Linux-Advocacy Digest #854, Volume #32 Sat, 17 Mar 01 18:13:07 EST
Contents:
Re: KDE 2.1 oopsie! ("Gary Hallock")
Re: Why can't Apple do it? (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Lars_Tr=E4ger?=)
Re: Why can't Apple do it? (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Lars_Tr=E4ger?=)
Re: Linux Joke (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: GPL not being free doesn't mean that the license is invalid. (Tim Hanson)
Re: KDE 2.1 oopsie! (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Tim Hanson)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Tim Hanson)
Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time (Jim Richardson)
Re: What does IQ measure? (Jim Richardson)
Re: What does IQ measure? (Tim Hanson)
Re: Here's a load of horse crap ("Shades")
Re: Mindless suicide! Rediculous Dumbasses! (Byron A Jeff)
Re: What does IQ measure? (Tim Hanson)
Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!> (Dave Martel)
Re: What does IQ measure? (Brock Hannibal)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: KDE 2.1 oopsie!
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 17:08:16 +0500
In article <7IQs6.4535$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Pete Goodwin"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Your statement makes me laugh. Since every single edit control
> eventually made all KDE applications crash, that tells me KDE 2.1 is
> unstable.
>
> Now I just tried to use drag and drop to copy a directory - the whole
> desktop vanished. No icons, nada, zip, just the background. I killed it
> and got back to a CLI prompt and did the copy by CLI.
>
Your logic is laughable. The fact that so much of KDE seems to be
failing along with the fact that no one else sees this should tell you
something. You installed KDE 2.1 incorrectly, you got a bad
build of KDE, or you have severe hardware problems. The general
consensus is that KDE 2.1 is very stable. Why do you always insist on making
these drastic generalizations?
Gary
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Lars_Tr=E4ger?=)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why can't Apple do it?
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 23:17:42 +0100
Paul 'Z' Ewande® <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Lars Träger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message news:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> <SNIP> Some stuff </SNIP>
"Some stuff" being an interview where BG says it was HIS design.
http://www.americanhistory.si.edu/csr/comphist/gates.htm#tc44
> > So even *if* he didn't say it, it's *still* his fault.
>
> Sorry but I think that you are wrong on this account (about it being Bill
> Gates fault), despite what he may or may not have said.
>
> If you look at BIOS messages [well before the OS is in the equation] when a
> PC boots you see things like that:
>
> 640k Base Memory size
> xxxK Ext. Memory size
>
> From http://www.infokomp.no/info/DosMem.htm
>
> "When IBM designed the original PC, they reserved the upper 384KB of this
> 1MB for the PC BIOS (Basic Input/Output System), video memory, and for
> adapter boards to install additional RAM, allowing applications to write
> directly to added RAM in order to communicate with the adapter. This left us
> with 640KB for DOS and application programs."
Either it's his fault, or he lied in that interview. I'm fine with both
- if you "buy" anthing from him, that's our fault.
Lars T.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Lars_Tr=E4ger?=)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why can't Apple do it?
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 23:17:40 +0100
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Lars Träger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Neil Bradley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Think about it. The 640K limitation wasn't a Microsoft curse, it was
> > > IBM's architecture. IBM Made the mistake of mapping system ROMs above
> > > the 640K region instead of down lower. Microsoft worked within those
> > > bounds.
> >
> > http://www.americanhistory.si.edu/csr/comphist/gates.htm#tc44
> >
> > --->
> > DA: Now Microsoft is primarily a software company, but you actually got
> > into some important hardware development with the Mouse. Do you want to
> > say a few words about that?
> >
> > BG: Microsoft was playing a much broader role[laughs] than just doing
> > software for this machine. I mean whether it is the keyboard, the
> > character set, the graphics adapter, or even the memory layouts. I laid
> > out memory so the bottom 640K was general purpose RAM and the upper 384
> > I reserved for video and ROM, and things like that. That is why they
> > <---
> >
> > So even *if* he didn't say it, it's *still* his fault.
>
> No matter what he says, he's not responsible for the layout. IBM is. IBM
> had built the PC and designed the layout before they had even HEARD of MS.
So ou call Bill Gates a Liar. I'm fine with that.
Lars T.
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Linux Joke
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 22:22:51 GMT
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
> On Sat, 17 Mar 2001 04:33:00 GMT, J Sloan wrote:
> >Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> >
> >> Bsiasically, I trust the gcc maintainers to maintain gcc more than I trust
> >> RedHat to do the same. In other words, I trust gcc's "real" release more
> >> than I trust the unauthorised RedHat version.
> >
> >What's "authorized" about the what you call the "real" gcc?
>
> I suppose what it boils down to is that I trust the gcc maintainers
> to maintain gcc more than I trust Redhat to do the same.
Those maintainers kind of hint at the naughtiness of Red Hat here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-2.95/gcc-2.95.3.html
gcc-2.95.3 is out!
------------------------------
From: Tim Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: GPL not being free doesn't mean that the license is invalid.
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 22:22:57 GMT
JD wrote:
>
> "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.
As you've said in at least a hundred messages in this and other threads.
Is it possible to just move on, or is this your whole reason for being?
Perhaps you want to run for President on this issue, no?
Whatever the merit or lack of merit of your claims, the fact is that
GPLed software will be around for a while, that it is the basis of
Linux, and the most likely reason Linux has taken off as it has.
> 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.
Are you contemplating a lawsuit, i.e., do you intend to fish, or cut
bait? Or is whining all you do?
> 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
--
Kiss me twice. I'm schizophrenic.
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: KDE 2.1 oopsie!
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 22:24:11 GMT
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> Mig wrote:
>
> > Pete's conclusion that Knode crashes-> KDE 2.1 unstable->Linux Unstable is
> > laughable.
>
> Your statement makes me laugh. Since every single edit control eventually
> made all KDE applications crash, that tells me KDE 2.1 is unstable.
>
> Now I just tried to use drag and drop to copy a directory - the whole
> desktop vanished. No icons, nada, zip, just the background. I killed it and
> got back to a CLI prompt and did the copy by CLI.
Shove off, troll, and fix your computer. If you're machine isn't
broken you obviously logged in as root and fucked up your
configuration. Whiner.
Chris
------------------------------
From: Tim Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 22:26:00 GMT
Nick Condon wrote:
>
> Tim Hanson wrote:
>
> >Peter Köhlmann wrote:
> >>
> >> Jeffrey Siegal wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Which GPLed libraries do you need? Most of the libraries on Linux
> >> > are LGPL, not GPL. LGPL linkage does not require that the source
> >> > code to entire program be released.
> >> >
> >> Several (at least 3). I´m already searching, also in the LGPL
> >> direction. But if I don´t find it there or on any BSD licence, I have
> >> still the option of rewriting that stufff myself.
> >> Otherwise, the project is dead.
> >> Fine GPL, very nice. I feel suckered into it.
> >> Because of this I will *never* release something under GPL.
> >> Fuck that
> >
> >Specifically, which libraries are licensed under the GPL, not LGPL, that
> >you can't work with? This is starting to sound a little fishy.
> >
>
> <sniff> <sniff>
>
> Yup.
>
> --
> Nick
Note that a couple of days have gone by and well, I'm left without a
response.
--
Kiss me twice. I'm schizophrenic.
------------------------------
From: Tim Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: misc.int-property,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 22:30:29 GMT
JD wrote:
>
> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Said JD in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 14 Mar 2001 21:54:19 -0500;
> > >Jumping in:
> > >
> > > I'll estimate that the number of people who don't understand the
> > > side-effect of GPL are similar (within a few percent, highly correlated)
> > > to those who think that the GPL is a license of free software.
> >
> > And I'd estimate that the number of people who claim GPL isn't "free
> > software" are similar to those who want to charge money for licenses of
> > work based on free software.
> >
> That is strictly not true, because most people who really don't like the GPL,
Oh they don't, do they? Specifically what class of people did you count
in your "most" qualifier? What methodology did you use in counting
them, and where is your research published and peer reviewed? You _do_
have some basis for this statement, beyond your own previous rhetoric,
don't you?
> don't like it because it is associated with people who lie about it being free.
Nope, you're the only one I've heard from.
> The business issues (please read what I have writte) are essentially agnostic
> with respect to other commercial software.
>
> BTW, the misleading information about the GPL being free (and my quoted
> comment above about the correlation) still stands. You apparently agree with
> it, since you quoted it, not refuting it, and answered with a nonsense claim?
>
> Guess what? Calling the GPL free is indeed misleading, and that is a major
> problem with the ethics associated with FSF and the GPL-being-free advocates.
>
> You know, they are simply liars :-(.
>
> John
--
Kiss me twice. I'm schizophrenic.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 12:59:00 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 12 Mar 2001 02:11:07 +0200,
Ayende Rahien, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>
>"Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:98btef$p2a$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Pat McCann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> : Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> :> You guys just don't get it. Proprietary extensions from a work, when
>> :> put into a popular OS, CAN undermine the original through embrace-and-
>> :> extend-and-make-incompatable. ....
>>
>> : All of which has absolutely nothing to do with whether the BSDL code
>> : is still free. It is the M$-extended work which is not free. M$ had
>> : the freedom to profit from their work under their own terms (mostly).
>> : The BSDL code owners gave M$ the license, the freedom, to do that.
>>
>> : Say all you'd like about the pros and cons of doing that, but DON'T
>> : say that the BSDL code can be made non-free. When you say that, you
>> : demonstrate that YOU don't get it or that you enjoy maddening people.
>>
>> I don't have to. You just did it yourself. Read above.. "the M$-extended
>> work which is not free." The key difference in our viewpoints seems to
>> be this: You say that as long as you can get the original version from
>> the original source, that no freedom has been lost. I say that this isn't
>> necessarily so, since the original version can be made useless by having
>> the proprietary extensions become the norm.
>
>Since GPL is just for code, what prevents me from copying the idea and
>extend it?
>Create a propetiry version of it that would render the GPL code null?
>
how would your coding something in non-GPL licenced code, make the existing
GPL code null?
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
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, 17 Mar 2001 13:50:10 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 11 Mar 2001 13:20:58 -0800,
Brock Hannibal, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>Arthur Frain wrote:
>
>> Maybe I'm not an expert in stats, but a .4 correlation
>> coefficient doesn't seem very impressive to me. Wouldn't
>> impress a physicist, I'm sure.
>
>Let's consider a case of a frequency modulated waveform as used in
>FM radio. How correlated is the resultant waveform to either the
>carrier frequency or the frequency of the modulating audio
>information? It's certainly less than 1, wouldn't you say, and yet
>we are able to almost completely separate the mixed waveforms.
>
>It's obvious your understanding of the uses of correlation is
>extremely lacking.
>
I don't know from stats, but the example above seems poor in the sense that
when we demod an FM signal, we allready know the carrier, and the mod-scheme,
the only unknown is the audio which correlates 1-1 with the modulation. (in
this sense, correlation would seem to mean has a known, predicable
relationship.) But I digress from the digression...
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: Tim Hanson <[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: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 22:36:34 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> Stuart Krivis wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 07 Mar 2001 00:21:31 GMT, Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >In article <983ulp$1ql$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Edward Rosten wrote:
> > >>> A true IQ test would have to
> > >>> involve pictures and patterns, and perhaps have some mathematical
> > >>> basis, because these are the only ideas that translate well all over
> > >>> the world.
> > >>
> > >>I don't believe there is a true IQ test. People are good at different
> > >>thing.
> > >>
> > >>-Ed
> > >>
> > >
> > >For instance, most Windows users are extremely good at immitating rocks.
> >
> > <sigh>
> >
> > Most people use Windows because it came with their computer, or the ads
> > mentioned Windows, or they've heard of MS and Windows, or Joe from next
> > door has Windows and dials up to AOL and looks at pr0n.
> >
> > Then there are business users who run what they're given.
> >
> > In most of these cases, the user does not _want_ to know an awful lot
> > about computers or OSs. They want an appliance like their TV set.
> >
> > That does not necessarily make them stupid. They just aren't into
> > computers.
> >
> > Windows is not a very good fit for them. They'd be much better off with
> > an appliance running Linux, maybe even an embedded version.
> >
> > Now, I'd agree that people like Edlose are a real piece of schist, but
> > he's not a typical Windows user.
> >
> > I'm hoping that Mac OS X does well. It will give people an appliance
> > (iMac) with a real OS underneath. I've got my doubts about how Apple
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> UNIX.
...under a license which allowed them to rip the code and take it
private.
> > would react if they were the market leader (I think Jobs could be Bill
> > Gates v2.0), but it's a better chance than hoping that MS will change
> > their ways.
> >
...as would Ellison, McNealey, Case, Dell, and every Joe Blow boxbuilder
down the street.
> The answer is to go to a non-proprietary operating system.
> Linux fits the bill. It already has *ALL* of the pointy-clicky
> nonsense that Mac and LoseDOS users salivate over.
It also comes with a license which ensures it will always be available
to everyone.
> > Please try to direct your ire where it should be directed. There are
> > plenty of a**holes trolling here that deserve a good flaming, but the
> > average computer user doesn't. They don't know any better, and the
> > Wintel monopoly hasn't bothered to educate them. They really don't
> > _want_ educated users. Educated users might look around and find that
> > there are better solutions.
> >
> > Don't worry. Be happy. We'll make it all better. How will you be paying
> > for that?
> >
> > --
> >
> > Stuart Krivis
>
> --
> Aaron R. Kulkis
> Unix Systems Engineer
> DNRC Minister of all I survey
> ICQ # 3056642
--
Kiss me twice. I'm schizophrenic.
------------------------------
From: "Shades" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Here's a load of horse crap
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 17:38:55 -0800
I suppose those lightbulbs are innovative ideas in the software industry and
in the next picture he gets up and stomps all over them :-)
"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> http://www.microsoft.com/billgates/default.asp
>
> --
> [ Do Not Make Illegal Copies of This Message ]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Byron A Jeff)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Mindless suicide! Rediculous Dumbasses!
Date: 17 Mar 2001 17:39:44 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Steve Chaney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
-On Fri, 16 Mar 2001 17:16:42 GMT, T. Max Devlin
-<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
-
->Said Steve Chaney in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 16 Mar 2001 01:01:42
->>On Thu, 15 Mar 2001 08:42:25 GMT, J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
->>>Anonymous wrote:
->>>
->>The problem with Linux/Unix advocates is the gigantic subset of
->>zealots who attack anyone who uses KDE/GNOME. They're such hypocrites
->>- they harp so much on CHOICE, and yet they would condemn all Linux
->>users to the command line.
->
->I think you're getting things backwards. These Linux advocates harp on
->CHOICE, and in order to have a CHOICE, you have to know both
->alternatives.
-
-I lived on linux's command line interface for 3 years before even
-installing X.
-
-
-> You probably got flamed for whining about having to do
->something from the command line;
-
-On the contrary, I've posted impromptu how to's on how to clean-room
-install X, KDE and GNOME, with a tremendous amount of info on the use
-of ldd, nm, /etc/ld.so.conf, and other utilities. I work the command
-line like Picasso worked a brush.
-
-However, Suzy office worker, the people I am trying to sell on Linux,
-will never ever as long as they live, want to deal with the command
-line. Ever. Never. Forget it. The linux elitist faction would say
-banish these people to Windows.
-
-Thank God the developers disagree. They feel Linux is for everyone.
-And it is.
I'm not sure about the "elitists" stating that these folks be banished. I
think you get the strong resistance from the come from windows/mac users
who state that only a GUI is required and:
"Why does Linux have a CLI?"
"Why does Linux have multiple desktops?"
"Why is Linux difficult to install?" (note that in most instances it isn't)
"Why does Linux allow for different configurations? What I want should be
good enough for everyone. Right?"
"Why isn't Linux just like Windows?"
"Why doesn't Linux run Office/Outlook/Free Agent/Photoshop?"
In short they want to limit Linux to their expectation and their experience.
Both which frankly are limited for most average users.
Everyone needs to come to the realization that both the GUI and the CLI have a
place. In fact the ultimate interface, a seamless merger between the two
where at any point one can mix and match and flow between the two, doesn't
really yet exists.
But GUI only users need to understand that just because they have issues with
CLI or have no desire to use it doesn't mean that CLI isn't important and
therefore should be deprecated.
Forcing one or the other isn't the answer. At minimum a peaceful coexistance
and at best a seamless merger is required.
BAJ
------------------------------
From: Tim Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What does IQ measure?
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 22:41:03 GMT
Chad Everett wrote:
>
> On Fri, 16 Mar 2001 19:25:20 -0500, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >As an undegraduate, they don't have even the slightest expectation
> >that you will 'understand' the math, only that you know how to use it.
> >
> >You aren't expected to truly understand ANYTHING until you get a PhD.
> >
>
> Not true. One achieves total understanding at the Masters degree level.
> If you proceed to the PhD level you start loosing the ability to do
> things like button your shirt and remember where you parked you vehicle.
One also evidently also loses the ability to spell. "Loose" means
something is not secured, as in "Chad has a screw loose someplace."
When you mean someone is being deprived or has been deprived, "lose" is
the proper spelling as in, "Chad is losing his ability to think
clearly."
--
Kiss me twice. I'm schizophrenic.
------------------------------
From: Dave Martel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!>
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 15:33:08 -0700
On Sat, 17 Mar 2001 14:06:52 -0600, "Erik Funkenbusch"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>What's there to gloat about? This means they won't use Linux either, since
>they claim they won't use *ANY* software developed in America, and much of
>Linux is developed in American by Americans.
Go quibble with the Germans.
>Sure, they could examine the source themselves, but it doesn't sound like
>they're making informed decisions based on actual evidence, so I doubt they
>would disect Linux to prove to themselves that there aren't back doors.
I'm sure they _have_ examined the source already. SuSE Linux is a
German distro and very popular throughout Europe. Europeans have long
suspected that Windows contains NSA backdoors. I wouldn't be at all
surprised if the German and possibly other European goverments had a
strong hand in SuSE Linux from the beginning, with the every intention
of dumping Windows as soon as they had a workable replacement and the
necessary applications to go with it.
>"Dave Martel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/17679.html>
>>
>> German armed forces ban MS software, citing NSA snooping
>> By: John Lettice
>> Posted: 17/03/2001 at 18:59 GMT
>>
>> The German foreign office and Bundeswehr are pulling the
>> plugs on Microsoft software, citing security concerns,
>> according to the German news magazine Der Spiegel.
>> Spiegel claims that German security authorities suspect that
>> the US National Security Agency (NSA) has 'back door'
>> access to Microsoft source code, and can therefore easily
>> read the Federal Republic's deepest secrets.
>>
>> "The Bundeswehr will no longer use American software ... on
>> computers used in sensitive areas..."
>>
>>
>>
>
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 14:41:30 -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?
Jim Richardson wrote:
>
> On Sun, 11 Mar 2001 13:20:58 -0800,
> Brock Hannibal, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> brought forth the following words...:
>
> >Arthur Frain wrote:
> >
> >> Maybe I'm not an expert in stats, but a .4 correlation
> >> coefficient doesn't seem very impressive to me. Wouldn't
> >> impress a physicist, I'm sure.
> >
> >Let's consider a case of a frequency modulated waveform as used in
> >FM radio. How correlated is the resultant waveform to either the
> >carrier frequency or the frequency of the modulating audio
> >information? It's certainly less than 1, wouldn't you say, and yet
> >we are able to almost completely separate the mixed waveforms.
> >
> >It's obvious your understanding of the uses of correlation is
> >extremely lacking.
> >
>
> I don't know from stats, but the example above seems poor in the sense that
> when we demod an FM signal, we allready know the carrier,
No, we use a BFO to discover the carrier. It's called the tuning
process.
> and the mod-scheme,
That's true but not necessary. For instance an FFT of the
undemodulated signal will show the carrier and the other frequency
components around the carrier. These can be filtered out and then
converted back to the time domain.(A use of corrrelation)
> the only unknown is the audio which correlates 1-1 with the modulation. (in
> this sense, correlation would seem to mean has a known, predicable
> relationship.) But I digress from the digression...
That's what correlation, in essence, is used to try to discover,
first wheteher there is a relationship and then whether it is
repeatable and therefore predictable.
> --
> Jim Richardson
> Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
Do you believe in Magic Nose Goblins?
> WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
> Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
Linux has bugs. It just turns out that the Unix type operating
systems are better protected against total system crashes, not
completely immune.
[unix} segmentation fault
--
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
******************************
