Brock Hannibal)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Open Source better be careful - The Microsoft Un-American
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 15:04:53 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "The Ghost
In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Interconnect
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<snip some stuff>
>>
>>The fuel of the future will be Fusion power.
>
> The far future, perhaps. We can barely break even (more power out than
> in) and will not be profitable energy-generation wise unless oil prices
> become ten times what they are now, if I'm not mistaken (I haven't
> checked the cost per fusion-kW, though).
>
<snip some more>
Well,
I haven't been following recent developments, but isn't this true only
for some forms of fusion? I believe R. Bussard has patented a form of
fusion reactor that would be more efficient, and I believe the only
reason there's no working prototype yet is because of engineering
difficulties.
Can anyone do a Google search on 'Electrostatic Confinement Fusion' and
tell me whether what's in those physics papers makes sense? I know
there's a lot of papers out there, but physics was never my best.
Mart
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: The Linux office, a possible future.....
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 09:21:16 -0500
This is a real possibility, right now!!
Imagine most, if not all, office workers in a company using Linux with KDE or
Gnome.
Most corporate infrastructures are 100 BaseT networks on a switched backbone.
Imagine 25, 100, or 1000s of office workers connected to a central backbone.
The research department can use the cumulative processing power of these
machines to process information.
The IT department can use the various clustering and remote access technologies
to manage all the machines as a whole or individually.
The possibilities are amazing. We need to break this whole, stupid, DOS
mentality that wastes billions of dollars of computing power. Sun has it right,
the network "IS' the computer, but more to the point, the corporate
infrastructure can be the computer.
Windows computers, for all the bluster from Microsoft, are still no more
innovative than the CP/M on which they were based. So what? They play sounds
and put up pretty pictures. UNIX can do that and more.
Sure there are more "applications" for Windows, but there are few applications
available for Windows which do not have an equivalent in the UNIX world, i.e.
there are very few innovative applications for Windows.
--
I'm not offering myself as an example; every life evolves by its own laws.
========================
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: "Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What Linux MUST DO! - Comments anyone?
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 14:28:00 GMT
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
> > http://www.netslaves.com/comments/983976069.shtml
>
> Fascinating...
>
> "In 1994, I became a Linux hobbyist. My interest was not in Slackware per
> se, but in a program called Persistence of Vision Ray Tracer - POVRay."
>
> "Where it once took hours to render, it now took. . . half hours. Long
> half hours. Many of them. All in a row. The sucker rendered, and with the
> power of xv, I could see it, too! Enrapture! Wonder! O frabjous day!
> Callooh! Callay!"
>
> Really?
>
> On Linux POVray runs TWICE as fast?
>
> Is that TRUE?
>
> Did I not recently try this out, and what did I find? That POVray runs at
> about the SAME speed on Linux as it does on Windows on the SAME hardware!
>
> --
> Pete
Never tried POVray, and in any case, if the Linux and Windows versions are
not built from the same source, it's a meaningless comparison.
What I *have* tried is a relatively simple chess program called TSCP (Tom's
Simple Chess Program, by Tom Kerrigan). It's written pretty much in ANSI C
and will probably compile as is for almost any platform. There is no
graphical interface: you type in your moves. It was written as a sort of
teaching tool for hobbyists who are interested in writing their own chess
software.
As is, it reports no statistics. But it's easy to add a few lines of code
to track nodes per second. I did this and compiled it under Linux using gcc
and under Win98 using Visual C++ 4.0 (the only version I have). My version
of VC doesn't do much in the way of optimization, so I tried turning on and
off all sorts of different optimization options for gcc.
I could find no way of compiling the Linux version that would get TSCP to
run slower than about twice as fast as the Windows version. Optimizing it
on Linux got it going around 4 times as fast.
If you have a better version of VC, try it yourself. I'd be very interested
to see the results.
--
- Weevil
================================================================
"The obvious mathematical breakthrough [for breaking encryption schemes]
would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers."
-- Bill Gates, The Road Ahead (pg 265), 1995
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: Macintosh as an alternative to Windows??
Reply-To: bobh = haucks dot org
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 14:43:41 GMT
On Sat, 10 Mar 2001 12:52:28 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes, which shows that Apple is simply incapable of doing any real
> systems level programming themselves. They can do GUI's and apps
> well, but at systems work, they suck. They had to buy NeXT to get the
> talent they needed, and even then it's still taken what, 3 years?
Seems to me that MS has had the same problem. They had to buy Cutler
and his team to get the talent they needed, and how long did it take
them to get NT out the door? Microsoft's applications have actually
been a lot better than their operating systems, in spite of the fact
that they seem to consider themselves a systems house.
As for Apple, I think three years to get OS-X out the door is entirely
reasonable. The only problem is that they should have started about
five years before they actually did, instead of wasting time on Copland
and Taligent. But then, if those had panned out you'd be trashing them
over some other issue.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: "Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Customising Wrap-Up Screen. (WAS: "It is now safe to shut off your
computer")
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 14:48:55 GMT
J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> > "Roy Culley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > In article <98e50i$l3f$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > >
> > > > Exactly because of those features. Most (all?) unixes ship with
those.
> > >
> > > Still waiting for these Solaris features that Linux doesn't have.
> >
> > Most of them are in the server arena, btw.
>
> Question: Who holds the top specweb marks for
> 1-way, 2-way, 4-way and 8-way systems?
>
> Hint: it's not solaris, it's Linux.
> Did you know about the 512 Processor Linux supercomputer
> that IBM is building? Sounds pretty scalable to me...
>
> >
> > Scalability is one, Linux, even 2.4, just can't compete with it.
>
> On what basis do you make that bizzare claim?
>
On the same basis he made all of his claims. Solaris is not a threat to
Microsoft. Linux is. Therefore, Microsoft would consider it safe to claim
that Solaris is superior and preferable to Linux.
Notice that Ayende did not respond in any meaningful manner to the request
for that list of features he claimed were shipped with all "true" Unixen but
not with Linux.
The guy sounds like a Microsoft shill to me.
--
- Weevil
================================================================
"The obvious mathematical breakthrough [for breaking encryption schemes]
would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers."
-- Bill Gates, The Road Ahead (pg 265), 1995
------------------------------
From: Salvador Peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: No problem with multiple GUI's
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 07:02:00 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Pete Goodwin quoth:
> I do use Windows but I may find I cannot use it for a number of
> reasons. I am looking to see if Linux is an alternative. It's nearly
> there, but if everyone's reaction to my criticisms are like yours,
> it'll stagnate where it is.
kde 2.1, Pete. There is nothing stagnant about the state of
development of this os. While I generally disagree with most of your
whining, I would hire you in a second if I ever had a dead horse that
needed beating.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Windows API (Was Re: Mircosoft Tax)
Reply-To: bobh = haucks dot org
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 15:43:41 GMT
On Sat, 10 Mar 2001 18:27:54 +0200, Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Now KDE & Gnome need to agree on some standard of common API so you
> can trun Gnome application to KDE application with no probelms.
There is work being done in this area. The drag-and-drop protocols have
already been worked out for instance.
> What XP does is to replace all the common controls of windows in
> skinnable ones.
Right. So one XP desktop can be unlike another. How do you train
people in an office envirnment? This is one argument that's always put
forward for UI consistency.
> You can change the look of all the programs that use the common
> controls (and most do).
What about the ones that don't? I just did my taxes, and TaxCut seems
to use a lot of non-standard controls (this is a longstanding tradition
with tax programs). Many other apps like media players, graphics
editors, and games go out of their way to look different.
>The point is that the change is consistent.
Except for where it isn't. I'll grant that Windows may be more
consistent than a Linux destkop with a mixture of widget sets. But the
Windows desktop is not 100% consistent either.
>What about different ways to put the dials on the phone, how much trouble
>would that make?
I have an antique dial phone from the 1940's. It works fine and people
seem to know how to use it just as easily as the new pushbotton phones.
I once had a phone with the dial on the bottom. Didn't seem to cause
any great confusion.
I don't think perfect consistency in look is necessary or even
particularly desireable. Some degree of adherence to things like the
chosen color scheme and file picker style is nice, but not vital, as
long as it isn't too hard to determine how things work. On the other
hand, consistency in drag-and-drop and communications between programs
is important and desireable. Linux does lack in those areas as of
today, but the problem is not being ignored.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Reply-To: bobh = haucks dot org
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 15:43:45 GMT
On Sun, 11 Mar 2001 06:57:46 GMT, Pete Goodwin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <97urm0$3pr$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>> Why shouldn't apps have their own drivers if they wish?
>
>Because it's a waste of resources! If every app had its own graphics or
>disk drivers or printer drivers we'd been knee deep in drivers and full
>disks with no room for anything else!
You're arguing against a strawman. The fact is that "most" Linux apps
do not have their own printer drivers. In fact, this thread has
probably covered most of the ones that do. And all of those can still
use the normal Postscript scheme if you want them to. They are not
rendered unable to print by not having their own driver for a particular
printer.
Your whole problem boils down to your installation of Gimp not being set
up correctly. That's all there is, and it says nothing about any "lack"
in Linux itself. There are, in fact, actual problems with Linux related
to WYSIWYG printing, but this isn't one of them.
>> Windows lets apps use thier own drivers, so why don't you whinge on about
>> that as well.
>
> In terms of printing, I've yet to see such an app.
WordPerfect for Windows used to, haven't used it in years though.
AutoCad comes with some special drivers for pen plotters and the like.
Others have cited Photoshop. The fact that you haven't seen a Windows
program that has its own printer drivers does not mean that they don't
exist, nor does it say anything about the relative frequency of this
feature in Windows and Linux.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: KDE or GNOME?
Reply-To: bobh = haucks dot org
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 15:43:46 GMT
On Sun, 11 Mar 2001 11:08:44 GMT, Adam Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Having just tried out KDE 2.1 it is extremely polished and beautiful.
More importantly (to me), they seem to have fixed quite a few bugs.
Konqueror renders more sites correctly, the Java support works, and the
Network view works. There's still a problem with password changing on
Caldera 2.4, but there's a simple workaround for that.
It just generally feels more "finished" than 2.0.1.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: CR Lyttle <[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: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 16:02:41 GMT
Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
> The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
> >
> > But yes, I've seen Plan 9. It was terrible.
>
> Hey! Plan 9 is a /nifty/ OS!
>
> Chris
>
> --
> [ Do Not Make Illegal Copies of This Message ]
Plan 9 from Outer Space is a /nifty/ OS and Plan 9 from Parc Place is a
/nifty/ movie?
--
Russ
<http://home.earthlink.net/~lyttlec>
Home of the Universal Automotive Test Set
Linux Open Source (GPL) Project
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Windoze Domination/Damnation
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 16:03:50 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
>> Oh shure it is. Anybody who uses a modern X environment with
>> either KDE or Gnome then uses W2k and comes away with the
>> impression W2k is superior has worms for brains.
>
>You're kidding right?
>
>You have actually tried KDE haven't you?
>
>It's a young product.
>
>It's got so many bugs in it I could drive a bus through them.
>
>If you want to lose all your fonts, set your region to anything other
>than US. Then watch all your fonts slip to a courier style. This was true
>on KDE 2.0. I've only recently installed KDE 2.1 (it blew big time on
>Linux Mandrake) on SuSE 7.1. I've not tried this yet.
>
>Of course Windows 2000 is superior to KDE!
>
I'm running both Pete and I've never been able to replicate one
bitch you've ever posted! Even when you were stupid enought
to give instructions, we couldn't replicate the problem.
As I said, anybody who thinks W2k is superior to Gnome or KDE has
worms for brains.
>> You might as well attempt to nurse your young on YOUR NIPPLES
>> as use Windows in a business environment.
>
>Then why are you still using it Charlie? Wassamatta? Not got the guts to
>leave your support job on Windows NT that you spoke about before and get
>a job on your nirvana, Linux?
>
We are still using Windows as my employer owns stock in Microsoft.
That's the main reason.
<SNIP the brainless foolishness>
Pete,
You have worms for brains.
There is no doubt.
If 1/4 of the things you say about Linux WERE TRUE, there'd be nobody
here to do advocacy as they would have all moved off to either BSD or
a MAC.
You have shit for brains and I wish you would see fit to drain the pond.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Middle Aged Fat Asses
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 16:17:05 GMT
Why is is that everytime the subject of Linux comes up in an
office, about 25 middle aged fat asses fly into the conversation
to profess the advocacy of using Windows powered boxes.
Windows boxes are so easy to install. I tried to install Linux
and it was SOO DIFFICULT! Every PC crashes, so why pick the OS
which is hardest to install! Oh my!
They are so concerned about install and setup they forgot the
REASON this BECAME IMPORTANT! It BECAME IMPORTANT BECAUSE,,,,
MIDDDLE AGGGED FATTTASS MAN ARE YOU LISTENING TO ME HERE,,,,
IT BECAME IMPORTANT BECAUSE WINDOWS IS AN UNRELIABLE PEICE
OF SHIT OPERATING SYSTEM WHICH ISN'T CAPABLE OF UPTIMES EXCEEDING
A WEEK! IT'S THE FUCKING OPERATING SYSTEM WHICH HAS MADE THIS
RE-INSTALLATION ISSUE EXTREMELY IMPORTANT TO YOU!
The next concern MIDDLE AGED FAT ASS MAN has is that Linux
doesn't have Microsoft Office. MAFAM can't use a computer unless
it has his favorite! MAFAM, use Star Office or Gnome or KDE office.
Use Evolution! Do not rely on MAFAM products from Micro-crash anymore.
There must be a device which uses centrifical force or some other means
which will transfer MAFAM's brain from this lower extremeties back
up to his cranium where it belongs.
MAFAM also has this terrible difficulty in understanding why it's important
to know LINUX is ready for business when you refer to the largest
super computer clusters being built from Linux. MAFAM thinks that's
GEEK BRAINS STUFF and that doesn't APPLY TO MAFAM WORLD!
Nothing in MAFAM's world needs to have GEEK BRAINS stuff as long as
you have a GOOD PLAN!
MAFAM lives by the GOOD PLAN philosophy.
See you all on the wide track MAFAM'S!
Charlie
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What does IQ measure?
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 16:26:19 GMT
CR Lyttle wrote:
>
> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> >
> > The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
> > >
> > > But yes, I've seen Plan 9. It was terrible.
> >
> > Hey! Plan 9 is a /nifty/ OS!
> >
> > Chris
> >
> > --
> > [ Do Not Make Illegal Copies of This Message ]
> Plan 9 from Outer Space is a /nifty/ OS and Plan 9 from Parc Place is a
> /nifty/ movie?
Plan 9, the OS:
http://plan9.bell-labs.com/plan9dist/
Chris
--
[ Do Not Make Illegal Copies of This Message ]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Terms for MAFAM people....
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 16:29:11 GMT
In the MAFAM people {Middle Aged Fat Ass MAN} there
is a term known as POS which stands for Peice of Shit.
In the GEEK BRAINS community we also have a term
known as POSIX! This should stand for Peice of Shit
it AIN'T. The X is greek for nada!
Understand me MAFAM. Linux is the way to go.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Windows API (Was Re: Mircosoft Tax)
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 18:50:26 +0200
"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sat, 10 Mar 2001 18:27:54 +0200, Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > Now KDE & Gnome need to agree on some standard of common API so you
> > can trun Gnome application to KDE application with no probelms.
>
> There is work being done in this area. The drag-and-drop protocols have
> already been worked out for instance.
That is nice.
> > What XP does is to replace all the common controls of windows in
> > skinnable ones.
>
> Right. So one XP desktop can be unlike another. How do you train
> people in an office envirnment? This is one argument that's always put
> forward for UI consistency.
In an office enviorment, you standardtise on the same UI.
> > You can change the look of all the programs that use the common
> > controls (and most do).
>
> What about the ones that don't? I just did my taxes, and TaxCut seems
> to use a lot of non-standard controls (this is a longstanding tradition
> with tax programs). Many other apps like media players, graphics
> editors, and games go out of their way to look different.
Roughly 95% of the programs for windows use the common controls.
If you want your program to use something different, you've to program it
yourself, and it's your responsability to make it easy on the user to use
your program.
Here is what the pro has to say about custom controls:
http://www.iarchitect.com/qtime.htm - note the main reason they are angry
about this.
http://www.iarchitect.com/mshame.htm
Those programers that don't use the common controls have choosen not to do
this.
Their problem.
<Qoute from the above site>
Use the controls that are provided by the operating system. The user is
already familiar with them and will readily understand their purpose and
rules of operation.
</Qoute>
"consistency makes the interface familiar and predictable"
(The Windows User Interface Guidelines for Software Design, Microsoft Press)
> >The point is that the change is consistent.
>
> Except for where it isn't. I'll grant that Windows may be more
> consistent than a Linux destkop with a mixture of widget sets. But the
> Windows desktop is not 100% consistent either.
>
>
> >What about different ways to put the dials on the phone, how much trouble
> >would that make?
>
> I have an antique dial phone from the 1940's. It works fine and people
> seem to know how to use it just as easily as the new pushbotton phones.
> I once had a phone with the dial on the bottom. Didn't seem to cause
> any great confusion.
>
> I don't think perfect consistency in look is necessary or even
> particularly desireable. Some degree of adherence to things like the
> chosen color scheme and file picker style is nice, but not vital, as
> long as it isn't too hard to determine how things work. On the other
> hand, consistency in drag-and-drop and communications between programs
> is important and desireable. Linux does lack in those areas as of
> today, but the problem is not being ignored.
I'm not talking about one-look for everything, I'm talking about sharing a
common set of controls.
I think that general copy & paste is a little more important. I read that X
made it hard to implement it the way Mac/Windows users are used to it.
(I'm annoyed that I can't copy from/to a terminal window right now, so it's
important to me)
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 08:53:24 -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?
Arthur Frain wrote:
>
> Brock Hannibal wrote:
> > That would sort of be like saying F=ma is not true
> > because you've redefined a to be something other
> > than acceleration.
>
> Well, the fact is F=ma isn't true if dm/dt != 0 [1].
> The assumptions you're making about IQ are in the same
> league as assuming that dm/dt can always be ignored,
> when in the Real World (tm) it can't be (rockets burning
> fuel or space debris hitting the atmosphere for example).
That's dodging the analogy you stupid fucking idiot. If you redefine
any term in an equation the equation loses validity as you take
great lengths to show later. If you redefine mass as a changing
amount instead of a constant F=ma does not apply. My analogy works
with that too, you arrogant twit.
I think you are very confused. At any instant in time F=ma always
holds. Of course if the mass is changing over time because of boil
off or fuel consumption you have to take that into account.
> > It makes a pretty good case though. When you want to know whether X
> > and Y are related, a high correlation is good evidence.
> Jeez - Hume pretty much settled this in what - the 18th
> century? Catch up, please. Relation is not causation, and
> correlation isn't even necessarily relation in any
> meaningful sense. You can correlate the DJIA with
> sunspots - doesn't mean there's any relation or causation
> between the two (it's as likely that the DJIA causes
> sunspot activity as the other way around unless you know
> something specific about causality, which no theory of IQ
> I've ever seen establishes).
You in your jerklike out of context way snipped this statement by
Steve Madding:
> > > You can argue correlations all you want.
> > > Showing correlations is insufficient to prove your point.
To which I responded with a reasonable statement that:
> > It makes a pretty good case though. When you want to know whether X
> > and Y are related, a high correlation is good evidence.
I never said it "proved " anything, just that it is good evidence
> Secondly, "high" is not a number, and it certainly isn't
> 1.0, meaning that in the best of all worlds for IQ
> proponents there are other factors that need to be
> considered. The truth is probably much worse than
> that, since by "high" IQ proponents often mean > 0.
No they mean >> 0. Like 0.4 or better. You obviously have very
little understanding of statistics. It sounds like your
understanding is limited to H.S. physics.
> Arthur
>
> [1] People with reasonable IQ's recall from HS physics
> that F=dp/dt, where p=mv is momentum, so F= m*dv/dt + v*dm/dt.
> OTOH, people who make superficial, imprecise arguments
> only remember that F=ma, and forget that's a special case
> (Newton's Law of Usenet Debate)
It's only a special case in unrealizable, for the most part,
conditions. You are arguing against the statement that the vector
equation F=ma is untrue? No I don't think so. It too loses validity
at near light speed, another condition that's unrealizable in your
Real World, dumbfuck.
That still is only proof of the analogy that I made. Thank you for
providing additional backup for my argument that if you redefine the
conditions or the elements of an equation you have a different
equation.
--
Brock
"Put a $20 gold piece on my watch chain so the boys'll know I died
standin' pat"
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
