Linux-Advocacy Digest #669, Volume #33 Tue, 17 Apr 01 16:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Am I ****? HP Photosmart C500 and Win 2000 ("Dreamspinner3")
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (Roberto Alsina)
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (jim dutton)
Re: Am I fucked? HP Photosmart C500 and Win 2000 ("Nolan Beukema")
Re: This is a fucking miracle! CD-R Follow up story ("Edward Rosten")
Re: File Transfer by Null Modem Cord HOWTO ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Pete Goodwin is in good company ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Am I ****? HP Photosmart C500 and Win 2000 ("Nolan Beukema")
Re: Communism, Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day. (Scott Erb)
Re: Am I ****? HP Photosmart C500 and Win 2000 ("Dreamspinner3")
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (Chad Everett)
Re: IA32, was an advocacy rant (Scott Moore)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Dreamspinner3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: rec.photo.digital,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Am I ****? HP Photosmart C500 and Win 2000
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 14:18:41 -0500
Reply-To: "Dreamspinner3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Well said...very well said.
"z0ck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:h10D6.123$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Actually, I chose not to have kids primarily because there are too many
> people in this world already, who, I suspect like you, somehow feel
> compelled to crank out the kids as fast as they possibly can. These same
> people then expect the rest of the world to deal with the fact that they
> have 87 kids by coughing up large sums of money so they can feed their
kids.
> They expect the rest of us to toe the line on what THEY feel is "right" or
> "wrong". They do all that and then hide behind their children with
epithets
> like "Its all about the KIDS!" or "We need to do 'X' for the KIDS!".
> Hogwash. You pumped out the kids, you deal with them. They are your
> problem.
>
> By the way, If you think I lack compassion because I expect people to deal
> with their own problems, particularly when those problems are
> self-inflicted, maybe you should look at yourself and decide if the world
> REALLY needs another kid.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Date: 17 Apr 2001 19:19:00 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Chad Everett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>Now, perhaps you can enlighten me in what "murder" means, when it is
>>>>said to an aramaic tribe around 1300BC (notice the change in date,
>>>>don't bother arguing it).
>>>>
>>>>Unless you can answer that, trying to apply the commandment to today's
>>>>actions is an exercise in stupidity.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Well, your questions seem a bit vague, but I'll try to tell you
>>>what I think:
>>>
>>>I have no idea what the command: "you will not murder" meant to the
>>>aramaic tribes in 2000BC.
>>>
>>>God's commandment: "you will not murder" means the same today as when
>>>it was given. The meaning God intended has not changed.
>>
>>That makes no sense.
>>
>>After all "if the trumpet does not sound a clear call, who will get
>>ready for battle?"
>>
>>>The true meaning and Man's interpretation are different things.
>>
>>Since we can not know the true meaning, the commandment means
>>anything we want?
>
>I never claimed we cannot know the true meaning. I did imply that
>history is full of Man making interpretations that suit their own
>convenience.
I am a man. You are a man.
We only have our interpretations.
How could we have something else?
>>>Moses and the Israelites did commit murder more than once. History is
>>>full of Man blatantly violating God's law. Violation of the law does
>>>not imply there is something wrong with the law.
>>
>>If the law in incomprehensible, there is something wrong with the
>>law. If we don't know what god meant by "murder", how could
>>we follow the law?
>>
>
>The law is not incomprehensible. It is just difficult to follow.
>
>I never said we don't know what God meant by "murder". I said I didn't
>know what the aramaic tribes of 2000BC thought it meant.
You also said that men's interpretations and the true meaning
are not the same. How did you reach the true meaning, and how
do you know it's not a man's interpretation?
>>>God never ordered murder, but God did on several occasions command men
>>>to go to war. The numbers 31 account has God ordering war and Moses
>>>ordering murder.
>>>
>>>Is killing as an act of war murder? no
>>
>>How can you tell? You say the meaning of the word murder as used in the
>>commandment is not known, only our interpreatation of it.
>
>I never said that, you did.
You said "men's interpretation and the true meaning are different things".
I simply assumed you were a man.
>>If I interpreted "murder" in the commandment to mean "killing
>>asparagus", I would be free to kill men with a clear conscience.
>
>and you would would be wrong.
Because you know the true meaning god intended, right, and I don't?
>>Just as, apparently, you claim that killing men at war is not
>>murder, because you interpret the commandment not to include
>>acts of war. You are using circular logic.
>
>No, I am not. You are not reading carefully and you are claiming
>that I've said things which I have not.
You said clearly that killing in an act of war is not murder. Did you not?
That is exactly the same as saying that murder does not include killing
in acts of war.
Thus, acts of war don't break the commandment because the commandment's
word "murder" is defined by you as not including acts of war.
Circular reasoning at its best.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (jim dutton)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Date: 17 Apr 2001 19:29:47 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Chad Everett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>Now, perhaps you can enlighten me in what "murder" means, when it is
>>>>>said to an aramaic tribe around 1300BC (notice the change in date,
>>>>>don't bother arguing it).
>>>>>
>>>>>Unless you can answer that, trying to apply the commandment to today's
>>>>>actions is an exercise in stupidity.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Well, your questions seem a bit vague, but I'll try to tell you
>>>>what I think:
>>>>
>>>>I have no idea what the command: "you will not murder" meant to the
>>>>aramaic tribes in 2000BC.
>>>>
>>>>God's commandment: "you will not murder" means the same today as when
>>>>it was given. The meaning God intended has not changed.
>>>
>>>That makes no sense.
>>>
>>>After all "if the trumpet does not sound a clear call, who will get
>>>ready for battle?"
>>>
>>>>The true meaning and Man's interpretation are different things.
>>>
>>>Since we can not know the true meaning, the commandment means
>>>anything we want?
>>
>>I never claimed we cannot know the true meaning. I did imply that
>>history is full of Man making interpretations that suit their own
>>convenience.
>
>I am a man. You are a man.
>We only have our interpretations.
>How could we have something else?
I knew this wanna turn gay.
>Circular reasoning at its best.
Gross.
-Jeem, damn linux users
========================================================================
http://www.ejeem.com Autococker2000/Dye SS
Steatopygias's 'R' Us. doh#0000000005 That ain't no Hottentot.
Sesquipedalian's 'R' Us. ZX-10. DoD#564. tbtw#6. s.s.m#8. There ain't no more
"I don't wish Mark would get raped I'd feel bad for anyone who soiled his dick
in Mark's ass. I wouldn't wish that on even a rapist." - Jet
========================================================================
------------------------------
From: "Nolan Beukema" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: rec.photo.digital,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Am I fucked? HP Photosmart C500 and Win 2000
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 05:10:27 +0930
no you are not****, you just have a limited vocabulary.
I would like to have answered your question for you but I'm afraid that
because of such vocab limitations you would not have understood the
technical specifications of the answer.
"Roberto Alsina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On 17 Apr 2001 14:37:46 GMT, Igor3489 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >I bought an HP Photosmart C500 digital camera. I have Linux and Win2000.
> >
> >Guess what, the stupid camera does not work with Win2000 because HP did
> >not write a driver for it.
> >
> >It appears that the camera supports TWAIN.
> >
> >I have two questions:
> >
> >1) Is there another TWAIN driver/app that would support my camera,
without
> >the need for HP drivers?
>
> TWAIN doesn't make the driver go away, it just puts a layer on top of it.
> So, if I understand it right (I haven't used windows in 5 years or so),
> the answer to that is probably no.
>
> >2) Can I use the camera with linux? That would be preferred as I do use
> >linux much more than win2000.
>
> No. Or at least, it's not listed as supported. However, the C200 C30 and
C20
> are, and maybe the driver will work with the C500 (stranger things happen
;-)
>
> Check out www.gphoto.net
>
> --
> Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: This is a fucking miracle! CD-R Follow up story
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 21:31:36 +0100
> For those who had followed the luser a couple of posts back,
> complaining, no, that is too soft, bitching because he could get his
> CD-R work'in. Well, my experience is contry to his experience, in that
> I only needed to edit to files and run one program, reboot, CD-R is
> ready to roll. Guess how I did it? I read the fucking manual, I know,
> bloody miracle!
I'll use this as an oppertunity to bitch about RatHead 7.0
RH6.2 shipped with a kernel that had the ide-scsi driver compiled as a
module, so getting a CD-R to work was a trivial business. RH7.0, however
have not deemed ide-scsi.o as a worthy module to be shipped with a kernel
and have not bothered, so getting the CD-R working involved a little
recompiling. Grrr.
What the hell is worng with ide-scsi.o? They ship the kernel RPM with
every bloody module under the sun except that one.
Hopefully they can do the 10 minutes extra work and ship with that module in 7.1
-Ed
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.portable,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: File Transfer by Null Modem Cord HOWTO
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 21:33:58 +0100
> If you have a laptop and havn't found out which networking cards to use
> with it, this method can be used in a pinch for cheap file transfer.
> It'll be slow for big tarballs, however.
Try a parallel port (but it might be more work), coz its much faster.
> CAUTION: While the command line mgetty bit works, it works for _one_
> login per running of the command. That means you need some mechanism of
> looping it so when a logout occurs, it's rerun automagically for the
> next person to login with. You get to make a daemon.
>
> Many people accomplish the above with agetty but that has the problem of
> auto-respawning causing stderr messages showing up on the console.
> Since I
> don't know how to stop the respawning, I prefer the mgetty method. The
> man page for mgetty is straightforward for command line arguments to
> run it to transfer files.
Couldn't you use a line in /etc/inittab to get it to respawn?
-Ed
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Pete Goodwin is in good company
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 21:49:56 +0100
>>> Of course it works fine under Windows.
>>
>> Please leave out the 'of course' as Windows does not always work
>> 'fine'.
>
> It does for me.
Well, it doesn't for me.
>> For instance,in both Win95 *and* Win98, Windows is simply not able to
>> find the interrupt settings of my NE 2000 ISA cards. Linux does not
>> need manual intervention here, as Windows does.
>
> Well, stop using ISA and switch to PCI as it works?
Yep, that's right. Now you have shelled out £££ for windows, go and shell
out more £££ to replace perfectly servicable hardware that windows does
not deem fit to run.
I feel great to be off the upgrade bandwagon. I still use a P133, but
since I am not forced to upgrade the bits that work fine (like CPU, RAM)
I can spend money on things that needed upgrading (Moniter, CD-RW). And
it has been more than worth it.
>> Goodwin, your own lack of experience with Linux is what shows.
>
> No, it is Linux + KDE that is the problem. Don't blame me, I'm just a
> messenger.
You lumping all of linux with KDE belies your inexperience.
>> Sure it doesnt have the eye candy of KDE or Gnome, but I use my pc for
>> *work*, not purely entertainment.
>
> And what do you think I use my PC for?
>
> Sure I play games on it, but not all the time.
So? If you don't like KDE, don't use it.
>> Don't use KDE ?
>
> Suddenly the so called choices on Linux start to drop. GNOME is the
> alternative. What happens if I don't like GNOME? Tough, is that it?
Yep. You've got it. Linux+(GNOME | KDE) is all there is. Period. FVWM2
does not exist. It was made up by evil M$-Haters. As was Afterstep and
Windowmaker and GWM and TWM and...
>>> Windows crashes, Windows isn't stable, but I see much worse with KDE.
>> I believe you.
>>
>> KDE *is not* Linux.
>
> Ah here we go again.
Are you trying to tell us that it is?
-Ed
--
I spillced coffcee cincto my kcey boardc.c As a rcesulct, c's gcet
inctermixcced with cwactever I ctypce. Plcease replace mcy kceyboard.
ccthanks.
u 9 8 e j r (at) e c s . o x . a c . u k
------------------------------
From: "Nolan Beukema" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: rec.photo.digital,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Am I ****? HP Photosmart C500 and Win 2000
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 05:24:46 +0930
Dreamspinner obviously does not watch the news much, and has been dreaming
with head in sand. In fact the world does revolve much around the next
generation.
"Dreamspinner3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9bhu2c$8m4uk$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Get real. Not everyone cares to hear about your kids, or what you're
> teaching them. The world does not revolve around your children, or anyone
> else's children for that matter! Again, you're responsible for your kids,
> not us. Deal with it!
>
> "Todd Morrison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:wj_C6.14156$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > It's a good thing you have chosen not to reproduce.
> >
> > Your lack of compassion and responsibility would probably result in your
> > offspring building pipe bombs to get your attention.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
------------------------------
From: Scott Erb <[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: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 15:17:20 -0400
"John A. Stovall" wrote:
> If memory serves me, their support of the Greens started was part of
> their propaganda offensive against the NATO deployment of Pershing
> missiles in Europe.
Yes, in the early eighties the Soviets hoped that the missile policy
would decouple Europe and Germany from the US. Even 70% of Germany's
conservative CDU was opposed to the placement of Pershing and Cruise
missiles to counter Soviet SS-20's (a plan that came from Social
Democrat Helmut Schmidt).
The Greens early on were a collage of ideals, ranging from "red" Greens,
who were radical leftists and had contacts with the Soviets and East
Germans, to more conservative "environmentalists." They were also
extremely anti-NATO and anti-growth.
Little remains from those early Greens. In a fierce struggle in the
late eighties and early ninties the "realos" (realists) won a power
struggle for pragmatic politics, and most of the radicals left the
party. It is now a more left-libertarian pragmatic party focusing on
environmental issues.
cheers, scott
------------------------------
From: "Dreamspinner3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: rec.photo.digital,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Am I ****? HP Photosmart C500 and Win 2000
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 14:58:03 -0500
Reply-To: "Dreamspinner3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
No, it doesn't. Not in my book. It should revolve around making the world
a better place, not pumping out more people! And if I had children, I
wouldn't expect the world or other people to suddenly revolve around them.
"Nolan Beukema" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:Na1D6.3503$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Dreamspinner obviously does not watch the news much, and has been dreaming
> with head in sand. In fact the world does revolve much around the next
> generation.
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 17 Apr 2001 14:48:08 -0500
On 17 Apr 2001 19:19:00 GMT, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Chad Everett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>Now, perhaps you can enlighten me in what "murder" means, when it is
>>>>>said to an aramaic tribe around 1300BC (notice the change in date,
>>>>>don't bother arguing it).
>>>>>
>>>>>Unless you can answer that, trying to apply the commandment to today's
>>>>>actions is an exercise in stupidity.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Well, your questions seem a bit vague, but I'll try to tell you
>>>>what I think:
>>>>
>>>>I have no idea what the command: "you will not murder" meant to the
>>>>aramaic tribes in 2000BC.
>>>>
>>>>God's commandment: "you will not murder" means the same today as when
>>>>it was given. The meaning God intended has not changed.
>>>
>>>That makes no sense.
>>>
>>>After all "if the trumpet does not sound a clear call, who will get
>>>ready for battle?"
>>>
>>>>The true meaning and Man's interpretation are different things.
>>>
>>>Since we can not know the true meaning, the commandment means
>>>anything we want?
>>
>>I never claimed we cannot know the true meaning. I did imply that
>>history is full of Man making interpretations that suit their own
>>convenience.
>
>I am a man. You are a man.
>We only have our interpretations.
>How could we have something else?
>
>>>>Moses and the Israelites did commit murder more than once. History is
>>>>full of Man blatantly violating God's law. Violation of the law does
>>>>not imply there is something wrong with the law.
>>>
>>>If the law in incomprehensible, there is something wrong with the
>>>law. If we don't know what god meant by "murder", how could
>>>we follow the law?
>>>
>>
>>The law is not incomprehensible. It is just difficult to follow.
>>
>>I never said we don't know what God meant by "murder". I said I didn't
>>know what the aramaic tribes of 2000BC thought it meant.
>
>You also said that men's interpretations and the true meaning
>are not the same. How did you reach the true meaning, and how
>do you know it's not a man's interpretation?
>
>>>>God never ordered murder, but God did on several occasions command men
>>>>to go to war. The numbers 31 account has God ordering war and Moses
>>>>ordering murder.
>>>>
>>>>Is killing as an act of war murder? no
You clipped my statement here. This is what I said:
"Is killing as an act of war murder? no Can murder be commited during
war?: yes"
>>>
>>>How can you tell? You say the meaning of the word murder as used in the
>>>commandment is not known, only our interpreatation of it.
>>
>>I never said that, you did.
>
>You said "men's interpretation and the true meaning are different things".
>I simply assumed you were a man.
>
What I said was: "The true meaning and Man's interpretation are different
things" This is not to say that we cannot test whether an interpretation
matches the true meaning or not. It does not imply that some
interpretations are not correct.
>>>If I interpreted "murder" in the commandment to mean "killing
>>>asparagus", I would be free to kill men with a clear conscience.
>>
>>and you would would be wrong.
>
>Because you know the true meaning god intended, right, and I don't?
>
It is possible to know what God meant.
>>>Just as, apparently, you claim that killing men at war is not
>>>murder, because you interpret the commandment not to include
>>>acts of war. You are using circular logic.
>>
>>No, I am not. You are not reading carefully and you are claiming
>>that I've said things which I have not.
>
>You said clearly that killing in an act of war is not murder. Did you not?
>That is exactly the same as saying that murder does not include killing
>in acts of war.
>
No I didn't say that either. You really seem to have trouble comprehending
what is written. I said:
"Is killing as an act of war murder? no Can murder be commited during
war?: yes" Look carefully at the differences between what I said and what
you claim I said.
It is just too darn difficult to carry on a reasonable debate with you. You
cannot seem to read properly. You constantly claim I have made statements
and conclusions that I have not and the debate turns into an endless series
of corrections and retractions. It's like trying to debate a three year old:
1: "the sky is blue"
2: "how can we know what blue is? Your blue might not be my blue. blue
a 1000 years ago might not be what blue is today so maybe the sky was not
blue 1000 years ago. How can we know? Who made you the authority on what
blue is?. The sky is not blue just because you say it is. It's not blue
today cause it's cloudy, it's white today so why do you say the sky is blue?
and on and on and on....."
------------------------------
From: Scott Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.arch
Subject: Re: IA32, was an advocacy rant
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 13:03:28 -0700
To be amazingly pedantic, I beleive you could decode status to separate
out accesses according to class, ie., separate the data from the code space, etc.
This could be used to expand the address space beyond 1mb.
"Rick C. Hodgin" wrote:
> >> > Just like an 8086 addressing >1MB.
> >> An 8086 cannot, under any circumstances in an IBM compatible PC address more
> >> than 1MB. Ever.
> >Yet they routinely did.
>
> They did not. They could access much more memory than 1MB because of
> features present on adapter cards that could swap out portions of <=
> 1MB memory with memory that was logically mapped beyond 1MB. But it
> was still addressed within the 1MB region.
>
> - Rick C. Hodgin
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
