Linux-Advocacy Digest #436, Volume #33 Sat, 7 Apr 01 17:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: gates messiah (Anonymous)
Re: Why does Open Source exist, and what way is it developing? (Salvador Peralta)
Re: Communism (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Communism (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Communism (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Communism (T. Max Devlin)
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) ("Roger Perkins")
Re: Communism (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Communism (T. Max Devlin)
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) ("Roger Perkins")
Re: Microsoft abandoning USB? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Q:Windows NT scripting? (Donn Miller)
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Hey, JS PL was Re: Microsoft abandoning USB? (Bob Hauck)
Re: Hey, JS PL was Re: Microsoft abandoning USB? (Bob Hauck)
Re: Entry-level *ix positions?? (Bob Hauck)
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 13:26:11 -0600
From: Anonymous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: gates messiah
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,soc.singles
matt wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Mar 2001 23:07:30 GMT, Dark Angel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> :In soc.singles Anonymous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> :| that weird monkey guy who isn't stebe:
> :|> Dark Angel ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> :|>
> :|> : Your archnemisis, Steve Chaney, seems to have had no trouble learning
> :|> : to use unix. Guess you're finally conceding that Chaney's smarter
> :|> : than you....
> :|>
> :|> And Jackie Pokemon didn't need a recount to realise it's time to concede.
> :
> :| do you speak japanese?
> :| if not
> :| does that make you dumber than someone who can?
> :| jackie 'anakin' tokeman
> :
> :Depends, if he put equal effort into learning Japanese and failed
> :as the other person did and succeeded, then yes.
>
> % man anakin
>
> NAME
>
> anakin - (Yet Another) Dark Lord of the Sith
>
> SYNOPSIS
> anakin [OPTIONS] [IMPERIAL_CODE]
>
> USAGE
>
> % anakin 402
> Your misery is my dance
>
> % anakin --help
> The fact that 'anakin' does not run under Unix may be a bug, but
> the executable considers it a feature.
>
> % anakin 267
> p r e c i s e l y
>
> OPTIONS
>
> -t sniggla Specify the designated target.
>
> --mt deathstar
> Specify a more military target.
>
> --gthw play Global Thermonuclear Hypocrisy War
>
> AUTHOR
>
> Shmi Skywalker, apparently.
qui gonn speculates that i may have been fathered directly by the
midichlorians
whatever the fuck that means
> BUGS
>
> Does not know the language of binary load lifters.
>
> WARNINGS
>
> Refuses to mount excessively large filesystems.
>
> May attempt 'kill -SOUL' on any PID at any time, even the
> calling process. (in that event see 'anakin 666')
i think i only got aboot 40% of that
but it was still pretty funny
jackie 'anakin' tokeman
men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth - more than ruin,
more even than death
- bertrand russell
------------------------------
From: Salvador Peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why does Open Source exist, and what way is it developing?
Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 12:57:28 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Goldhammer quoth:
> On Sat, 7 Apr 2001 10:33:47 -0700,
> Salvador Peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>>What you have shown is that it's pretty easy to decontextualize and
>>misreperesent, or outright contrive statements by three of the most
>>influential thinkers of the 19th century in a flippant way and make
>>yourself look like an arrogant boob in the process.
>
>
> That's odd. I didn't present any "statements"
> by Marx or Freud,
I stand corrected. You flippantly dismissed 4 of the 19th century's
most influential thinkers and it appears that I was overgenerous in
my interpretation of how you did it. You didn't even attempt to
contrive or misrepresent a statement before flippantly dismissing
either Marx or Freud. But you did of Nietszche. And in that case it
was contrived. Why not throw in Jung or Kierkegaard and go for a
quinella?
Perhaps you prefer the criticism: "A mouse nipping at the heels of
giants"? Again, it is easy to decontextualize, misrepresent, and
contrive positions. Easier still to say "Genius? Balderdash." More
difficult to show that you actually understand any of their works
well enough to offer a legitimate deconstruction or otherwise defend
your assertions with something other than the few decontextualized
references to one of Darwin's works.
As for Darwin's sloppy method... every single paragraph cites
references in the literature available to him at the time... all in
all a good sight less sloppy in that regard than your
decontextualized critique of aspects of the work.
--
Salvador Peralta -o)
Programmer/Analyst, Webmaster / \
[EMAIL PROTECTED] _\_v
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army
Subject: Re: Communism
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2001 19:53:11 GMT
Said Roger Perkins in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 5 Apr 2001 21:17:27
>Well, Max, I am not signing my posts to please or impress you so get over
>that. It's for me. And caps in a sig is not yelling.
>
>Roger
>AIRBORNE!
Guffaw.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army
Subject: Re: Communism
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2001 19:53:10 GMT
Said Roger Perkins in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 5 Apr 2001 21:18:13
>And there you go! You finally figured him out.
>
>Roger
>AIRBORNE!
Fuck off.
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Aaron R. Kulkis in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 04 Apr 2001
>> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Said Aaron R. Kulkis in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 04 Apr 2001
>> >> >Roger Perkins wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Rogerto, most people don't even know what the International is, much
>less
>> >> > ^^^^^^^
>> >> >
>> >> >You're losing it, Roger...REALLY REALLY fucking losing it.
>> >>
>> >> If you have to shout, Aaron, it must be because you're lying.
>> >
>> >Does the word "emphasis" mean anything to you, Max?
>>
>> Seriously, Aaron, you know I wouldn't steer you wrong. The emphasis
>> needs to be in your diction, not your typography or volume. People stop
>> listening REAL quick, unless you use such tricks extremely rarely.
>>
>> Do you see what I mean? When you have "fucking" in the sentence,
>> putting anything else in capitals just makes you look like a complete
>> fucking moron.
>>
>> Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
>>
>> --
>> T. Max Devlin
>> *** The best way to convince another is
>> to state your case moderately and
>> accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
>
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Communism
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2001 20:05:01 GMT
Said Roger Perkins in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 5 Apr 2001 21:23:15
>Again you assume your opinion has weight. It does not. Neither does mine.
>The individual has no position under international law, whether you like it
>or not. We are at odds because you either do not understand international
>relations or you don't agree with the reality of them. It's nice to be an
>idealist but not when it conflicts with realism.
Boy, you are regressive, aren't you? You've never heard of the
International Declaration of Human Rights? Welcome to the real world,
where your "fatalistic idealism" is revealed as the ignorant bigotry
which it is.
>Example. Suppose we needed a presence in the Middle East in order to
>project our power there as a means of maintaining stability between India
>and Pakistan.
Why would "we" need any such thing?
>The fact that there is no democracy in the area and that the
>states that are there do not treat women as we do has nothing to do with it.
No, but that has a great deal to do with what we could ethically do
about whatever international intrigue you're imagining, because
supporting such a country is not in the interests of the US.
>We would do what was necessary to get a foot in the door. Which is exactly
>what we did. Your assumption that the rest of the world needs to mimic the
>US is part of what makes other states dislike us.
I do not believe they need to mimic the US. They do need, in a true and
absolute fashion, whether your little mind has been taught to understand
it or not, to mimic the same thing the US is mimicking: justice and
liberty for all humans. If they do not, they are doomed. It is not an
iconoclastic battle. It is the nature of the human animal, and the only
ethical justification for government.
>We think our way is the
>only way. And it is not. Acceptance of other cultures is a big part of SF
>training.
No, *you* think your way is the only way. I think there are many ways,
but that doesn't prevent some from being more correct than others.
Acceptance of other cultures doesn't have a damn thing to do with it:
the people in those cultures want and deserve dignity and liberty as
much as any human. I don't know what "SF training" is, but it seems to
me that whatever "training" you have had has left you with the "science
fiction" mentality of the uber-liberal, where cultural relativism holds
sway unjustifiably. You will certainly find, if you bother to mar your
a priori assumptions with the nasty details of observation, that while
humans in other cultures disagree (often strongly) with the optimum
method of enabling and supporting (or some say creating) human dignity,
liberty, and rights, all of them universally (yes, even the commies)
believe in the goal. Communists believe that, placed in a
'post-revolution' socialist state, human dignity and liberty will be so
automatic that no talk of "rights" should be necessary. This was the
flaw in Marx's philosophy, of course, the idea that this revolution can
be considered a temporal, physical event, resulting in a "steady state"
which is somehow not gradually approachable.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Communism
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2001 20:07:07 GMT
Said Roger Perkins in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 6 Apr 2001 19:53:27
>Well, Roberto, you obviously aren't seeking intelligent conversation but
>want to show your ass. So you are dismissed. [...]
Guffaw.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: "Roger Perkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 14:10:57 -0700
Gee, Roberto, when did I claim to be in the military? Like Bill and I said,
you jump to conclusion, usually too fast and usually incorrect. I am
retired Army, not active. And my politics are my own business. I was
discussing the field of international relations. YOU were trying to make it
into politics.
You should take this little session to heart and think before you open your
mouth.
Roger
AIRBORNE!
"Roberto Alsina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> billh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >"Roberto Alsina"
> >
> >> Erm. Excuse me, but I am not the one who sees no wrong in everything my
> >> country has done in the past, that would be you. Strangely enough, I
see
> >> that some men in my country were pricks. Those men's speeches were a
lot
> >> like yours. Those men's politics were a lot like yours. Those men's
> >> love of guns was a lot like yours.
> >
> >LOL!!! You are a riot. You have no idea about Roger's politics or about
> >his stand on guns. The truth might just surprise you. You assume much
too
> >much.
>
> His politics are obvious from his posts. He claims to be in the army.
> Do you know many men who hate guns and join the army?
>
> >> Those men went to an academy sponsored by your employer.
> >
> >LOL!!! You don't even know who Roger's employer is. Again you assume
too
> >much.
>
> IIRC, he claims to be in the US armed forces? I may be confusing him with
> someone else, though.
>
> >> I see a connection. Apparently you don't.
> >
> >You see little. You assume much.
>
> Could be.
>
> --
> Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Communism
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2001 20:12:21 GMT
Said Roger Perkins in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 5 Apr 2001 21:27:10
>Ignoring aarons useless comments, I am not rationalizing anything. We have
>a nationalist policy but that doesn't impact on our international policies.
Then it is obviously disfunctional and incorrect, one way or the other.
>Look up the word before you use it and you won't look foolish. This is a
>basic principal of international relations. Your position is that we only
>deal with those nations who think like we do. That would have us ignoring
>the bulk of the world, which isn't an option.
No, my position is not that we "only deal with those nations who think
like we do." Your understanding of international diplomacy and
relations is provincial and simplistic. The United States of America,
as a government, as a people, and as a party to the International
Declaration of Human Rights, has a moral, ethical, *and legal*
responsibility not to support dictators who oppress their citizens.
Whether we "deal with" them is a senseless approximation, as this isn't
a matter of blanket statements, but individual acts. We should not
support or defend them.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Communism
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2001 20:12:43 GMT
Said Roger Perkins in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 5 Apr 2001 21:30:29
>If you are going to throw words around incorrectly [...]
Learn how to post, Roger. Until you do, I'm through with you.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: "Roger Perkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 14:12:46 -0700
That's reality, Roberto. Not opinion. My graduate degree is in
International Relations so I am familiar with this field. You bring up
generalities and expect specifics in return. Just because you don't like my
answers doesn't make them incorrect.
Roger
AIRBORNE!
"Roberto Alsina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Roger Perkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >You seem to want to jump to conclusions, Roberto. I didn't say my
country
> >wasn't wrong in some things.
>
> Yet whenever something wrong your country did is brought up, you
> sidestep it with "war is legal" and "that was in the benefit of
> the US".
>
> >That is a conclusion you jumped to.
>
> Actually, that's a conclusion I reach from reading your posts.
>
> > And, as I stated in an earlier post, you are getting boring and
> > childish so this is the end of our discussion since you seem
> > determined to both put words in my mouth and make childish statements
> > as fact.
>
> And you can't even post coherently. So why should I care?
>
> --
> Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft abandoning USB?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2001 20:29:03 GMT
Said Fred K Ollinger in alt.destroy.microsoft on 6 Apr 2001 00:49:13
>JS PL ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
>: "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>: > Shocker. Let me ask you something: how much can an author ethically
>: > charge for something that costs him nothing, and has no functional
>: > value?
>
>: The author can ethically charge whatever he wants, it's the beauty of living
>: in a free society. I realize you wish producers of intellectual property
>
>And if people don't want to then they don't have to pay for it.
That's a little private delusion you've got, predicated on your
inability to properly define the concept "want to", and resulting in an
state of unfalsifiable ignorance.
>: were slaves of the state and must give away their creativity to anyone who
>
>When and where was this? Was this in the south in the US?[...]
I am trying to get in the habit of not responding to purposeful
misrepresentations of my argument, so we'll move on...
>Did Marx say that people have the freedom to think of ideas that they didn't
>pay the first person who paid a lawyer (ie copywrote or patented it).
Your statement is gibberish; perhaps if you rephrased it, I could clear
up your confusion.
>I think the real question that has never been answered by IP buffs is
>when I buy a cd, what am I buying?
I have answered that clearly and consistently: You are buying a copy of
someone else's intellectual property as a physical object. The *real*
question is: is copying the physical object the same as copying the
intellectual property?
Bear in mind, though, that intellectual property is not a metaphysical
substance. It is an assignment of rights of authorship (the ability to
profit on the work.)
Skipping ahead, because I have work to do and am trying to minimize my
Usenet time, I will describe the ultimate results of this analysis. If
you disagree with them, you do not properly understand the analysis, and
should ask questions, rather than try to attack the results as some form
of heresy against the metaphysical properties of IP. Normally I would
drag this out over three or four posts, to try to lead you along. But
like I said, I need to stop spending so much time doing that. So here's
the results:
It is only a violation of copyright if, in copying the work, you attempt
to modify the right of authorship. In other words, if you charge for
it, or claim that it is your work (the same thing, according to the
analytical understanding of copyright), then you've violated copyright.
But *none* of the actions listed in the Copyright Law as "exclusive
rights of the author" could possibly be in violation of copyright,
unless they do, in fact, attempt to usurp the exclusive rights of the
author. And profiteering is not one of those rights.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2001 16:33:50 -0400
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Q:Windows NT scripting?
"Stephen S. Edwards II" wrote:
> OS/2 and UNIX operating systems don't have a
> GDI either. The GDI is a Windows implementation.
Isn't Xlib (libX11) the unix equivalent of GDI32? For example,
XCopyArea() is the Xlib equivalent of the GDI function BitBlt(),
XCreateWindow() (Xlib) is analogous to CreateWindow() (GDI), etc. etc.
So yes, unix has a GDI also. It's just called libX11 and not GDI. 8-/
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2001 20:43:32 GMT
Said Roberto Alsina in alt.destroy.microsoft on 5 Apr 2001 23:32:15 GMT;
>On Thu, 05 Apr 2001 23:24:14 GMT, T. Max Devlin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
>>>And if I killed someone, I would hate myself for it.
>>
>>There comes a point, I think, where you are simply telling yourself this
>>in order to justify your moral perspective. You would like to think you
>>would "hate yourself" if you killed someone. Whether you would or not
>>remains to be seen, and so your contention becomes an unfalsifiable
>>claim, unless you actually kill someone to find out. (I'm not
>>recommending any moralistic experiments here, but I hope you'll see my
>>point.)
>
>Ok, I _should_ hate myself for that.
Bravo.
>>But you should be aware, Roberto, not that I don't admire your
>>sentiments and believe them to be Right, your belief is quite possibly
>>just self-delusion. Seems odd, doesn't it, since whether it is or is
>>not is meaningless, unless you kill someone? A rather effective
>>mechanism, this morality thing, eh?
>
>Actually, I think there is a moral difference between those
>who believe killing is wrong and those who just don't dare
>killing. That's in the bible, too, if you are into that.
Certainly not for any moral guidance. Your statement (the moral
distinction) is comprehensible, Roberto, and I would say it is true but
for the fact that I'm aware that other people use a slightly different
connotation of the word "moral" than I do. To me, "moral" is just what
goes on inside your head to justify your preferences. So you have, in
fact, described a moral difference. But this is, in my philosophy,
separate from the "ethical" issues, which do not make any reference to
"morality", but are based entirely on ethical principles, directly. And
so in this case, I think what you meant to say was that there is an
ethical difference between those who believe killing is wrong and those
who just don't dare killing. I think that is incorrect; why you act
ethically may be different, you have different morals, but so long as
the results are the same, you cannot say that there is an 'unethical'
reason to avoid killing. In considering the process rationally, it
seems not only possible but probable that to say "killing is wrong" is
merely shorthand for "I am afraid of the ultimate results of killing,
and so believe we should not dare kill."
And you agreed with that point, I think, when you recognized that
whether you *would* hate yourself for killing is not the issue, but
whether you *should*. You are just externalizing your morality ("I
don't dare" becomes "it is wrong"). Again I must point out that I
believe it is the correct thing to do, in just this way. But I thought
pointing out these subtleties might prove entertaining.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: Bob Hauck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Hey, JS PL was Re: Microsoft abandoning USB?
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Reply-To: bobh = haucks.org <>
Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2001 20:43:48 GMT
JS PL wrote:
> "Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> He's confused. They offered ISP's various incentives if they gave IE
>> to 75% of their users, but server software wasn't part of that.
>> They did also sent out lots of free "trial versions" of NT server
>> There are laws on the books against "dumping" in order to drive your
>> competition out of business. Which was exactly what MS was trying to
>> do to Netscape.
>
> Nothing you have described is illegal. They can send out as many trial
> versions as they like. In case you haven't noticed, that happens alot
> in the software industry.
I see you decided not to respond to any of the rest of it.
In any case, all of this was brought into the trial not because it was
illegal per se, but to demonstrate an intent to monopolize. MS spent
millions of dollars on various programs to support IE, a product that
they were giving away for free. The reason they were doing this was to
protect their desktop OS monopoly.
Anyway, all I was trying to do was point out that the OP was confused
between two separate issues...the free stuff surrounding IE and the NT
server promotions that MS was doing at about the same time.
> That's NOT what "dumping" is. Dumping is selling goods abroad for less
> than you charge in your domestic market.
What do you call it then when, say, a national chain store sells below
cost in order to drive the local competitors out of business so they
can gouge the people later? Standard Oil used to do this thing where
they would go to a merchant and say "sell our kerosene exclusively or
we will open up a competing store across the street". What's that
called, and do you think it ought to be legal?
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: Bob Hauck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Hey, JS PL was Re: Microsoft abandoning USB?
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Reply-To: bobh = haucks.org <>
Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2001 20:43:50 GMT
Ayende Rahien wrote:
> "Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> He's confused. They offered ISP's various incentives if they gave IE
>> to 75% of their users, but server software wasn't part of that.
> The customiztion kit wasn't only for ISPs, it could (still can? didn't
> checked it) by anyone.
Now it can. They eventually dropped the special deals and just started
giving it away. But early on they tried to use the customization kit
as a lever to get ISP's to drop Netscape.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: Bob Hauck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Entry-level *ix positions??
Reply-To: bobh = haucks.org <>
Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2001 20:43:57 GMT
On Saturday 07 April 2001 00:32, Chad Everett
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The point is that all this is doable and reading news logged into a
> home server is prefectly comfortable with a dial-in connection to
> a home system that has a link to a newsserver.
Sure, it is all doable. But Aaron isn't doing it.
> To help make my point: I have added the additional header lines that
> you have included in your post.
I usually use slrn too (I'm trying out KNode today) and a while back I
did the same trick. I made mine say something about Aaron. Trivial,
really. I can't think of a good reason to do this for "security"
though, as Aaron claims. Even the entertainment value wears off fast.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2001 20:44:44 GMT
Said Chad Everett in alt.destroy.microsoft on 6 Apr 2001 15:23:45 -0500;
>
>Today on the comp.os.linux.advocacy group we will be discussing
>the moral and ethical questions of killing, communism, biblical
>interpretation, and the art of personal insults. At the conclusion
>of these discussions we will have a much better feel for the merits
>of Linux.
If that weren't true, I suppose it would be pretty funny. :-D
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2001 20:48:15 GMT
Said billh in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 05 Apr 2001 23:46:22 GMT;
>"T. Max Devlin"
>
>> Well, the Catholics say that its "thou shalt not kill". The "commit
>> murder" phrasing is *definitely* revisionist.
>
>"*Definitely* revisionist", huh? LOL!!!
>
>Do you know what it is in the original hebrew in which it was written. Is
>it "kill" or is it "murder"? It is "murder".
Yes, 'murder' which allowed for the death and torture of anyone except
the head of a household. To call that 'murder' is quibbling.
>The hebrew is "xcr" ( phoneticlly raw-tsakh) which means to "murder",
>"slay", "assassinate".
So "though shalt not assassinate" means murder is wrong but killing is
OK? "Though shalt not slay" means the same thing? Sounds more to me
like it isn't so much murder as killing of a human (as opposed to
killing a calf, which obviously isn't going to fly in the Old
Testament.) Which is to say, it says "though shalt not kill", as
indicated, despite this linguistic quibbling that you use to try to
justify war.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
