Linux-Advocacy Digest #782, Volume #33 Sun, 22 Apr 01 15:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: bank switches from using NT 4 ("Jon Johansan")
Re: bank switches from using NT 4 ("Jon Johansan")
Re: bank switches from using NT 4 ("Jon Johansan")
Re: Women's rights and responsibilities. ("jet")
Re: bank switches from using NT 4 ("Jon Johansan")
Re: Women's rights and responsibilities. ("jet")
Re: Women's rights and responsibilities. ("Society")
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (Roberto Alsina)
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (Roberto Alsina)
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (Roberto Alsina)
Re: What to do with Bill Clinton (was Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism))
("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Women's rights and responsibilities. ("Society")
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (Roberto Alsina)
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Edward Rosten")
Re: bank switches from using NT 4 (Dave Martel)
Re: Blame it all on Microsoft (Toon Moene)
Re: Feminism ==> subjugation of males ("MH")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Feminism ==> subjugation of males (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Y'all should be happy about this (or maybe not, I dunno) (mlw)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Jon Johansan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: bank switches from using NT 4
Date: 22 Apr 2001 12:48:05 -0500
"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Todd wrote:
> >
> > "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
> > The article claims a few other companies have already gone to W2DC and
have
> > good success... did you read the article?
> >
> I read the article, and am taken with how stupid it sounds. I have seen a
> couple stories like it followed by the inevitable article a year or two
later
> about how they have to upgrade, yet again, to get the benefits they
thought
> they were getting with the previous version. In a year or two they will
either
> upgrade again or go back to UNIX. Just wait and see.
In the real world it's far more likely to see old technology replaced with
new technology and things get better and they never look back - like this
story...
------------------------------
From: "Jon Johansan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: bank switches from using NT 4
Date: 22 Apr 2001 12:52:02 -0500
"Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Jon Johansan wrote:
> >
> > Says good-bye to expensive, hard to manage unix crap too...
> >
> > http://www.vnunet.com/News/1120413
> >
> > Zenon Chomyszyn, technology manager at the Halifax, told Computing that
the
> > company's Unix systems are too expensive to maintain, and that he hopes
to
> > reduce these costs by installing W2DC, despite a high initial outlay.
> > "The benefits will be the management of the systems and boxes rather
than a
> > saving in purchase price," he said.
> >
> > Chomyszyn added that the operating system will increase the
availability,
> > reliability and scalability of the bank's databases, and will reduce
> > operational costs by managing a single server rather than thousands.
>
> Here in the body of the article you say they are moving from "expensive"
> Unix machines to Windows 2000 Datacentre, yet, in the subject you say,
> "bank switches from using NT 4", bit of a contridiction?
IN the article they mention they wre also using NT4 - I used that in the
subject to spark additional interest.
>Also, the
> article failed to mention what version of Unix they were using? Why
> didn't they replace it with a nice new SUN StarFire w/ Ultra Sparc III
> Processor in it running Oracle?
And I didn't take specific issue with a particular version of unix or the
hardware they were using.
> the article is too brief to make any
> clear conclusion what is superior.
I didn't claim that - however, it's obvious that they feel from first hand
experience that things have improved dramatically after switching to W2K -
this is an article supporting the experiences many in COMNA have reported
and then had their claims denied by those in COLA - this is a proof piece.
>Also, they failed to say whether
> they have an afiliation with Microsoft? hence, they might get the
> software cheaper than the shelf price.
So? isn't less expensive better? And how inexpensive is it really if you get
software cheap but it doesn't work or crashes? Remember, the price of the OS
is a tiny fraction compared to the entire TCO for a network.
------------------------------
From: "Jon Johansan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: bank switches from using NT 4
Date: 22 Apr 2001 12:53:03 -0500
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8cDE6.143327$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:9btk47$iqs$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Jon Johansan wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Says good-bye to expensive, hard to manage unix crap too...
> > > >
> > > > http://www.vnunet.com/News/1120413
> > > >
> > > > Zenon Chomyszyn, technology manager at the Halifax, told Computing
that
> > the
> > > > company's Unix systems are too expensive to maintain, and that he
hopes
> > to
> > > > reduce these costs by installing W2DC, despite a high initial
outlay.
> > > > "The benefits will be the management of the systems and boxes rather
> > than a
> > > > saving in purchase price," he said.
> > > >
> > > > Chomyszyn added that the operating system will increase the
> > availability,
> > > > reliability and scalability of the bank's databases, and will reduce
> > > > operational costs by managing a single server rather than thousands.
> > >
> > > Here in the body of the article you say they are moving from
"expensive"
> > > Unix machines to Windows 2000 Datacentre, yet, in the subject you say,
> > > "bank switches from using NT 4", bit of a contridiction?
> >
> > Not really.
> >
> > W2DC boxes are far less expensive that UNIX counterparts.
>
> Especially when you consider that all Win2KDC OEMs provide uptime
> guarantees in the 4 and 5 9's range for only a fraction of the cost
> of a similar guarantee for a Unix system.
I'm not aware of any Datacenter system being sold without a 5 9's guarantee.
We regularly achieve 5 9s using Compaq servers running Advanced Server - we
are just careful to use WHQL certified drivers for all our hardware.
------------------------------
From: "jet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Women's rights and responsibilities.
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 11:03:54 -0700
Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sun, 22 Apr 2001 02:04:54 -0700, jet wrote:
> >
>
> >Translation: Aaron hates feminism because it gave women the power to turn
> > down his advances.
>
> Curiously enough, Aaron has gone after a Russian mail-o^H^H^H^H^H^Hwoman,
Ah......Unix.
> leveraging his US citizenship to find someone whose ability or willingness
> to turn down his advances is influenced by the desire to live in the US.
Russia must REALLY suck!
>
> I think there may be some truth in your remark (-;
>
:)
J
> --
> Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
> elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: "Jon Johansan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: bank switches from using NT 4
Date: 22 Apr 2001 12:56:03 -0500
"Wade Blazingame" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:33AE6.6699$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > http://www.vnunet.com/News/1120413
>
> Not sure what vnunet is, but the fact that it got through a 20-paragraph
> review of Windows XP without a SINGLE MENTION of product activation, which
> has been one of the most hottest issues surrounding XP, is a clear tip-off
> that someone at vnu loves MS.
You should read more of vnunet - they cover every major OS and are
DEFINATELY no fan of MS.
However, product activation in XP is ONLY an issue with those that intend to
bootleg it. It is of NO issue whatsoever to those that purchase legitimate
copies.
I've been working with the beta and it continues to amaze me how many people
have the operation of activation completely and categorically wrong. I'll
repeat: product activation is ONLY a concern to those that bootleg XP - it
means nothing to legitimate users. (small tidbit pirates already know:
enterprise versions of XP come with a "magic" key that bypasses activation).
------------------------------
From: "jet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Women's rights and responsibilities.
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 11:07:01 -0700
Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sun, 22 Apr 2001 02:04:54 -0700, jet wrote:
> >
>
> >Translation: Aaron hates feminism because it gave women the power to turn
> > down his advances.
>
> Curiously enough, Aaron has gone after a Russian mail-o^H^H^H^H^H^Hwoman,
> leveraging his US citizenship to find someone whose ability or willingness
> to turn down his advances is influenced by the desire to live in the US.
>
> I think there may be some truth in your remark (-;
It's also interesting that Aaron thinks it should be legal to rape your
wife.
J
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Society" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Society" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.men
Subject: Re: Women's rights and responsibilities.
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 11:19:37 -0700
"Donovan Rebbechi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
> >
> > [I]n the United States, we have stripped all of men's
> > privileges, and all of womens' restrictions, giving us
> > a society where men have all the responsibilities
> > and restrictions, and women have all of the privileges.
> >
> > In other words...FEUDALISM.
>
> You're getting hysterical, Aaron.
He can't possibly be "getting hysterical".
He has no womb.
Words mean things.
Rush Limbaugh
American radio commentator
> Are you saying that women form some sort of aristocracy ?
Look at the definition of the word "aristocracy", look around
you then figure it out. Here's a clue-stash to get you started:
Less than 1% of bricklayers, asphalt pourers, and heavy laborers
are women. Women do not fix their own cars or repair their own
toilets. Women are not required to register for the Selective
Service. Women may aspire to becoming Senators or judges or
corporate tycoons, but they are not obligated to fight the wars
that preserve our government and economic system.
...
Things of interest to women are widely regarded as
being culturally superior to things of interest to men.
Designer fashion shows get news coverage. Salmon fishing
and hot rods do not. Women do not hesitate to belittle
and shame men for their "cruder" tastes.
...
As knights are considered morally superior to common soldiers,
so women are considered morally superior to men. Women are
believed when they lie, forgiven when they cheat, and sentenced
to 50% less jail time when convicted of the same crimes as men.
When a man hits a woman we despise him as a brute. When a woman
hits a man we ask what HE did to provoke her. Why the duplicity?
Like all aristocrats, women are assumed to adhere to a higher
moral standard than common men.
...
If America created a special class of men who could
hold high office without fighting war, control vast wealth
by means of special government connections, and evade hard labor
by claiming cultural and moral superiority, we would consider
them parasites, a throwback to monarchy -- bloody aristocrats!
Excerpted from "The New Aristocrats" by Rich Zubaty
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/5225/more_articles.htm#arist
---
Honor your inner masculine.
Live, love, laugh, and shrug off
that load of unearned guilt.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Date: 22 Apr 2001 18:27:47 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Chad Everett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 21 Apr 2001 17:58:20 GMT, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Ace Agincourt wrote:
>>>Hi Roberto,
>>>
>>>On 20 Apr 2001 18:40:28 GMT,
>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
>>>put fingers to keyboard and tapped away writing:
>>>
>>>? billh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>? >
>>>? >"Roberto Alsina"
>>>? >
>>>? >> You apparently don't know what absurd means.
>>>? >> You say it's not murder because it's not unlawful, right?
>>>? >
>>>? >No. I said killing in war is not murder, is not unlawful, is not immoral,
>>>? >and is not unethical.
>>>? >
>>>? >You chose to believe that means I said, "it's not murder because it's not
>>>? >unlawful." Something I've never said
>>>?
>>>? Murder is by definition unlawful. Therefore, if you say killing at war
>>>? is not unlawful, the alleged lawfulness of the killing is sufficient
>>>? cause for the killing not to be murder.
>>>
>>>
>>>Serbia was at war with the Kosovas. Are you claiming that the mass
>>>murders did not occur. Also, Hitler went to war against the Jews.
>>>Are you a holocaust denier?
>>
>>I see you joined late, so my position, by reading only the above,
>>could be misunderstood.
>>
>>I personally believe any killing not in self defense, including
>>killing at war, should be considered murder. I was only taking
>>Billīs position to one of its many unpleasant logical outcomes.
>>
>
>Why do you distinguish self-defense as a special excemption?
Because if someone is going to get killed, I would prefer the
dead one be the one who is more likely to kill in the future.
Notice that by self-defense I only meant "kill someone who
is clearly going to kill you". Killing a burglar is not self
defense, killing someone just because he has a gun is not
self defense.
I would add another exception, a sort of defense of someone
obviously close to being killed and unarmed.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Date: 22 Apr 2001 18:29:15 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 22 Apr 2001 13:17:23 +0100, EndX <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> I personally believe any killing not in self defense, including
>> killing at war, should be considered murder. I was only taking
>> Billīs position to one of its many unpleasant logical outcomes.
>
>Interesting. So you belive that a soldier that initiates a contact with
>the enemy in a war and kills said enemy in the process is a murderer.
>Does that mean he also has to be tried for war crimes?
No, I think he should be tried for murder.
Of course if he is defending himself from an agression it
may count as self defense.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Date: 22 Apr 2001 18:30:51 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
billh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Roberto Alsina"
>
>> I personally believe any killing not in self defense, including
>> killing at war, should be considered murder.
>
>You need to mature and understand that truth and reality aren't what you
>"personally believe".
I understand what the situation currently is.
However, that doesnīt mean I think that situation is perfect,
or even very good.
Sadly, we have been, as a society, convinced by the men with
guns that they have a right to kill.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What to do with Bill Clinton (was Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism))
Date: 22 Apr 2001 18:31:04 GMT
Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: "Joseph T. Adams" wrote:
:> I doubt that would have the intended effect. Even horny gorillas have
:> standards.
: So, are all these viewpoints from a Democratic, Republican, or
: Bi-partisan perspective? Just curious. I tend to vote Democratic and am
: appalled at the "Arkansas Sleaze's" antics myself. He truly brought
: shame to the office. And then there's Al "I invented the internet"
: Gore. Damn, what a joke.
I'm a libertarian, but I found that lots of people all over the
political spectrum, including some whose views are similar to those he
claimed to espouse, were as repulsed by Klinton's unethical and
illegal behaviors as I was.
Joe
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Date: 22 Apr 2001 18:33:20 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ace Agincourt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Hi Roberto,
>
>On 21 Apr 2001 17:58:20 GMT,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
>put fingers to keyboard and tapped away writing:
>
>? Ace Agincourt wrote:
>? >Hi Roberto,
>? >
>? >On 20 Apr 2001 18:40:28 GMT,
>? >[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
>? >put fingers to keyboard and tapped away writing:
>? >
>? >? billh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>? >? >
>? >? >"Roberto Alsina"
>? >? >
>? >? >> You apparently don't know what absurd means.
>? >? >> You say it's not murder because it's not unlawful, right?
>? >? >
>? >? >No. I said killing in war is not murder, is not unlawful, is not immoral,
>? >? >and is not unethical.
>? >? >
>? >? >You chose to believe that means I said, "it's not murder because it's not
>? >? >unlawful." Something I've never said
>? >?
>? >? Murder is by definition unlawful. Therefore, if you say killing at war
>? >? is not unlawful, the alleged lawfulness of the killing is sufficient
>? >? cause for the killing not to be murder.
>? >
>? >
>? >Serbia was at war with the Kosovas. Are you claiming that the mass
>? >murders did not occur. Also, Hitler went to war against the Jews.
>? >Are you a holocaust denier?
>?
>? I see you joined late, so my position, by reading only the above,
>? could be misunderstood.
>?
>? I personally believe any killing not in self defense, including
>? killing at war, should be considered murder. I was only taking
>? Billīs position to one of its many unpleasant logical outcomes.
>
>
>So you think a man who throws a young child on an unexploded hand
>grenade, to save himself, has committed no crime, moral or legal?
No, I think he is stupid and a murderer.
Stupid because thatīs a silly way to try to save yourself from a
grenade (Itīs probably faster to try to jump away or throw the
grenade instead).
A murderer because he was not being attacked by the kid, so it
is not self defense.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Society" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Society" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.men
Subject: Re: Women's rights and responsibilities.
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 11:31:35 -0700
"Donovan Rebbechi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> jet wrote:
> >
> >Translation: Aaron hates feminism because it
> > gave women the power to turn down his advances.
It's soooo cute when jet spurts out another of her
fanciful translations into "FemBot".
The reality is that women *always* had the "power"
to turn down a man's "advances". This is yet another
example of an apologist for feminism trying to grab
credit for feminists for something with which feminists
had nothing to do.
I realize Ms. Bitter is psychologically fatigued after
hearing so much "Bzzzt! Wrong again!" from those
who are wiser than she. We have to do it tho' because
we love her -- enough to give her the 'tough love' she
desperately needs.
Feminism is a disease.
Laughter is the best medicine.
BTW, where are all the "women's advances" to men?
Uh huh, despite all that pretend 'equality', the vast majority
of women still cling to the privileged role of playing passive
while men *perform*.
> Curiously enough, Aaron has gone after a Russian woman,
> leveraging his US citizenship to find someone whose ability
> or willingness to turn down his advances is influenced by
> the desire to live in the US.
And that makes Aaron's earlier statements wrong, how?
Free clue: It doesn't. However, by substitutiting a sneer
to distract from a reality you find unpleasant to acknowledge,
you gave away the paucity of whatever passes for 'justification'
for your faith in feminism. You're not a compleat failure, tho',
you've added your bit to the heaps of validation to my sig.
---
All excuses for feminism depend on censorship
of reality to appear plausible.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Date: 22 Apr 2001 18:35:07 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
billh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Roberto Alsina"
>
>> "killing at war is not murder because it's not unlawful".
>>
>> Now, whether you can see what you said or not, is not my problem.
>>
>> >The two are not the same.
>>
>> No, not the same, but one implies the other. And you said enough
>> to imply what I said you said.
>
>And the point remains. You are wrong to say killing in war is wrong.
I see proof by blatant assertion is still considered logic by some.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Date: 22 Apr 2001 18:36:46 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
billh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Roberto Alsina" <
>
>> I find the scriptures simply an amusing mass of incoherence used
>> by many to justify their irrational beliefs
>
>LOL!!! Perhaps this explains why you chose to use Scriptures to bolster
>your argument.
No, it doesnīt. But hey, if you believe you comprehend me, and
that makes you happy, who am I to deny you that harmless fun?
> That's rich! LOL!!! You're a man condemned by your own
>words.
You mean I will go to hell? God told you that?
Oops, I forgot, CHAD is the one who speaks with god.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 20:25:39 +0100
>> > The problem is not that Windows or Office are bad software. They
>> > aren't. Windows and Office are both fabulous.
>>
>> Hahahahah!
>>
>> Windows and office are _appauling_ products!
>>
> Of course. That's why so many people buy them, because they want to be
> appalled.
And 400 years ago, the entire population of the world thought it was
flat. Your point again?
--
You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.
u 9 8 e j r (at) e c s . o x . a c . u k
------------------------------
From: Dave Martel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: bank switches from using NT 4
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 12:29:43 -0600
On 22 Apr 2001 12:56:03 -0500, "Jon Johansan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>However, product activation in XP is ONLY an issue with those that intend to
>bootleg it. It is of NO issue whatsoever to those that purchase legitimate
>copies.
It's an issue to those who don't want to encourage other software
vendors to start down down this path. Can you imagine having to go
through the registration procedure with every commercial application
on your system, every time you upgrade your hardware?
------------------------------
From: Toon Moene <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.theory,comp.arch,comp.object
Subject: Re: Blame it all on Microsoft
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 20:43:00 +0200
Larry Kilgallen wrote:
> Note that when the VMS listings were on microfiche the _sources_ were
> available on magtape (for a hefty fee).
It's probably because I've been spoiled by CDC. Not only did we get all
of the sources with our operating system (and the build jobs - which we
threw away and re-did better), but also we learned that it was a good
thing (technically, not just socially) to return our fixes for everyone
to share - that way they would be incorporated in the standard
distribution, which would save us a headache next time round ...
--
Toon Moene - mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - phoneto: +31 346 214290
Saturnushof 14, 3738 XG Maartensdijk, The Netherlands
Maintainer, GNU Fortran 77: http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/g77_news.html
Join GNU Fortran 95: http://g95.sourceforge.net/ (under construction)
------------------------------
From: "MH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Feminism ==> subjugation of males
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 18:44:43 GMT
> > Any man who supports Feminism is a self-flagellating idiot.
>
> Any man who thinks a woman should be paid the same for equal work is a
self
> flagellating idiot?
No, just any man who marries one.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: 22 Apr 2001 18:45:22 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 22 Apr 2001 20:25:39 +0100, Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> > The problem is not that Windows or Office are bad software. They
>>> > aren't. Windows and Office are both fabulous.
>>>
>>> Hahahahah!
>>>
>>> Windows and office are _appauling_ products!
>>>
>> Of course. That's why so many people buy them, because they want to be
>> appalled.
>
>And 400 years ago, the entire population of the world thought it was
>flat. Your point again?
400 years ago, if anyone thought the earth was flat, he was incredibly
ignorant.
After all, the world had been circunnavigated decades before.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Feminism ==> subjugation of males
Date: 22 Apr 2001 18:47:54 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 22 Apr 2001 18:44:43 GMT, MH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> > Any man who supports Feminism is a self-flagellating idiot.
>>
>> Any man who thinks a woman should be paid the same for equal work is a
>self
>> flagellating idiot?
>
>No, just any man who marries one.
You prefer to marry women that get paid less? Why?
--
Roberto Alsina (maybe marrying a rich woman, so I can
become a househusband and code free
software is not such a bad idea)
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Y'all should be happy about this (or maybe not, I dunno)
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 14:54:54 -0400
mmnnoo wrote:
>
> Well, I take it all back. The article actually says Gate's foundation
> donated 1 billion, not 1 million, which is an enormous sum, even
> a significant amount out of 53 billion. I don't know if the foundation's
> money all comes out of Gates' personal fortune or what, but that
> is a lot of money.
It is not as much as you think.
1 Billion, given to mostly well to do charities makes a very small impact.
As for a percentage of his fortune, well, think about this:
Say he is worth 50 billion dollars. 1 Billion of that is 2 percent of the sum.
Assume the average middle income person makes $35,000 in the US, 2 percent of
that is $700. Divided to 52 weeks, and average church attendee, putting $15
dollars in the basket each week contributes more.
He is just an evil person. His charity is doubly evil because it is extorted
money, and he flaunts it.
> In article <ZAvE6.73257$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "mmnnoo"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > The article says in 2000 Gates at 53 billion and donated 1 million. Gee,
> > 1 million is alot - unless you have another 52.999 billion left. A
> > million is 1/1000 of 1 billion, so percentagewise that's the equivalent
> > of someone who'd managed to save up 1 million giving away 20 in a year.
> > I'm not saying 1 million isn't alot to donate, it's just amazing how
> > much 50 billion is.
> >
> > 1/50,000
> >
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Brent R" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> http://www.sunday-times.co.uk/news/pages/sti/2001/04/22/stinwenws01023.html
> >>
> >> Maybe this is the beginning of the end. As much as I spend a lot of
> >> time defending MS in here, I'd still love to see BG go. MS software is
> >> indeed getting worse, it's time for new direction (I'd also like to see
> >> crome-dome go too).
> >>
--
I'm not offering myself as an example; every life evolves by its own laws.
========================
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
