Linux-Advocacy Digest #774, Volume #32 Mon, 12 Mar 01 14:13:05 EST
Contents:
Help us there! (=?iso-8859-1?Q?S=E9bastien?= LACROIX)
GPL not being free doesn't mean that the license is invalid. ("JD")
Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time ("JD")
Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time ("JD")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and misleading claims about GPL software being
free ("JD")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("JD")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("JD")
Re: Help us there! (Gert Elstermann)
Re: Mircosoft Tax (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time (David Masterson)
Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time (David Masterson)
The Hyperlink? (Was: Re: What is user friendly? ("2 + 2")
Re: C# ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: What does IQ measure? (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: What does IQ measure? (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: What does IQ measure? (Roberto Alsina)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?S=E9bastien?= LACROIX <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: al.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Help us there!
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 18:14:32 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Help us at this freevote sites
http://www.freevote.com/booth/msft
Few weeks ago, anti M$ advocates were nearly at 50%...
... and pro ones (saying the decision to break up M$ was dump) were
bellow 20%
The tendancy is getting worst as the M$ advocates a rising up to 25%
Sometimes, you can vote up to 20 times in a row for the break up, and
see the percentage rise of 0.1%...
So just go there each morning to give a few vote for the break up.
Even if it does'nt change the world, it might make you smile and have a
good day...
Of course, I've post such a message there, thinking there would be less
M$ advocates than anti M$ ones!
http://www.freevote.com/booth/msft
--
Sébastien LACROIX
To email me just remove the 'z' and 'w' from my email address
Pour me répondre, enlevez les z et les w de mon adresse
__
/ / __ _ _ _ _ __ __ -o)
/ /__ / / / \// //_// \ \/ / / \
/____/ /_/ /_/\/ /___/ /_/\_\ _\_v
The choice of the GNU generation.^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Sign The Linux Driver Petition:
http://www.libralinux.com/petition.french.html
------------------------------
From: "JD" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: GPL not being free doesn't mean that the license is invalid.
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 12:31:26 -0500
"Rob S. Wolfram" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> JD <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Actually, it is based upon the lie that it is free. When it was understood
> >that is the basis of misunderstanding by me A LONG TIME AGO, and that
> >I didn't really care about the GPL itself, the matter became clear.
>
> [snipped more GPL is free == a lie]
>
> Are you not free because you cannot consider someone else's property
> your own?
>
Further nonsense straw claims (not made by me, but sound like GPL arguments)
elided.
I haven't been making the silly claims that compare my freedom with software
being free.
Every author has the right to control the disposition of their work (within the
constraints of the law.) It doesn't make any sense that when constraints
beyond the minimum are imposed, to call software 'free.' It is quite silly,
in fact to call something 'free', and then impose restraints beyond the minimum.
GPL constraints are NOT minimal. Claims that GPLed code is free are false, but
that doesn't mean that the authors shouldn't be able to license their code with
whatever free or non-free license that they choose. It is especially deceptive to
recognize that there is software that is MUCH freer than GPLed code, yet the
nonsense and misleading claims are made specifically by the GPL-being-free
crowd.
However, if the software isn't free (like GPL software isnt' free), then there are
restrictions on use and redistribution. GPL has such restrictions. You might
be trying to justify the license, but it is impossible to prove that the GPL is a
license of
free software.
For the claims that someone being free and software being free somehow comparable,
look towards the GPL crowd.
The CONFUSION in the definitions of important words are solely in the GPL-being-free
camp. It is either due to being unaware, incompetent, or deceptive.
john
------------------------------
From: "JD" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 12:34:38 -0500
"Pat McCann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> If any "freedom" has been lost in the sense you're probably meaning,
> it's your freedom to benefit from M$'s work. BSDL users prefer to let
> (with few restrictions) other people control the use of their own work
> and not "charge" people for using the code by insisting that they
> license away most of the fruits of their efforts. It's an ethical thing.
> They publish free software for reasons other than to try to get other
> people to do what they don't always want to (or can) do, namely license
> away rights in their work for no money. It relates to another kind of
> freedom.
>
Note that your argument partially demonstrates that BSDL code is indeed much
freer than GPLed code.
Additional claims as to justifying the constraints associated with the GPL might
or might not be valid. However, those restrictions associated with GPL licensing
do take much of the freeness away. In fact, much of the simple freeness of
redistribution and rework is removed by the GPL.
BY JUSTIFYING THE GPL, IT DOESN'T JUSTIFY CALLING IT FREE!!! :-).
John
------------------------------
From: "JD" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 12:41:58 -0500
"Pat McCann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > The main complaint of the anti-GPL crowd seems to be that they
> > want free software to be a one-way street - they want to be
> > parasites of free software rather than participants in it.
>
> That starts, continues, and ends in error.
>
I agree ( I have certain espousers of nonsense plonked though), so just saw this...
Note that I am NOT anti-GPL, yet it is so funny that my proven claims
that it isn't free somehow cause those with sloppy thinking to lump
me into an anti-GPL group. I am in an anti-lie group, and that might cause
me to be at odds with many GPL supporters. Because I am 'truth in advertising',
it might make some of the GPL dogma spewers hate me, but that is their
problem.
It isn't the GPL that is so bad, but it is the intentional misleading characterization
of the license that is bad. There is indeed some sort of marketing advantage to lie
that
the GPL is free. Claiming that GPL is free, and only justifying the license itself
doesn't
justify calling it free.
Using the rather vacuous logic of some of the pro-GPL-being-free crowd, that anytime
something is proven 'good', it is also free. Demonstrating that the GPL is sometimes
good, doesn't make it free.
For the pro-GPL-being-free crowd:
GOOD isn't necessarily the same as FREE.
John
------------------------------
From: "JD" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and misleading claims about GPL software
being free
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 12:49:46 -0500
"Rob S. Wolfram" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> JD <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [snip]
>
> >Allowable restrictions for free software:
> >1) Credits.
> >2) Hold harmless.
> >3) Legal requirements for export.
>
> These are your subjective restrictions for determining when software is
> free.
>
Any more restrictions take away the freeness of the software. It starts
restricting use and reuse. You might judge that more restrictions might be
better, but more restrictions are more than necessary for the self-protection
of the author. Some people might even claim that the above restrictions
are excessive, however few people who release software, with restrictions, have
the dishonesty to make claims that their code is 'free.' Those few people
who do make the misrepresentation have often been told by a certain
cult leader that it is okay to lie about it.
Remember: Justification of the license doesn't justify mischaracterizing it.
>
> The GPL does not permit unrestricted distribution of GPLed code, so I'd
> say it is non-free regarding distribution.
>
So, unqualified claims that software under the GPL are 'free' are indeed incorrect.
There are other limitations also, but the above limitation is probably sufficient
for honest people to avoid using the blanket term 'free' without qualification.
Further justification of the GPL on various moral or ethical grounds are 'interesting',
but often forget about the issue that the GPL isn't free. If someone wanted to qualify
the term 'free' on every use of the term when speaking of the GPL, then that would
be as valid as any other carefully qualified usage.
John
------------------------------
From: "JD" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 12:50:27 -0500
"phil hunt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sat, 10 Mar 2001 20:08:10 -0500, JD <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >Alas, you cannot refute the fact that GPL'ed code isn't free. :-).
>
> Nor can you refute the fact that you don't own the English language,
> and are therefore not the sole arbiter of the meaning of "free",
>
The GPL usage of the term free is so perverted, that perhaps it would
be good for the FSF to trademark it :-).
John
------------------------------
From: "JD" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 12:52:05 -0500
"Stuart Krivis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sun, 11 Mar 2001 00:40:44 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >enjoy his freedom. Had society insisted that all software be GPL since
> >before TCP was developed, the Internet would work just fine, save a
> >re-arrangement in the specifics of the business model used by the
> >earliest developers. Claims that the modern world wouldn't exist but
> >for BSD sound rather like Mr. Ballard's routine claims that the Internet
>
> I feel that TCP/IP would not have been used as widely if it had been
> under a more restrictive license. One could argue that it was the
> widespread use of BSD software that made the Internet possible.
>
I agree:
Very similarly to the fact that Stallman seems to be wanting to grab credit
from Linus, he and the GPL crowd want to grab credit for the existance of
free software (which most GPL contributors don't create.)
John
------------------------------
From: Gert Elstermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: al.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Help us there!
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 19:07:49 +0100
Sébastien LACROIX wrote:
>
> Help us at this freevote sites
>
It is the wrong way to 'vote' for or against something which is under
jurisdiction. The right way is to improve Linux to become a comfortable
desktop OS for everyday and everyone's use at the time when Windows 2000
becomes obsolete so that XP is no longer the future...
HTH - Gert Elstermann.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 18:17:24 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, T. Max Devlin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Sun, 11 Mar 2001 00:41:03 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Said Donovan Rebbechi in alt.destroy.microsoft on 4 Mar 2001 15:42:19
>>On Sun, 04 Mar 2001 10:01:03 GMT, Ed Allen wrote:
>>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>>Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>On Sun, 04 Mar 2001 00:13:10 GMT, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>Linux can be had for free. This isn't better prices?
>>>>
>>>>No, it can't be "had for free". You either need to have a high bandwidth
>>>>connection, or you need to pay for it. And no one sells Linux for free.
>>>>
>>>>In particular, when Linux *is* sold by a company, it usually goes
>>>>for $40-80
>>>>
>>> Those companies are selling the support to get running and to help
>>> identify and work around unusual hardware.
>>
>>I'd argue that Windows is as eassy to install without tech support than Linux
>>is with it.
>
>You'd be wrong; RH 7 goes onto a home-built system like butter, vastly
>more quickly and easily than Windows *ever* did.
Pedant point: I'd be surprised if anyone outside of techies actually
bothers to install Windows anymore. Once someone has figured out the
"optimum config" for a mass-produced system, it's saved as a physical
backup image and then thrown verbatim at each disk. "Damn the badblocks,
full speed ahead!" :-)
At least, such is my understanding. This is what makes Windows "easy
to use", but a nightmare to fix if one e.g. needs a new hard drive and
has for whatever reason lost contact with the original manufacturer.
I could be wrong, though -- MS Windows is one of the few systems that
seems to suffer from "bit rot", as someone put it, which means a number
of people have to reinstall things every so often.
Contrast that to Linux, which for me has been ultra-stable and easy
to work with (I have a machine at work with no CD-ROM drive; I could
still install RH 6.2 on it without difficulty, although I did have
some minor hiccups with the network card).
[rest snipped]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 35d:05h:37m actually running Linux.
Darn. Just when this message was getting good, too.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 13:35:10 -0500
Subject: Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time
From: David Masterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>>> "Steve" == Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy David Masterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> :>>>>> "Steve" == Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> :> The main complaint of the anti-GPL crowd seems to be that they
> :> want free software to be a one-way street - they want to be
> :> parasites of free software rather than participants in it.
> : Or maybe they've got bills to pay...
> Bzzzt. You are using "free" in the "beer" sense here.
Isn't that how you're defining "parasites" in the free software sense?
--
David Masterson ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Rational Software (but I don't speak for them)
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 13:36:17 -0500
Subject: Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time
From: David Masterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>>> "Arthur" == Arthur H Gold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Masterson wrote:
>> >>>>> "Steve" == Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > The main complaint of the anti-GPL crowd seems to be that they
>> > want free software to be a one-way street - they want to be
>> > parasites of free software rather than participants in it.
>> Or maybe they've got bills to pay...
> Sorry, non-sequitar.
How do you define "parasite"?
--
David Masterson ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Rational Software (but I don't speak for them)
------------------------------
From: "2 + 2" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: The Hyperlink? (Was: Re: What is user friendly?
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 13:43:54 -0500
The hyperlink is the quintessential user friendly command.
2 + 2
LShaping wrote in message ...
>Anonymous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
>
>Configuring Windows is my forte. I have been installing/reinstalling
>Windows Millennium for the last three days. I expect to have a well
>done installation within a week. I guess my idea of "installation" is
>different than most folks. Mine has to look good and be as efficient
>as possible (making Windows more nearly efficient is a Herculean
>task). Being done in ten minutes is unbelievable.
>LShaping
>
>
>
>>
>>> 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
>>
>>men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth - more than ruin,
>>more even than death
>>- bertrand russell
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: C#
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 12:48:01 -0600
"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Pardon me? Was C++ designed to run Windows?
> >
> > C++ doesn't run Windows. Why did you think it does?
>
> It does run Windows. I'd wager that 99% of the applications for
> Windows and Windows itself is written in C++.
Well, some of the OS is written C++, that parts that are COM based, such as
DirectX, MAPI, and TAPI 3.0, but the majority is written in C. Even so, I
understand what you meant now, rather than what you wrote. The way you
wrote it, it looked lke you were saying that C++ ran Windows like a JVM runs
Java byte-code.
> > In any event, Intepretation and Compiling are two different, and
mutually
> > exclusive things.
>
> Says who?
>
> Part of a .EXE file is Microsoft-centric code that is interpreted by
> the loader. Since you claim that these things are mutually exclusive,
> then do explain.
The loader doesn't interpret this (in the language sense). The header is
strictly a data format used in the memory allocation of the application.
The header is not translated to code and executed, which is what
interpretation is.
> > C++ was designed to compile programs and run them on processors
> > without regard to the OS.
>
> Sounds a lot like Java.
No, since Java *IS* the OS to a Java application. C++ only assumes that
there is file oriented I/O provided by the OS.
> Java is a language. Most Java *compilers* compile into Java Byte
> Code, which is a form of assembly for a certain kind of processor.
That doesn't exist.
> > > And here I thought .NET was just a SOAP implementation...
> >
> > .NET uses SOAP of it's RPC, that doesn't mean .NET is just SOAP.
>
> Do explain then. Exactly what is .NET? Nobody seems to know.
>
> Is it a replacement for win32?
It does replace Win32, but it's not intended to eradicate it.
> Is it a replacement for http?
No.
> Is it a replacement for DCOM?
It does provide most of the DCOM services to apps running on .NET, yes.
> Is it a replacement for C++, specifically VC++?
No, it's not a replacement for any language, since any language can target
.NET (and there are already about a dozen that do, including C++)
> Is it a replacement for DAO?
ADO was the replacement for DAO, and that was years ago.
> Does it mop the floor and provide for desert toppings?
No.
Look, it's not so hard. It's simply a platform independant binary
compatible framework, generic byte-code, byte-code translators and various
network and database services. You can mix and match any of it that you
like. You can even mix byte-code and normal code in the same application.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 12:53:23 -0600
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:98ihni$eu2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > My understanding is that a lot of the net's infrastructure is
> > BSD-licensed. (TCP/IP stack, BIND, Apache, sendmail, etc). Are there
> > any common infrastructure programs that are GPL licensed?
>
> Now, if a lot of .net infrasturcute was BSD-licensed...
It doesn't have to be, it was submitted to the ECMA for standardization,
which means it's publicly available.
------------------------------
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: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 13:57:17 -0500
Arthur Frain wrote:
>
> Aaron Kulkis wrote:
>
> > Arthur Frain wrote:
>
> > > 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).
>
> <snip>
>
> > > [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?
>
> Um, when mass varies with respect to time?
When?
Be precise.
>
> Only Aaron could read the above two paragraphs from the same
> post and then pose that question.
>
> I forgot, he's an engineer now.
>
> Arthur
--
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: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 13:59:11 -0500
"." wrote:
>
> > > Basically all I have said is that anyone who believes blindly in IQ tests
> > > is a moron, and needs their head examined.
> >
> > That's something a stupid person says.
>
> Actually, a stupid person can't ackowledge the fact that they might be
> wrong. I regularly score 130-140 in these IQ tests, so you either
> believe in them totally, or call me stupid for being open to the fact
> that they might not actually indicate what you think (and contradict your
> own belief in IQ tests simultaneously).
So, what you're trying to tell us is that your IQ is actually
lower than the 130-140 range...
--
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: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 15:59:45 -0300
Aaron Kulkis wrote:
> Arthur Frain wrote:
>>
>> Aaron Kulkis wrote:
>>
>> > Arthur Frain wrote:
>>
>> > > 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).
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> > > [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?
>>
>> Um, when mass varies with respect to time?
>
> When?
>
> Be precise.
You do realize that your question is stupid, right?
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
