Linux-Advocacy Digest #552, Volume #33 Thu, 12 Apr 01 16:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Baseball (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Baseball (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Blame it all on Microsoft (Jerry Coffin)
Re: Blame it all on Microsoft (Chris Morgan)
Re: Communism (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Communism, Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day. (Kurt Lochner)
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: More Microsoft security concerns: Wall Street Journal (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: New virus attacks Linux and MS OS (Fred K Ollinger)
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Blame it all on Microsoft (Craig Kelley)
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Blame it all on Microsoft ("Jonas")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Baseball
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 19:22:22 GMT
Said Anonymous in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 11 Apr 2001 17:07:20
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett) wrote:
[...]
>> No way. It's what makes computing so much fun.
>
>for most people computing is something they endure to get things done.
That's because they're stuck using monopoly crapware.
[...further trolling ignored...]
--
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,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Baseball
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 19:23:43 GMT
Said Anonymous in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 11 Apr 2001 18:01:41
>aaron wrote:
[...]
>> > the fact you list more than one is itself part of the problem
>> > if you catch my meaning.
>>
>> That's something a totalitarian police-state lover would write.
>
>microsoft is not a government you silly boy. [...]
That's not what he said, kid.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: Jerry Coffin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.theory,comp.arch,comp.object
Subject: Re: Blame it all on Microsoft
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 13:25:13 -0600
In article <9b4s0j$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Jerry Coffin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In short, Judge Jackson's comments prove a lot more about Judge
> > Jackson himself than they ever have or will about Microsoft.
>
> Yes, he should have just found Microsoft's counsel guilty of contempt
> of court months earlier.
>
> I suspect if it was anyone but Microsoft he would have.
I'd ask you what you're talking about, but from what you've said,
it's already apparent that YOU don't know.
You don't find somebody guilty of contempt of court, you place them
in contempt of court. If you're claiming that somebody lied under
oath, that's not a reason for contempt of court; it's a reason for
them to be charged with perjury. It would be a whole separate trial,
and if they were found guilty, they would quite possibly be sent to
prison.
In any case, the facts so far speak for themselves: every decision
Judge Jackson has made about Microsoft has been appealed. Under
appeal, it's been found that his decisions were at least partly
wrong, so all of them have been reversed in whole or in part. He's
made it quite clear that FAR from being impartial on the subject of
Microsoft, that he's strongly biased against them. The appeals court
has consistently had to straighten out the complete mess he's made of
every case he's heard related to Microsoft, and every indication is
that his decision in this one won't stand either.
Of course they didn't comment on whether his comments were correct or
not: doing so would be just as bad as the comments he made, and it's
quite apparent that the judges on the appeals court know attempt to
DO their duty, rather than making public comments on things they
clearly know they shouldn't. Nonetheless, they've basically made as
harsh of comments about him as they're allowed to without violating
their own duty.
--
Later,
Jerry.
The Universe is a figment of its own imagination.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.theory,comp.arch,comp.object
Subject: Re: Blame it all on Microsoft
From: Chris Morgan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 12 Apr 2001 15:26:39 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Douglas Siebert) writes:
> Even today, I'm sure a majority of corporate desktops are Windows 95 or
> 98.
My limited experience contradicts this - it's more often Windows NT in
our support calls - so could you back this up, I'm interested, perhaps
our customers are unusual. Thanks
Chris
--
Chris Morgan <cm at mihalis dot net>
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Communism
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 19:28:29 GMT
Said Aaron R. Kulkis in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 10 Apr 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>> Said Aaron R. Kulkis in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 07 Apr 2001
>> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>> >> 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.
>> >
>> >that was pretty funny
>>
>> Fuck off.
>
>Ha!
Fuck off.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: Kurt Lochner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles,alt.society.liberalism,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Communism, Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day.
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 14:27:57 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The Disengenuous Fraud, Robertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> sniveled at:
>
> silverback wrote:
> >
> >Fraud, Robertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> whined again when:
> > >
> > > silverback wrote:
> > >>
> > >>Sam A. Kersh wrote:
> > >
> > ><snip>
> > >
> > >> >I've come to the conclusion based on silverback's posts over the
> > >> >last year that he is a closet communist. He touts "welfare" aka
> > >> >redistribution of wealth through "progressive taxation."
> > >>
> > >> sorry progressive taxation is not redistribution
> > >
> > >Poor Glen doesn't know whether he's a Fascist (e.g., the state take-over
> > >of the California electricity industry) or a Communist (everything else)!
> >
> > too bad [Disengenuous Fraud] I'm neither I'm a liberal.
>
>And just what are you 'liberating', [..]
The Usenet, of fools such as yourself, Disengenuous Fraud..
> > >But, that's the problem with labels; a Bloody Collectivist like Glen will
> > >twist and contort himself a million different ways in order to disguise
> > >the liberty-destroying nature of his politics.
> >
> > allowing corporations to price gouge consumers has nothing to do with
> > being a collectivist [Disengenuous Fraud].
>
>The key is competition, Glen. That's what laissez-faire capitalism is
>all about, you see; without government regulations preventing some new
>company from competing, entrepreneurs have an incentive to innovate [..]
And when the corporations practically own our means of 'self-governance'?
The fact is, Fraud, that the utilities lobby actively to make the
'regulations' to their own liking, hardly the "laissez-faire capitalism"
that you pretend it is.. Does the term "robber-baron" mean anything
to you at all, or did your 'home-school' forget to mention that period
in the history of the United States?
> > In fact the real collectivist are the fucking corporations that are
> > bleeding the people.
>
>No corporation tells me to put down a 10X 'scope probe and pick up a
>shovel to dig a canal, or dig potatoes out of the fields. I'm free to
>do what I want, as long as idiotic government regulations aren't out
>to deprive me of my freedom (or electricity!).
You can't have it both ways, Disengenuous Fraud..
--More of your squirming double-standards are self-evident, per usual..
------------------------------
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: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 19:30:31 GMT
Said Chad Everett in alt.destroy.microsoft on 10 Apr 2001 11:08:25
>On 10 Apr 2001 16:07:14 GMT, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>Well, I have these young good looks, but that's about it between
>>me and youth.
>>
>>You, on the other hand, are illiterate. I would be ashamed to post
>>in a public forum if I had such poor reading and writing skills.
>>
>
>I would be ashamed to post in a public forum if I were you. Your
>reasoning and logic skills are extremely poor. It's easy to
>make mistakes in spelling and grammer when posting. It is much
>harder to make your idiotic arguments and deductions unless you
>really, truly are an idiotic moron.
>
>It is a fact of nature that when people have lost their debates and
>their arguments, they always change the subject by criticising
>things like reading and writing. It's obvious (to all except you,
>of course) that you have lost the argument, big time.
I would have to disagree with your assessment, Chad. It seems to me
that Roberto was handling Roger AIRBORN! and billh pretty easily, until
they started cheesing out.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: More Microsoft security concerns: Wall Street Journal
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 19:30:31 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Aaron R. Kulkis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Wed, 11 Apr 2001 23:33:26 -0400
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Jan Johanson wrote:
[snip]
>> nslookup? I use a GUI 3rd party tool on the RARE occasion I need it
>
>Maybe YOU don't run it from the command line, but EVERY web browser
>relies upon it.
Not quite.
nslookup is a diagnostic tool; it and the webbrowser are in essence
cousins, not mother-daughter. The real dependency is on the C library
(or other libraries, in some older operating systems; libsocket.so
comes to mind) and routines therein such as gethostbyname().
JJ's 3rd-party lookup tool most likely has similar calls. Removal of
nslookup (or nslookup.exe) might impede one's diagnostic abilities,
but not the abiliity for the web browser and tools such as ftp
or telnet to function. Removal of the library, of course, will
break the system.
>
>So does telnet, and anything else that uses alphabetic Internet addresses.
Ditto.
>
>Hope that helps, MORON
>
>> rcp and rsh? never need it.
>
>Try removing them from your system, and see how functional your networked
>apps do.
I would suggest they be removed in any event, myself; scp and ssh are
more capable and more secure replacements. Ditto for telnet and telnetd,
unless the newer version of telnetd can force telnet to use encryption
for passwords -- I don't know, but Debian has a telnet package that
hints at "secure telnet" possibilities.
>
>
>> FTP? command line? this is the 20th century, that shit was
>> old in the 80s...
>
>"The only reason I have seen so far is because I am standing on the shoulder
>of giants."
> -- Albert Einstein.
Indeed; one has to crawl before one can walk.
>
>
>FTP is a foundation-level building block which is used by almost
>every network app you use.
I do wonder what's done under the covers with those magical IE downloads
(the idea being that one downloads a downloader, then executes it,
essentially).
[rest snipped]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 6d:13h:14m actually running Linux.
This space for rent.
------------------------------
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: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 19:31:34 GMT
Said Det2 in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 12 Apr 2001 04:54:04 GMT;
>On 10 Apr 2001 16:37:39 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>(Roberto Alsina) wrote:
>
>>Or in the previous post to which I replied, the argument seemed to be
>>"I am an army" and "you are a twit", hardly matters worth debating.
>>
>
>Damn it, if you are going to quote me get it
>right.
>
>I said "I am an Army of One"
>
>You did get the "you are a twit" part right.
>
>>Perhaps something is disturbing you so much that you imagine I was
>>replying to a semi-rational post. I was not, and I replied in the
>>same terms.
>
>
>Little that you have posted is rational, why
>should we treat you as such..
Because it is reasonable, and makes more sense than what you claim is
rational.
--
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: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 19:33:26 GMT
Said Aaron R. Kulkis in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 11 Apr 2001
18:12:41 -0400;
>billh wrote:
>>
>> "Aaron R. Kulkis"
>>
>> > Thank you, for providing me several hours of amusement
>> > by attacking each other....you tools.
>>
>> Your only tools are your "war-hero" self-aggrandizing lies, wannabe.
>
>Tell us again your fairy tale about how the Germans, Japanese,
>North Koreans, Chinese, Viet Cong, and North Vietnamese never
>shot at red-cross emblazoned American medical personnel.
Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha! Oh, Christ! What a couple of children.
--
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: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 19:34:21 GMT
Said Roger Perkins in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 11 Apr 2001 21:01:21
>Roberto, you miss - again - the point. I came back out of my concern
for
>you. Your obvious naiveté and lack of understanding for complex issues
>worries me. I hope to explain some of how the world works to you but it's
>just difficult to get you to grasp the point. Not to mention the fact that
>you have no desire to learn.
>
>Sorry, son. You are just becoming another dumb ass on the net.
Got your ass kicked, but don't want to admit it, huh, Roger?
--
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: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 19:38:40 GMT
Said chrisv in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 12 Apr 2001 12:58:11 GMT;
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina) wrote:
>
>>Roger Perkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>Roberto, you miss - again - the point. I came back out of my concern for
>>>you. Your obvious naiveté and lack of understanding for complex issues
>>>worries me. I hope to explain some of how the world works to you but it's
>>>just difficult to get you to grasp the point. Not to mention the fact that
>>>you have no desire to learn.
>>
>>You know, it's amazing how you can insult without actually saying anything.
>>
>>>Sorry, son. You are just becoming another dumb ass on the net.
>>
>>Well, continued exposure to the likes of you surely help the process.
>>Someone that apparently has not learned to post properly after years
>>of usenet experience is noone whose opinion can scratch my ego.
>
>These guys are right, Roberto. The quality of your posts have
>plummeted to the level of "argumentive idiot." You used to do better,
>I think. What happened?
Now this I find very disconcerting. I myself disputed a point or two
which Roberto was using, but that was mostly trivial quibbling, the fine
edges of the political argument. As for the meat of the matter, the
ethical justification for war (or lack thereof), I've seldom seen
Roberto be more concise and correct. Not to mention relatively civil
and sober; certainly not the defensiveness and flaming that the Proud
Soldiers were using.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Fred K Ollinger)
Subject: Re: New virus attacks Linux and MS OS
Date: 12 Apr 2001 19:39:42 GMT
[snipped stuff I'm not replying to]
: by the way, how do you become non-root in the typical Winblows desktop machine
Install linux.
Fred
[snipped stuff I'm not replying to]
------------------------------
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: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 19:40:03 GMT
Said Det2 in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 12 Apr 2001 04:53:57 GMT;
>On 10 Apr 2001 14:47:05 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>(Roberto Alsina) wrote:
[...]
>>>I am too, I am an "Army of One"
>>
>>So, you are not a person? What a daring confession!
>>
>>>You on the other hand are a twit.
>>
>>Well, I can't feel insulted by someone who says he is not a person.
>>I will just assume it's a side effect of the personality disorder.
>
>Which dis-dis-dis-dis-order ?
>
>Havn't seen the ads, have you...
Roberto's in Argentina, dude. Not that the attempt at a humorous
category error wasn't pretty weak, either way.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.theory,comp.arch,comp.object
Subject: Re: Blame it all on Microsoft
Date: 12 Apr 2001 13:40:21 -0600
Jerry Coffin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> says...
>
> [ ... ]
>
> > You needn't walk over all objects; only those that are candidates for
> > losing scope; as soon as scope changes you only need to check those
> > that are visible in the current scope; the same applies with
> > intentional reference death, you only need to check the current
> > reference and it's children. Yes, this does mean you could have to
> > walk over all objects -- but more often it doesn't mean anything of
> > the sort.
>
> True, but more or less irrelevant -- my point was that with (at least
> most) GC systems, the time taken is related to the number living
> objects, and generally a linear function. Using X as the number of
> living objects, looking through .1 percent of the living objects is
> obviously a lot faster than looking through all of them, but O(.001X)
> is still identical to O(X). By contrast, with most manual systems,
> we don't have any function of X at all -- we have a function of a
> totally separate Y, which is the number of objects that have been
> freed. IOW, we're trying to compare O(X) to O(Y), which is clearly
> impossible without knowing something (quite a bit usually) about the
> relationship between X and Y.
Yes, and you can construct bad trees that require exponential time to
search -- in reality it rarely happens [/me sticks his neck out on
that assertation]. If you view a program as a tree of objects,
stemming from the root object, you would end up with a tree and not a
list, albeit with circular references. Searching for the collectable
objects would be a very small list of tree nodes that could possibly
have expired, plus the _tree_ function dominating the rest of the
algorithm.
[aside: when I say 'references' I don't mean to imply reference
counting]
> > [i slipped up and used the term 'object' when i wanted to keep it
> > generic; but it seems appropriate]
>
> In this sort of discussion, I generally use "object" in roughly the
> way the C standard does -- basically just a piece of memory. Whether
> what's stored in it is an instance of a class is basically
> irrelevant; of course, when you're chasing pointers to find live
> objects, it become relevant that you can identify pointers, but's
> about it...
>
> > Probably true, but we heard the same things about high-level (and 4GL)
> > languages back in the 80s and early 90s. People avoided C like the
> > plauge because it was so slow at certain things; it could never be as
> > fast has hand-crafted assembly. Today, it's difficult to beat the
> > compiler with your own assembly code
>
> Actually, no it's not, at least in my experience. Both I, and quite
> a few other denizens of comp.lang.asm.x86 routinely beat the best
> compilers on the market with relative ease. It's often hard to
> justify bothering, but usually fairly easy to do when there's a
> reason.
You're not the average programmer that I know then. :)
> > -- and now people ususally use it
> > in cases where they don't want the compiler to optimize away some
> > special hardware property that they are accessing.
>
> Hmm...rarely much of an excuse, IMO. "volatile" will handle this at
> least 90% of the time -- the problem there is that most people don't
> know C well enough to know what volatile is or does.
>
> > Memory managment is a mundane task that will eventually be handled
> > automatically every time, in every commonly-used language.
>
> It probably will eventually, but not anytime very soon. There are
> just too many people who simply like feeling in control of things for
> it to happen easily -- after all, Smalltalk's been using it for 25
> years and Lisp for around 40, but Java's the first widely-used
> language to use it for most purposes (though most BASICs have used it
> for the string pool for quite a while).
I think very soon it will happen. Microsoft is throwing their full
weight behind Java^h^h^h^h C#, and they'll drag a bunch of developers
kicking and screaming behind them.
> > I think we're violently agreeing on this issue; I don't see GC as a
> > bad thing in Java 2.0 -- it had some problems with Sun's Java 1.0 JVM
> > to be sure,
>
> Of course -- _I'm_ the only person who can get things perfect the
> first time! <GD&R>
>
> > but those were implementation issues coupled with too much
> > beautiful architecture in the wrong places of the language (when was
> > the last time you saw a garbage man wearing a dinner suit?).
>
> Oddly enough, quite recently. Of course he was taking his wife to
> dinner at the time, not collecting garbage... <G>
:)
--
It won't be long before the CPU is a card in a slot on your ATX videoboard
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
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: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 19:41:54 GMT
Said billh in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 10 Apr 2001 17:00:52 GMT;
>"T. Max Devlin"
>
>> >Read Exodus and Numbers. God instructed the Israelites to wage war and
>kill
>> >entire populations. The quibble is using one verse from scripture to
>state
>> >all killing is wrong, when in fact, use of that one verse of scripture to
>> >support such a position is wrong.
>>
>> That's my point. God's instructions did not contradict this verse,
>> though shalt not murder (kill), because God gets to decide who is human,
>> and anybody the Isrealites want to kill were simply excluded from the
>> definition.
>
>LOL!!! Incredulous. You truly are clueless.
Was that supposed to be a comprehensible argument?
>> The "quibble", as it were, is your misconception that this single
>> statement is the entirety of the argument for taking an anti-war
>> position. It was merely the refutation of a single point of your
>> pro-war position. Deal with it.
>
>No, a true quible is your statement above regarding who is and who isn't
>human.
Not mine; God's. Or so the people who are killing other humans but
somehow not committing "murder" tell us. People have justified slavery
the same way. And then, of course, there was.... Hitler.
--
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: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 19:43:38 GMT
Said Roberto Alsina in alt.destroy.microsoft on 10 Apr 2001 17:15:01
>billh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>"T. Max Devlin"
[...]
>How about this: "thou shall not kill" is a commandment from god unto
>humans. Those commandments are intended to affect the behaviour of free
>willing humans[1].However, god is not bound by that commandment,
>and humans lacking free will are not bound by that commandment.
>
>God has been known to regret his acts in the past[2], so god could
>possibly be repealing, either for a period of time or permanently,
>his previous order (the commandments). However, if we accept
>that gos is ordering him to kill, he can not possibly be giving him
>a false order, because god doesn't lie.
Don't try to confuse him with all your fancy philosophical thinking,
Roberto. You know what happens when people can't keep up with someone's
philosophical thinking. They kill him.
[...]
--
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: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 19:44:19 GMT
Said billh in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 10 Apr 2001 22:55:01 GMT;
>"Roberto Alsina"
[...]
>The truer translation is "You shall not murder". We've been through this.
I thought it was "you shall not slay." How do you know which it is?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: "Jonas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.theory,comp.arch,comp.object
Subject: Re: Blame it all on Microsoft
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 19:44:20 GMT
> Java and C++ are very similar languages. What you are complaining about
> is the difference between whether the code is compiled into a binary or
> whether it is compiled to "byte-code" and "interpreted" at run time.
> If you compile Java code to machine code executables the way you
> do with your C++ code the preformance issues end up becoming equal.
> It's the JVM you're complaining about, not the language.
A few years (?) ago Java imposed allocation of memory according to it's own
internal system (read that in a user newsgroup and that was ONE of my main
reason to skip that product) leaving the end user in a non flexible state
concerning dynamic memory allocation ? Is all memory management techniques
now obsolete. I don't think so.
> Borland makes grep IDEs...much better than MS Visual Studio that's for
darn
> sure. Borland compilers are much superior to Microsoft's.
>
I've worked with the Borland IDE for a time and it's easy to crash just move
one of the files in the project tree and it's no longer accessible. 'Right
click help' on messages in message window is missing.
Borland only partially SUPPORT MS SPECIFICS IN THE IDE. The rest (whatever
that is) you've to find out yourself.
The breakpoint options functionality is highly in a state of 'false' and
'true' at the same time. It simply doesn't do what you tell it to do. Some
breakpoints even come up invalid. Well, if they are invalid why were they
permitted to be entered at all.
Ever tried to use the evaluate window. Sometimes it has just optimized away
things (variables) you wanna check.
Some times you save custom defaults in the IDE and when restarted they are
defaulted to system values.
Also I heard the latest Borland compiler 5.2 only works in command line
execution. Please, this ISN'T IDE FUNCTIONALITY.
Also the compiler (5.0) tend to crash if you frequently recompile, build,
make projects. You can stress this IDE to a crash easily. Just increase the
speed you interact with the IDE. Also the restart of a crashed IDE isn't
gonna do it. It will force you to restart your computer, because the
compiler somehow has entered an instable state, whatever that is, no longer
operating (compiling).
Also the use of the Rouge Wave... STL is no good. Never got the <map> to
work properly. DinkumWare STL is better. It provides you with the
functionality you wan't.
OWL stinks. BDE stinks (no longer at use.. I think.). The Inprise DB is
expensive if you wan't to go Borland all the way. Okay, it has a small
footprint. I rather write my own simple database management system instead
of using Inprise's DB.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
