Linux-Advocacy Digest #762, Volume #32 Sun, 11 Mar 01 19:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: The Linux office, a possible future..... ("Masha Ku'Inanna")
Re: How Microsoft Crushes the Hearts of Trolls. (Giuliano Colla)
Re: New European language domain name land grab?? (Bas van der Meer)
Re: Dividing OS to groups. (Giuliano Colla)
Re: Sometimes, when I run Windows... ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! ("Masha Ku'Inanna")
Re: How Microsoft Crushes the Hearts of Trolls. (Giuliano Colla)
Re: Windows API (Was Re: Mircosoft Tax) (Giuliano Colla)
Re: The Linux office, a possible future..... (.)
Re: No problem with multiple GUI's (.)
Re: What is user friendly? (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: What does IQ measure? (Aaron Kulkis)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Masha Ku'Inanna" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Linux office, a possible future.....
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 17:09:07 -0500
Reply-To: "Masha Ku'Inanna" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<snip>
> What's the UNIX equivalent of Corel Draw? Of Microsoft Word? (Star Office
> is close but not quite there). I'm sorry but the number of desktop
> applications on Windows easily outstrips those on UNIX.
>
Unless I am mistaken, isn't there a version of Corel Draw out for Linux, or
am I thinking of a Franken-Wine application?
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: How Microsoft Crushes the Hearts of Trolls.
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 22:43:08 GMT
LShaping wrote:
>
> Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >LShaping wrote:
> >>
> >> "Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> >>
> >> > More seriously: powerful instruments are very good to save time and to
> >> > provide a cleaner and re-usable code, but you can't use successfully a
> >> > high level instrument if you don't have a good knowledge of the low
> >> > level ones. OOP is very good, but when you need to create a new object,
> >> > or to derive another from an existing one, you aren't programming with
> >> > objects, you're programming objects instead, and you need a good
> >> > knowledge of the language objects are written into. And you can't have a
> >> > good knowledge of a language if you don't know the sort of machine code
> >> > which will be produced. Usually program bottlenecks are very few and
> >> > very limited. For 95% of the code you don't care. But the residual 5% is
> >> > the one which affects overall performance. You can't ignore the
> >> > resulting machine code.
> >>
> >> That is a wild generalization which suggests that a high level programmer
> >> must not only know the machine language but also be able to redefine
> >> functions using machine language. Strange, that coming from someone who
> >> probably is multilingual. Obviously, Giuliano is assuming that there will
> >> never be progress in programming languages, that all "good" programmers will
> >> always be stuck messing with machine language. Or he is assuming that
> >> machine language will always stay in step with high level languages. The
> >> more likely scenario, if this is not already the case, it that high level
> >> programmers must leave the details to low level programmers. Human
> >> languages certainly do not require the user to know every detail, heaven
> >> help us if they did.
> >> LShaping
> >
> >There's a general rule: programmers tend to use constructs which are
> >faster to write in the selected language, as opposed to the ones which
> >execute faster. Sometimes they avoid constructs which do not produce
> >code at all, but are lengthy to write. Therefore the problem isn't the
> >progress in programming languages, but in computing power. If you have
> >computing power in excess, you may disregard efficiency, but if you
> >don't, you can't ignore the resulting code. I don't support the idea of
> >writing code in machine language, unless really necessary, but reading
> >the low level code your compiler produces may help a lot to write
> >efficient high level code.
>
> And so can buying a better compiler, and so can rearranging your
> source code, and so can using a better high level language.
How can you tell that a compiler is better if you don't examine the
machine language produced?
How can you tell which way rearranging your source code will be more
efficient if you don't examine the resulting machine code?
How can you tell that a high level language is better than another if
you don't look at the resulting machine code?
You're clutching at straws, or you have a point I'm missing?
------------------------------
From: Bas van der Meer <basm*removethis*@xs4all.nl>
Subject: Re: New European language domain name land grab??
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 23:46:37 +0100
Hahn Roberts wrote:
> I recently registered a whole bunch of domain names in German character
> set.
> These domain names are $25 per year when registered at register.com. The
> current DNS servers cannot resolve these domain names, but that
> functionality might be added in the next few years.
>
> The encouraging sign is that these domain names are being registered in
> droves. My question is what is the possibility of making money on these
> domain names?
Don't know, don't care. This is comp.os.linux.advocacy. Post your question
in the correct newsgroup please.
--
--
Bas van der Meer
basm*removethis*@xs4all.nl
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Dividing OS to groups.
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 22:47:37 GMT
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> "GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
> > > VMS based:
> > > VMS
> > > WinNT line.
> >
> > Uh,... I don't think vms is even remotely related to nt at all.
>
> Most of the design team from VMS worked on NT.>
> >
Apparently working under different directives.
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Sometimes, when I run Windows...
Date: 11 Mar 2001 22:47:43 GMT
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: I might except a Linux PC doesn't have that consistant interface as yet.
Sure it does. Just stick with all KDE or all Gnome applications.
You'll find the UI to be extremely consistent.
I personally prefer flexibility and choice, but if you don't, you can
always run Linux with both hands tied behind your back, and pretend
it's Windows. You can even run the BSOD screensaver if you want. :)
Joe
------------------------------
From: "Masha Ku'Inanna" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 17:50:24 -0500
Reply-To: "Masha Ku'Inanna" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Ed - You KNEW it would not last, right? *snickers*
>
> > Looks like an end to the rants about your bolloxed computer. Thank
god...
>
> Whilst SuSE looks nicer, I see it still has some of the problems present
> in Linux Mandrake. It tries to mangle my network cards by installing the
> wrong ones on each device.
>
> SuSE are aware of this problem - see
>
> http://sdb.suse.de/en/sdb/html/ashley_dhcp-2nics.html
>
> Unfortunately, their solution doesn't seem to work.
>
> This is something that works flawlessly and immediately on Windows, yet
> here we go again with Linux 2.4.
>
> --
> Pete
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: How Microsoft Crushes the Hearts of Trolls.
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 22:55:24 GMT
LShaping wrote:
>
> Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >There's a general rule: programmers tend to use constructs which are
> >faster to write in the selected language, as opposed to the ones which
> >execute faster.
>
> Right. That gets to my point. Some of us want to get things done and
> do not have the time to spend on details. Low level languages are
> more detailed and take a lot of writing to produce better results, if
> you have the time. And to the Linux lunatics. There is such a thing
> which grownups use, called "tools". Some of you who oppose Microsoft
> seem to be stuck in a simplistic sandbox with your Linux bucket and
> scoop, not being able to do anything more than a million simple
> operations. I imagine that is one reason why you have failed. If a
> programmer is not willing to venture into the real world of modern
> computing, then he will be left behind in the sand. I would love to
> have a more efficient operating system than Windows, but command line
> stuff is for the birds.
This single sentence rules you out as an opponent worth of an answer.
Thank you for your time.
>
> >Sometimes they avoid constructs which do not produce
> >code at all, but are lengthy to write. Therefore the problem isn't the
> >progress in programming languages, but in computing power. If you have
> >computing power in excess, you may disregard efficiency, but if you
> >don't, you can't ignore the resulting code.
>
> The answer depends also on the task at hand. A more complex task will
> always require more resources. Basic research is great for those who
> enjoy it, but it is not for everybody.
> LShaping
>
> >I don't support the idea of
> >writing code in machine language, unless really necessary, but reading
> >the low level code your compiler produces may help a lot to write
> >efficient high level code.
> >With some compilers just splitting an expression in two steps, to
> >improve readability, is a very costly choice, with others it comes for
> >free. When you're in the inner loop of an image processing algorithm,
> >just to make an example, the wrong choice can make your program take
> >five minutes instead of five seconds.
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Windows API (Was Re: Mircosoft Tax)
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 23:12:51 GMT
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> "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)
Why can't you? I can. This is copy/pasted from my terminal window right
now:
[colla@localhost colla]$ /sbin/ifconfig
lo Link encap:Local Loopback
inet addr:127.0.0.1 Mask:255.0.0.0
UP LOOPBACK RUNNING MTU:3924 Metric:1
RX packets:14 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
TX packets:14 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
collisions:0 txqueuelen:0
ppp0 Link encap:Point-to-Point Protocol
inet addr:151.32.163.209 P-t-P:151.5.168.55
Mask:255.255.255.255
UP POINTOPOINT RUNNING NOARP MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1
RX packets:758 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
TX packets:513 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
collisions:0 txqueuelen:10
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: The Linux office, a possible future.....
Date: 11 Mar 2001 23:14:45 GMT
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> says...
>
>> This is a real possibility, right now!!
> Where is it? Where? Where?
Everywhere, you tool.
>> Imagine most, if not all, office workers in a company using Linux with KDE or
>> Gnome.
> Imagine all the bug reports... 8)
Have you ever worked in a windows based local IT department? The difference with
linux bugs is that they actually get FIXED. I cant tell you how many times ive
heard "oh, thats just a windows thing" when the machine I use to talk to the
billing database at work does something completely retarded. Then they expect
me to just live with it.
>> Most corporate infrastructures are 100 BaseT networks on a switched backbone.
> Ah, there you've got me. Ours is still 10 BaseT. 100 BaseT coming soon!
You're very far behind.
>> Imagine 25, 100, or 1000s of office workers connected to a central backbone.
> Can you imagine the network traffic?
You dont know what youre talking about. The network on which my solaris workstation
resides contains tens of thousands of nodes. Theres alot of traffic, but thats
why god invented network engineers.
>> The research department can use the cumulative processing power of these
>> machines to process information.
> I'm not sure I'd like a myseterious research group to hijack my machine
> and use it for their purposes!
It happens to windows machines all the time. The fact that you think it doesnt
happen leads me to believe that at one time or another its happened to yours.
The last severe security breach I had with my linux system here was about a year
and a half ago, when I had a severely retarded moment and left anonymous FTP on
and a certian directory writable.
>> The IT department can use the various clustering and remote access technologies
>> to manage all the machines as a whole or individually.
> Ah yes... here we go. Centralised management. That has been tried before.
> I saw it at Digital. They had clusters, they had shared disks... it
> worked, after a fashion.
Windows networks all over the world (including the one I work with peripherally)
do this RIGHT NOW, pete. In fact, the central office has absolute control over
every last one of the approximately 9,000 windows machines on its entire network.
This is the norm with windows networks. I'm surprised you didnt know that.
> Here's a "rule of thumb" for you.
> For every system you introduce to fix problems, the new system brings
> with it it's own set of problems.
Yes, thanks for the notice. Everyone knows that already though.
> That's not to say try something new, but... we've swung from individual
> machines, through centralised ones, now individual again, and... where's
> the fashion going now?
We havent swung back to individual ones actually. Maybe YOU have, but you are
not the world.
>> 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.
> If you're talking about making computers be a network device you need one
> thing first. A fast reliable network. That can happen in the office.
Its happened everywhere already. Dont use the idiocy in your own office as
a guide, pete. The rest of the world is way ahead of you.
> Where it won't happen is in the home. There are _still_ a lot of people
> dialling up with 56k modems. Can you imagine having a diskless machine as
> it tries to download an app across a 56k link? Or maybe you'll try
> running X across such a link? Sluggish, did you say?
We arent talking about home machines, nitwit.
>> 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.
> Please! There's a big difference between Windows and CP/M.
> As for UNIX being able to do, why aren't they doing it, why aren't they
> the leading force on the desktop?
Because things like that dont happen instantaniously, you freak. UNIX hadnt even
been marketed for the home network until redhat started doing it a couple of years
ago. And before that there WERENT any home networks.
>> 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.
> What's the UNIX equivalent of Corel Draw?
Oh dear pete, why on earth are you using corel draw in the first place?
> Of Microsoft Word? (Star Office
> is close but not quite there).
How exactly is it not quite there? Its huge, bloated, buggy, and reads word
documents, just like microsoft word. Its an excellent clone.
=====.
--
"come to ZomZom's (a place to eat) like it was built in one day;
you can watch the humans try to run"
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: No problem with multiple GUI's
Date: 11 Mar 2001 23:17:44 GMT
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <98g3r8$oti$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>> 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.
> Now that I've switched to SuSE, I tried installing KDE 2.1 for SuSE. To
> my surprise, it worked! The new version certainly looks slicker.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
And now we know exactly whats important to pete. Stuff that looks slick.
I invite you, pete, to peruse www.themes.org, specifically kde.themes.org
for a taste of what slick is.
=====.
--
"come to ZomZom's (a place to eat) like it was built in one day;
you can watch the humans try to run"
------------------------------
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 is user friendly?
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 18:24:25 -0500
Brock Hannibal wrote:
>
> Aaron Kulkis wrote:
> >
> > Brock Hannibal wrote:
> > >
> > > Anonymous wrote:
> > > >
> > > > aaron wrote:
> > > > > Anonymous wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > aaron wrote:
> > > > > > > Anonymous wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > aaron wrote:
> > > > > > > > > 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).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > now you know why i usually don't read your messages
> > > > > > > > jackie 'anakin' tokeman
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > p.s. windows is a pretty cool operating system
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Only in comparison to DOS.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Compared to anything else, Windows is comparable to a Formula-1 body
> > > > > > > slapped on top of a Ford Pinto with a sand-injection oil system
> > > > > > > and water-contaminated brake-lines.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > amiga: dead
> > > > > > beos: fringe
> > > > > > mac: fringe
> > > > > > os2: dead
> > > > > > next: dead
> > > > > > unix: user hostile
> > > > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > > > > Microsoft propaganda.
> > > >
> > > > no, personal experience.
> > > > a generally impassable learning curve = user hostile.
> > > > i was using windows to get work done ten minutes after installation.
> > > > u can't touch this
> > > >
> > > > > Unix has had fully functional GUI's since the mid 1980's.
> > > >
> > > > xwindows?
> > > > nerdo please...
> > > >
> > > > > Not only that, but Unix is very very very consistant; in contrast, DOS and
>Windows
> > > > > both have lots of arbitrary rules with even more exceptions.
> > > >
> > > > why, if that is the case, are they so much easier to use?
> > > > jackie 'anakin' tokeman
> > >
> > > Windows is only easier to use for a certain class of tasks, mostly
> > > rather mundane ones. DOS was no easier to use than Unix. Once a
> > > certain subset of Unix commands are learned it becomes very easy to
> > > use, but you're right about the steep learning curve. Power comes
> >
> > Any 1990 or later Unix GUI has the *SAME* shallow learning curve
> > as Windows....but without the low productivity ceiling that Windows
> > imposes because you STILL have the full-blown power of a Unix system
> > behind that GUI.
>
> Oh I was referring more to the shell commands, aliasing and
> scripting that a user needs to learn to take advantage of the full
> power of Unix workstations and networked computers. Yes, the Gui's
> are just as easy if not easier than Windows Gui's.
>
> BTW Aaron, are you guys supporting lsf these days where you work?
Not that I know of.
--
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: 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: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 18:26:31 -0500
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).
>
> > 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).
>
> 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.
>
> 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)
And dm/dt =/= 0 when, exactly?
--
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
******************************
