Linux-Advocacy Digest #701, Volume #33 Thu, 19 Apr 01 11:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Communism, Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day. (mr_antone)
Re: What's the point (Ian Davey)
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) ("billh")
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (Roberto Alsina)
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) ("billh")
Re: IA32, was an advocacy rant (Peter da Silva)
Re: Am I f******? HP Photosmart C500 and Win 2000 (John Ridley)
Re: Am I f******? HP Photosmart C500 and Win 2000 ("Jim Knowles")
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Am I f******? HP Photosmart C500 and Win 2000 (Martin Gregorie)
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (Chad Everett)
Re: More Mafia$oft incompetance on display.. ("Kelsey Bjarnason")
Re: Am I f******? HP Photosmart C500 and Win 2000 ("Jim Knowles")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: mr_antone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles,alt.society.liberalism,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Communism, Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day.
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 14:13:28 GMT
On Thu, 19 Apr 2001 13:23:38 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (theRadical) wrote:
>On Tue, 17 Apr 2001 16:40:32 -0400, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>
>>The captain wasn't even on the bridge. The HELMSMAN was steering the
>>ship, not the Captain....
>>
>>In such circumstances, the Captain BELONGS off the bridge, because
>>he only gets in the way of the Helmsman and the Officer of the Deck.
>>
>>
>>
>
>good one. that is the stupidest fucking thing i have ever read.
>where did you pick that up, from all the merchant mariners you blow?
It's an ill whore that blows.
mr_antone
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ian Davey)
Subject: Re: What's the point
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 14:14:35 GMT
In article <9bmigk$bri$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I think good security demands that the current directory is not in your
>> path, though, so to run the trojan I would need to type:
>>
>> $ ./su
>
>But the person from whos account you are running su may have it in the
>current path.
Wouldn't you be running "su" from your own account, not someone else's?
Ideally you shouldn't have any directories a user can write to in their path
(and trim root's down to a bare minimum).
ian.
\ /
(@_@) http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/ (dark literature)
/(&)\ http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/libertycaptions/ (art)
| |
------------------------------
From: "billh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 14:38:22 GMT
"Roberto Alsina"
>Why would god give a commandment that could
> not be understood? After all (ok, here's a cite) "if the trumpet call is
> not clear, who will prepare for battle?"
You're the only one here who doesn't understand it. Check the receiver, not
the transmitter.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Date: 19 Apr 2001 14:41:38 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
billh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Roberto Alsina"
>
>>Why would god give a commandment that could
>> not be understood? After all (ok, here's a cite) "if the trumpet call is
>> not clear, who will prepare for battle?"
>
>You're the only one here who doesn't understand it. Check the receiver, not
>the transmitter.
Fallacy of hasty generalization, and still you can't see that it doesn't
matter if I understand it or not, because the commandment was not given to
me.
Even if you believe you understand it, that's not enough.
Even if Moses believed he understood it, that's not enough.
Shouldn't you and Moses actually understand it to mean the same thing?
Or rather, since you were not given the commandment, shouldn't you be
forced to understand it the same way Moses did? *HE* is the one
supposed to speak to god, not you.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: "billh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 14:43:53 GMT
"Roberto Alsina"
> >> No, but if you believe the bible is the revealed word of god, you are
in
> >> the same position as childs who believe in santa, in a way.
> >
> >Yet it was you who chose to use Exodus 20 in a vain attempt to strengthen
> >your argument. Your use of scripture coupled with your statement above
says
> >much more about you than anyone else.
>
> Indeed, it says I know about the technique called reductio ad absurdum.
> It's fun, you should look it up.
But you haven't used the technique well. Your position that soldiers
killing in war is murder is remains absurd.
You can refute others positions as much as you want, but you have yet to
strengthen your position. Your position was weak and remains so.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter da Silva)
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.arch
Subject: Re: IA32, was an advocacy rant
Date: 19 Apr 2001 14:44:05 GMT
In article <SHxD6.4989$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Peter da Silva" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:9blmf3$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <3adc77cd$0$18887$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > Rick C. Hodgin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > 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.
> > Well there you go. Just like VLM.
> No, there is a big difference. The Pentium+ class processors actually have
> 36 address lines. This allows it to physically address 64GB of memory.
That just makes the "expanded memory" style address space extension even
less excusable.
--
`-_-' In hoc signo hack, Peter da Silva.
'U` "A well-rounded geek should be able to geek about anything."
-- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Disclaimer: WWFD?
------------------------------
From: John Ridley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: rec.photo.digital,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Am I f******? HP Photosmart C500 and Win 2000
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 10:14:47 -0400
Um, I wasn't criticizing anyone. I just think everything that needs
to be said on the subject has been said. I also find it interesting
that on some days 1/4 or more of the posts in this group have nothing
to do with digital photography, but they're just people flaming
someone else for posting stuff that has nothing to do with digital
photography.
If they'd just drop it and get back to the subject there'd be a lot
more valid discourse. A legitimate query in this group sometimes (not
often!) goes unanswered, but some threads ("FOR SALE ADS DO NOT BELONG
HERE" for instance) live on for MONTHS - I wish people would just let
it drop.
By the way, apparently you didn't get the joke. It's an unwritten
rule of Usenet that all flamewars eventually come around to the point
where someone mentions either Hitler or Nazis. At that point, the
thread is usually considered over.
In fact I think both sides of this argument have valid points. The
people who use course language (particularly in subject headers) are
displaying their sad lack of language skills; properly literate people
can have a discussion without resorting to this.
However, the people who say "you need to watch what your kids do
better then" are obviously clueless. There's no reason why this forum
can't be a safe harbor where you can let kids read at will. There is
no reason to drop EVERY public area to the lowest common denominator.
If their attitude were taken into the real world, then it would be OK
for people to be smoking crack in Chuck-e-cheeses. "Hey, if you don't
want your kids to be seeing that, you need to watch what they're doing
better."
It would be OK to put Penthouse magazines in the children's stacks in
the library, since you should look at every single newsgroup article
or piece of paper that your kid wants to look at, right?
On Thu, 19 Apr 2001 08:05:02 -0500, "Dreamspinner3"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>It always happens...whenever someone is confronted with ideas they don't
>like or people who don't think the same way they do, this insults is
>invariably thrown out. Very mature.
>
>"John Ridley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Hitler. Nazis. There, this thread is officially over. Please shut
>> up.
>>
>> On Wed, 18 Apr 2001 18:19:08 -0700, "Kevin"
>> <Raknaman(NoSpam)@charter.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> > No, you are not f*****, but you are a jackass for posting a subject
>line
>> >> > like that. And the people who are defending you are bigger
>jackasses.
>> >>
>> >> Why? It's a perfectly common (ab)use of the word in contemporary
>> >> English. Why is he a jackass for writing English?
>> >
>> >
>> >Figures an even bigger jackass would think using a subject line like that
>is
>> >okay!
>> >
>>
>> -----
>> John Ridley
>> http://ridley.dyndns.org
>
=====
John Ridley
http://ridley.dyndns.org
------------------------------
From: "Jim Knowles" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: rec.photo.digital,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Am I f******? HP Photosmart C500 and Win 2000
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 14:53:00 GMT
I'm just curious... are you a parent? Or are you just someone who feels they
know how parenting ought to be done?
"Dreamspinner3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9bmnhj$9qvhm$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> You sound like a very responsible parent. I applaud your efforts.
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:RMsD6.14637$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In comp.os.linux.misc John Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Since this is an informational group, how many people would consider
> > > it a safe place for a 10 year old to look for information about a new
> > > digital camera?
> >
> > > Would you want your child using the word in everyday conversation?
> >
> > I wouldn't be letting my 10 year old child perusing newsgroups on their
> > own. And then, if we encountered this same situation, I would have
dealt
> > with it in a mature manner than most on here seem to be handling it.
> >
> > Adam
> >
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Date: 19 Apr 2001 14:53:27 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
billh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Roberto Alsina"
>
>> >> No, but if you believe the bible is the revealed word of god, you are
>in
>> >> the same position as childs who believe in santa, in a way.
>> >
>> >Yet it was you who chose to use Exodus 20 in a vain attempt to strengthen
>> >your argument. Your use of scripture coupled with your statement above
>says
>> >much more about you than anyone else.
>>
>> Indeed, it says I know about the technique called reductio ad absurdum.
>> It's fun, you should look it up.
>
>But you haven't used the technique well. Your position that soldiers
>killing in war is murder is remains absurd.
You apparently don't know what absurd means.
You say it's not murder because it's not unlawful, right?
Well, what law is binding at war? Are the commandments binding at war?
If yes, what exactly is meant by "murder" in the commandment? Obviously
not the same thing we understand as "murder"! So, expressing the
commandment as "thou shall not murder" is deceiving.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Martin Gregorie)
Crossposted-To: rec.photo.digital,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Am I f******? HP Photosmart C500 and Win 2000
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 14:56:59 GMT
On Thu, 19 Apr 2001 08:05:02 -0500, "Dreamspinner3"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>It always happens...whenever someone is confronted with ideas they don't
>like or people who don't think the same way they do, this insults is
>invariably thrown out. Very mature.
>
I think you misunderstood the man his beef isnt the net-coppery or
even the nanny-statism, but the fact that its well off topic for the
comp.* hierarchy.
This thread can run and run for all I care, but PLEASE...PLEASE....
take it elsewhere.
--
gregorie | Martin Gregorie
@logica | Logica Ltd
com | +44 020 76379111
------------------------------
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: 20 Apr 2001 10:04:29 -0500
On 19 Apr 2001 14:41:38 GMT, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>billh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>"Roberto Alsina"
>>
>>>Why would god give a commandment that could
>>> not be understood? After all (ok, here's a cite) "if the trumpet call is
>>> not clear, who will prepare for battle?"
>>
>>You're the only one here who doesn't understand it. Check the receiver, not
>>the transmitter.
>
>Fallacy of hasty generalization, and still you can't see that it doesn't
>matter if I understand it or not, because the commandment was not given to
>me.
>
Sure it matters. We understand it. You don't.
>Even if you believe you understand it, that's not enough.
>Even if Moses believed he understood it, that's not enough.
>
>Shouldn't you and Moses actually understand it to mean the same thing?
>
You are seriously confused.
In my city, it is a violation of the law to drive through a red traffic
light. There is a clearly written law that says so. Some people
understand this to mean it's OK to go through a red light as long as
you don't get caught. Others understand this law to mean that as long
as it's not red when you enter the intersection. Others understand it
to mean you should not enter the intersection unless you can be assured
that it will not turn red while you are in the intersection. Some will
try and argue that the law is not fair or written clearly because they
have trouble understanding it.
Your understanding of the law is irrelevant to the law itself. If a police
officer and a judge decide you have violated this law, then you are guilty
and will be punished accordingly, regardless of your understanding of this
law. You can cry and whine and much as you want and try to engage the
judge and police office in a debate about your understanding of the law,
you can even get a lawyer to argue your case before a judge for you.
The ulitmate decision about whether you have broken the law of not is
the judge.
In the same manner. God gave all of us a law: "you will not murder"
This law was communicated to us through Moses. You can whine and cry
all you want that you don't understand this law. Doesn't matter. Most
societies has written their own laws against murder. These are, in many
cases, completely independent of God's commandment. Some societies have
made this law based on God'd commandment. Most of these societies have
a judge that will decide (some judges will be a jury) whether you are
guilty of murder or not. You can cry all you want that you don't understand
murder in the same way the judge does. Doesn't matter. You can cry
that it's not fair because you didn't think you were committing murder.
Doesn't matter. Same goes for the judgement of God. If you have any
doubts, ask the judge ahead of time. If you have any doubts, do what
you need to do to ask God.
>Or rather, since you were not given the commandment, shouldn't you be
>forced to understand it the same way Moses did? *HE* is the one
How can you force someone to understand something. You are a perfect
example of how this is impossible.
>supposed to speak to god, not you.
>
I can speak to God. Can't you?
------------------------------
From: "Kelsey Bjarnason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: More Mafia$oft incompetance on display..
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 15:09:22 GMT
[snips]
"Greg Copeland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > Are you really trying to tell us that FreeBSD is such crap that Linux
> > outdoes it 50:1?
>
> Such a claim would not fall into the realm of sanity, as you've
wonderfully
> pointed out. Anyone that can make a scaling recommendation without fully
> understanding the implementation and how the work has been divided is
clearly
> out to lunch.
>
> Having said that, based on some assumptions on my part, I wouldn't expect
> the migration to be too difficult because of the fact that other servers
> should be able to invisibly shoulder the load as some servers are being
> replaced.
Bingo. You do _not_ replace all those servers, no matter how magically
efficient and reliable your new servers are, all at one time - to do so is
courting disaster. You roll out updates gradually, running side-by-side, to
see how the new servers actually perform, in a real-world scenario, and
don't just giddily toss everything in sight into the junk bin and hope you
got it all right.
> After all, assuming that this is only a front-end CGI/ASP web
> server replacement only, the task isn't that difficult. On top of that,
> it becomes increasingly easy for them to do because the can measure load
> on the new servers and make corrections as needed with only a very small
> impact to quality of service. In short, this is a win-win for MS because
> even if they have LOTS of problems, they can be easily hidden during the
> initial migration. When it's all over, they are free to say how smoothly
> it went without regard for reality; if in fact reality does differ.
Right; if every third one of the new servers turns out to be hosed because
of, say, a bad batch of network cards, nobody cares, because the service is
still up - a point some of the bright boys around here don't seem to get.
> After it's all over they'll then have a HUGE site *seemingly* running
> Win2K for everything. This makes for very good PR. On the other side,
> Win2K will only be doing the communication part, whereby, a single
> failure is hardly noticeable and all of the real horsepower and work is
> being done on the back-end. It's an excellent idea! They get to claim
> positive PR and the appearance that they are doing all of the work,
> wherein, the REAL work is being does on other platforms.
Until, of course, they extend the deployment to those, as well; why those
servers would be replaced in parallel with the others doesn't strike me as
obvious; wouldn't one approach that the same way? Do one step at a time?
Isn't that what they've just done - the first step?
> IF you
> question my choice of REAL here, put it this way. If a single server,
> out of 5000 servers goes down, who cares. In on the other hand, one
> of the database servers go down (maybe 100 - 1000 of these?????), the
> percent of impact is hugely noticeable. If we assume (look-out-and-
> take-cover) that one DB is in place for every 100 web servers, and
> one web server is doing thousands of mail requests, the loss of one
> server makes of say, 1000 lots requests, wherein, the loss of the
> DB makes for 100000 lost requests. No one will really notice 1000
> lost requests. On the other hand, 100,000 lost requests would
> be VERY noticeable!!! Please keep in mind these numbers are completely
> fictitious, however, I think it does a good job of pointing out the
> scale of scope of the important of the different machines roles.
Yes, although I'd be very surprised to find they're not using
multipli-redundant DB servers, to cope with exactly that sort of issue, in
which case, the approach is the same as it has been: drop in a new one,
side-by-side, see how it copes, and if it does, take out the old one it
replaces. If not, take the new one out and figure out why - and all of this
with no loss in service.
Even without redundant servers, the same approach applies. I just wouldn't
expect them to roll out front _and_ back end servers at the same time, for
the reasons discussed.
------------------------------
From: "Jim Knowles" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: rec.photo.digital,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Am I f******? HP Photosmart C500 and Win 2000
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 15:09:59 GMT
Surely you didn't think you could proffer this kind of inflammatory
reactionism and escape unscathed? Don your asbestos suit, sir.
Dreamspinner's having her flamethrower (probably nazi war surplus) re-filled
as we speak.
But there's a good side to the treatment you're about to experience: By the
time Dreamspinner's run out of gelled fuel, you'll know a lot more about how
to raise your kids (assuming you're one of those irresponsible breeder
types, that is)
We're all watching in gleeful anticipation, with bated breath etc.
Hurrah for digital cameras!
"John Ridley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In fact I think both sides of this argument have valid points. The
> people who use course language (particularly in subject headers) are
> displaying their sad lack of language skills; properly literate people
> can have a discussion without resorting to this.
>
> However, the people who say "you need to watch what your kids do
> better then" are obviously clueless. There's no reason why this forum
> can't be a safe harbor where you can let kids read at will. There is
> no reason to drop EVERY public area to the lowest common denominator.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
