Linux-Advocacy Digest #958, Volume #33 Thu, 26 Apr 01 17:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Re: Article: Want Media Player 8? Buy Windows XP (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Women's rights and responsibilities. (Sky King)
Re: Women's rights and responsibilities. (Sky King)
Re: Importance, or lack, of Marketshare? (Dave Martel)
Re: Windows 2000: a steaming pile of shit, just like everything else from Mafia$oft
(Chad Everett)
Re: Women's rights and responsibilities.
Re: Exploit devastates WinNT/2K security (Chad Everett)
Re: Baseball (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Communism (theRadical)
Re: Microsoft should be feared and despised (Craig Kelley)
Re: Blame it all on Microsoft (Nick Maclaren)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Article: Want Media Player 8? Buy Windows XP
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 19:57:49 GMT
Dave Martel wrote:
>
> Why do I have the feeling that only Media Player 8 and later versions
> will eventually be able to play content-protected media?
>
> <http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1006-200-5712920.html>
>
> Want Media Player 8? Buy Windows XP
> By Joe Wilcox
> Staff Writer, CNET News.com
> April 24, 2001, 1:40 p.m. PT
>
> "Microsoft is requiring consumers who want to use the latest version
> of Windows Media Player to upgrade to the new Windows XP operating
> system--a move that is reminiscent of the company's controversial
> decision to tie the Internet Explorer browser with Windows."
>
> <snip>
>
> "'There are some features with Windows Media Player that can only be
> delivered with Windows XP,' said Jonathan Usher, Microsoft's group
> product manager for Windows Media Player. These include CD burning and
> DVD movie playback, among other features not available with earlier
> versions of the product."
I'm glad I'm using Linux, and don't have to worry about this
kind of shit.
Chris
--
"None but a blockhead ever wrote code,
except for money."
Bill Gates
------------------------------
From: Sky King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Women's rights and responsibilities.
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 16:01:53 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
says...
> On Wed, 25 Apr 2001 16:08:44 -0400, Sky King wrote:
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> >> "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> >> >
>
> >> > > > > > > > > But many of the points still stand. Are women allowed to
> >> > > > > > > > > drive,
> >> > > or
> >> > > > > leave
> >> > > > > > > > > the house without a male relative ?
> >
> > The women choose to live there so its their social choice. sky
>
> No, they don't and no, it isn't. (They aren't allowed to leave the country
> without a male relative or a spouse)
>
How do you know all the women there want to leave? Provide cites
for you info. sky
> > > > > > > No amount of "privileges" could make up for a restriction like
> > > > > > > that!
> >> > > > > > >
> > Unless of course women choose their lifestyle and have NO other
> > choices at ALL. This is not the case. They could leave the
> > country etc. sky
>
> No, they cannot leave the country. In fact they cannot even leave the house
> on their own.
>
And how do you know they do not like their lifestyle? Talk to all
of them did you? sky
> >> > > > > > >
> > Well we have AA, quotas, diversity hiring, the VAWA, the Child
>
> This is a lie (at least if you are talking about the US) It's not legal
> to practice quota hiring. Even giving preferential treatment to minorities
> has been struck down in courts (See Hopwood vs State of Texas, where the
> circuit court concluded that you couldn't do anything of the sort)
>
You did not address AA, diversity hiring etc. I said nothing
about quotas. You did not address the VAWA and the Child Abandon
Law either. sky
> > Abandon Law and on and on. All these benefit women and not
> > men. Only men are forced by law to support kids that are not theirs.
>
> How are they forced to support kids that are not theirs ?
>
>
With the Presumption of Paternity Law. If I am married and my
wife cheats and has a child I MUST support that child until
its 18 or 21...PERIOD. Can you name a law that forces women
to support children that are not theirs? sky
------------------------------
From: Sky King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Women's rights and responsibilities.
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 16:03:23 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
says...
> On 25 Apr 2001 20:09:05 GMT, Roberto Alsina wrote:
> > On Wed, 25 Apr 2001 16:08:44 -0400, Sky King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>> > > > > > > > >
> >>> > > > > > > > > But many of the points still stand. Are women allowed to drive,
> >>> > > or
> >>> > > > > leave
> >>> > > > > > > > > the house without a male relative ?
> >>
> >>The women choose to live there so its their social choice. sky
> >
> > Actually, no, they don't. They are not allowed to leave the country without
> > autorization. Think about it, how do you leave the country without
> > leaving the house?
>
> You're absoluteltly correct -- you need a male relative or spouse with you
> if you travel abroad.
>
>
Then they should do as Parg tells us. "Women can do everything a
man can do plus gestate" so let them get out of the situation
like a MAN. sky
------------------------------
From: Dave Martel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Importance, or lack, of Marketshare?
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 13:49:46 -0600
On Thu, 26 Apr 2001 13:44:02 -0500, "Erik Funkenbusch"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:9c8uuf$sk2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> I complain when products are sold at $1300, for an Office Suite! when
>> Wordperfect suites all my needs, and it is sold at 1/2 the price. You do
>> the math, and work it out. The most I have ever paid for piece of sofware
>> was $900 for Corel Draw 9 for Windows 2000. $800 for Windows 2000 Pro,
>$800
>> for a flaming OS! if that isn't highway robbery, then I don't know what
>is!
>> For $184 I have SuSE Linux 7.1, a complete OS, with applications, support
>> etc. I would also be interested in the number of users who casually let
>> their mates borrow their copy of Office and Windows, because it is clear
>> that not all people have that sort of money, yet I know so many with a
>> "back up version" sitting at their house.
>
>I don't know what the new zealand dollar is compared to the US dollar, but
>can it be that bad? Win2k Pro is only $295 US.
"Only" ??????
For $10 I can get linux plus over a thousand open-source applications.
Or if I'm willing to download them I can get them all for free.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: a steaming pile of shit, just like everything else from
Mafia$oft
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 26 Apr 2001 14:38:15 -0500
On Thu, 26 Apr 2001 12:59:31 -0400, JS PL <hieverybody!> wrote:
>
>"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Chad Everett wrote:
>> >
>> > On Thu, 26 Apr 2001 08:02:44 +0200, JoFi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >"JS PL" <hi everybody!> wrote in message
>> > >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > >>
>> > ><snip>
>> > >> > > Hint: I already tried it and I *can* burn CD's as a "user" with
>> > >default
>> > >> > > user settings. I didn't do anything except install the CDRWin
>> > >software,
>> > >> > > create a new user, log in as that user and burn a CD.
>> > >> > >
>> > >> >
>> > >> > Then your setup is insecure. Do you have Win2K installed on a
>FAT32
>> > >> > partition, by chance?
>> > >>
>> > >> Here's an idea...shut the fuck up quit trying to grasp at straws.
>It's an
>> > >> NTSF file system, your just plain_fucking_wrong about the Win2K
>burning
>> > >> issue / FUD! End of discussion.
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > >Exactly. Just another anti-MS zealot spouting as many lies as they can
>in
>> > >the hope that someone will think its true without actually verifying.
>> > >
>> > >BTW I can burn on W2k as a normal user. *shock* ;-)
>> > >
>> >
>> > Please enlighten us on what you did to allow normal users to burn CDs
>> > on W2K. You probably went out a bought a $50.00+ program for this
>> > purpose. You could've used that money to buy an entire OS plus
>> > gads of applications, plus apps that will allow normal users to
>> > burn CDs SECURELY.
>>
>> In LoseDOS land, such notions are Blasphemy!
>
>I've never heard of LoseDOS land. Is that on a map somewhere or is it a made
>up land? You surely wouldn't be trying to insult your own land would you?
>
It's the land where everyone thinks Microsoft is the only company releasing
beta versions of its software. You should know JS PL, you live there.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.men
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Women's rights and responsibilities.
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 20:04:37 GMT
>>>>> Aaron R Kulkis writes:
Aaron> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Aaron> The mother has custody. And in most states, the mother is allowed
Aaron> to DENY the collection of any DNA sample from the child, so any
Aaron> challenge to paternity becomes significantly more expensive.
>> If the mother is claiming paternity, and the alleged father denies it,
>> the mother has to draw the DNA to prove paternity.
Aaron> Wrong. All she has to do is pull out the Birth Certificate, which has
Aaron> (surprise, fucking surprise) the name of the man that she told to the
Aaron> doctor in the deliver room.
Nope, she has the burden of proof if he disputes the paternity (if
he originally signed the birth certificate, you might have a point).
>> I would like to see a singe cite for the mother being able to asset disputed
>> paternity with no recourse for the alleged father.
Aaron> She doesn't need to take any legal action to do it, therefore, you are
Aaron> asking me to prove a negative.
I am asking you to back your words. I read about disputed paternity cases
a few times a year in the paper, there is always blood testing, generally
DNA these days.
>> But, knowing you, and your refusal to back your words, I will
>> not hold my breath.
Aaron> Since you believe that human-originated C02 is bad for the atmosphere,
I did not say that. It would not surprise me if it were true, but
the data is not yet close to conclusive, so I, unlike you, have not
yet made up my mind. You see, unlike you, I believe in science and
evidence, and place facts in front of ideology every time.
Aaron> I suggest you put prove how sincere you are and hold your breath until
Aaron> the climate is more acceptable to you.
Aaron> Otherwise, you're a hypocrite.
As I did not make that claim, you are stating yet another falsehood.
--
Andrew Hall
(Now reading Usenet in alt.fan.rush-limbaugh...)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Exploit devastates WinNT/2K security
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 26 Apr 2001 14:40:33 -0500
On Thu, 26 Apr 2001 16:14:50 GMT, Bob Hauck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Thu, 26 Apr 2001 12:00:44 +0200, Mart van de Wege
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> flatmate isn't very computer savvy (understatement), so I'd hate to give
>> her the root password to her machine if that means that she'd have root
>> access to the server.
>
>What I do on my home net is set the same root password on all the
>machines. I then don't give that to the wife and kids, who also use
>the machines. I do remote admin by logging in as me and su-ing to
>root.
>
>--
> -| Bob Hauck
> -| Codem Systems, Inc.
> -| http://www.codem.com/
Don't let the feminists know that you keep the root password from
your wife.
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Baseball
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 20:09:48 GMT
jim dutton wrote:
>
> Well as this is a written medium your falacious
Ooooh, that misspelled word there almost sounds dirty
to me. Keep on talking, sailor!
> ploy at voice tone
> is a dog that isn't gonna hunt.
A quaint metaphor!
> As far as sarcasm being annotated by
> quotes you simply pulle dthat out of your ass.
Is your thumb paralyzed?
> Nice try but considerably
> lame. Other symbols! You really are one dumb muthafucker.
I suppose you mean this "insult" to goad me to a rash
and silly response. Unfortunately for your jollies,
I'm a rather poikilothermous individual where trolling
is concerned, especially when the trolling is so glaring.
> >Although jackie may have meant sarcasm, his writing did
> >not convey it.
>
> On planet Chris the sanctimonous tard.
You got the sanctimonious part right (except for the
spelling.)
>
> >> Never mind we saw the answer.
> >Who's "we"?
>
> Your mother and I.
>
> >> -Jeem, The stupidity runs deep in that one
> >
> >Uhhhh, is /that/ one "sarcasm"?
>
> Is that tard script?
>
> -Jeem, Look Chris---------><blink><bold><font size=10billion><ul>""SARCASM"".
Good one! Ha ha!
> http://www.ejeem.com Autococker2000/Dye SS
Cool little site!
> Steatopygias's 'R' Us.
You selling fat asses?
> Sesquipedalian's 'R' Us.
I prefer the metric system!
Chris
--
"None but a blockhead ever wrote code,
except for money."
Bill Gates
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (theRadical)
Crossposted-To:
alt.society.liberalism,misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Communism
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 20:14:46 GMT
On Thu, 26 Apr 2001 15:16:51 -0400, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>theRadical wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 26 Apr 2001 14:46:38 -0400, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >theRadical wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, 26 Apr 2001 12:52:47 -0400, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
>> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >theRadical wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Thu, 26 Apr 2001 10:42:11 -0400, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
>> >> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >theRadical wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> On Thu, 26 Apr 2001 09:59:36 -0400, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
>> >> >> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >theRadical wrote:
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> On Wed, 25 Apr 2001 23:53:58 -0400, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
>> >> >> >> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >Duh-Ridiculed one wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, 25 Apr 2001 18:03:49 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> >"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> "Gunner ©" wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >WEEEEE! I get dibs on the video rights! And we can
>split the fee when
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >we send numbnuts body to a medical school.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >Aaron... try to draw it out as long as possible, so we
>can see lots of
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >his blood and hear the sounds of breaking bones.. Ive
>already got a
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >buyer for the master tape.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >Gunner
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> why doesn't it surprise me that a sick gun nut fuck like
>gunner would
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> think such trash?
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >Because he's got a good sense of humor. :-)
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >Sue
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> Thanks Sue!
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> And of course..I have a good business sense as well. I
>could indeed
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> sell a video of Aaron giving the Radical a serious attitude
>adjustment.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> ..Afterall.. wouldnt Libertarian/Conservitive, with more
>than 6 weeks
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> on the net.. love to see a troll who's limited vocabulary
>includes
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> "sick gun nut fuck" , get his shit scattered? Then there
>are the
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> T-shirt rights...and the bumper sticker, beer and popcorn
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> residuals..hence the request to draw it out as long as
>possible.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> T-shirt example:
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> Front Side..
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> "This is a troll." (picture of a gnormlish nerd like Radical
>in front of
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> a computer)
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> Backside..
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> " This is a troll after Aaron" (picture of a roadkill with a
>sandaled
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> foot and clawed, broken fingered hand, sticking out of the
>puddle)
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> Picture the Budwieser frogs... "grease" "a" "troll"
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >Could you post a price list please. <G> Any discounts
>available?
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >Sue
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Ma'am..for you , Ill make sure you get a good selection of
>every thing
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > for free.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> Everything?
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> But...sue's a married woman.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> >I am? You mean that paperwork I got from the court in 1987 was
>fake?
>> >> >> >> >> >> >Geeze, I hope this doesn't get out because I sure don't want The
>Asshole
>> >> >> >> >> >> >showing up at my door demanding his marital "rights". eeewwww. If
>I am
>> >> >> >> >> >> >still married, as you say, I must say that these last 14 years have
>been
>> >> >> >> >> >> >the best part of it. <G>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> >Sue (who is "taken" but not married)
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> just more proof that "kulkis the shit head" has absolutely no idea of
>> >> >> >> >> >> what he speaks.
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >Humor isn't your strong suit, is it, Duh-Ridicule....
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> there is nothing funny about a pathetic little lying asshole such as
>> >> >> >> >> yourself kulkis.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >Shut up, you little fascist bastard.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> showing your true third grade mentality now aren't you liar?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >AAAAAAAw, did I heart the fealing of the little Neo-Stalinist piece of shit.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> yes, and i am the one with poor communications skills, huh liar?
>> >> >
>> >> >I'm pretty sure everybody reading me understand exactly what I was trying
>> >> >to communicat.e
>> >>
>> >> in spite of your poor communications skills.
>> >>
>> >> >But...as I have noted elsewhere, Duh-Ridiculed...you seem
>> >> >to have alot of difficulty comprehending written English. Thus, I will
>> >> >spell it out more clearly for simpletons like yourself:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >1) I don't have the least bit of sympathy for you, and
>> >> >2) I think you're a little Neo Stalinist piece of shit
>> >>
>> >> yes, i am not the one who lies. i am not the one who uses false logic
>> >> to arrive at ridiculous conclusions. i wouldn't want any sympathy
>> >> from you even if i deserved it (which i do not think). i am nothing
>> >> akin to a "neo stalinist." so who is really the pathetic piece of
>> >> shit liar, kulkis?
>> >>
>> >> the kulkis strategy:
>> >> dodge, lie, ignore, dodge, lie, attack, lie, ignore, dodge.
>> >
>> >Dodge, Kia, Impala, Dodge, Kia, Toyota, Kia, Impala, Dodge
>> >
>> >
>> >Nah, that's kind of expensive.
>>
>> that was a ignore with a quick dodge. you are a pathetic waste of
>> oxygen. everyone following this thread knows what a weak, stupid ass
>> you really are.
>
>you sound like a broken record.
>
>why is that?
because you keep doing the same stupid shit over and over and i just
point it out liar.
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft should be feared and despised
Date: 26 Apr 2001 14:15:00 -0600
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Said Craig Kelley in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 19 Apr 2001 15:21:02
> >T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> Said Craig Kelley in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 05 Apr 2001 23:13:48
> [...]
> >> Actually, republicans *are* the party of big business while
> >> democrats are the party of the people.
> >
> >Guh.
> >
> >Who works at "big businesses"?
> >
> >Individuals.
>
> No, really? I suppose it must be difficult to conceive of a person
> who can understand the Republican position and still disagree with
> it.
And....?
> Individuals work at small businesses, too. More of them do, in
> fact, though you'll find fewer billionaires among them.
I totally agree. (And...?)
> >> Of course, republicans like to pretend they are the party of the
> >> individual, and democrats would like to pretend they aren't flaming
> >> liberals. My point was that the straw men and class warfare of the
> >> liberals is no less nor more subjective or objective than the straw
> >> men and class warfare of the conservatives.
> >
> >And yet you run around making statements like
> >
> > "Actually, republicans *are* the party of big business while
> > democrats are the party of the people."
> >
> >As if,
> >
> > 1) The two are diametrically opposing forces; mutually exclusive
> >
> > (They aren't)
>
> They are, and they aren't. Choose the metaphor or analysis you wish to
> concern yourself with, and I'll gladly provide you rhetoric explaining
> why both are true, simultaneously.
Impossible (but feel free) :)
> > 2) Big business doesn't depend on individuals or vice-versa
> >
> > (They do)
>
> They do and they don't, likewise.
>
> >I find it strange that you are making a point about the subjectivity
> >of such claims by making the same claims; it reeks of liberal
> >snobbery. Democrats like to pretend they aren't flaming liberals
> >because they know it doesn't work in The Real World; as nice as it
> >would be if it did work (apologies to Gene Roddenberry's perfect
> >future).
>
> Republicans like to pretend they aren't greedy bastards because they
> know it doesn't work in The Real World. I don't see why you would
> apologize to Gene Roddenberry, as he was, I would guess, a flaming
> liberal. And the impact of his philosophy can still be seen on The
> Real World. You can recognize, perhaps that it is extremely likely
> that the first ship to land on a planet orbiting some other star,
> should it ever happen, will have some token representation of Star
> Trek, just as the space shuttle was named after the star ship, not
> the aircraft carrier.
I believe that everyone would *love* for that future to come to pass,
conservative and liberal alike. But it hasn't worked *so far* because
of slackers; people who, when given the chance, do nothing at all
instead of working. Who knows but with the invention of free energy
(cold fusion / dilithium crystals / whatever) and free food
(replicator), it won't be impossible. But until then, I have my
doubts.
> >It all comes back to Dave Berry's "Conservatives are the daddy-party
> >and Liberals are the mommy-party". We have to have a happy (or at
> >least pseudo-dysfunctional-happy) balance between the two; the law on
> >one hand and mercy on the other; nuclear power and pollution and
> >electricity on the one side and regulations on the other; a military
> >defense on the one hand and good diplomacy on the other. This whole
> >Microsoft trial falls under the "protect the free market" folder in my
> >head, and not under the "tax the successful people to make the world
> >more fair" folder.
>
> I couldn't agree more. It is only the cognitive dislexia of the
> conservative position which makes me seem to prefer the Democrats. I'd
> prefer a party half-way between the current liberals and the putative
> libertarians, if the libertarians could only see their way to
> jettisoning their anti-government rhetoric.
Let's make one then. The Usenetarians?
> >If either side becomes too powerful then the system breaks; I just
> >wish the libral party had more intelligent debaters that used *facts*
> >more often than *feelings*; but that may simply be a reflection of my
> >being and I respect that others may not "feel" the same way about this
> >issue.
>
> I think it is more of a reflection on the real world, as I agree with
> your thinking concerning the Democrat's "feelings". I consider it an
> extension of what I call "Socrates' error", that idea of western
> philosophy which creates metaphysics. The problem is that the liberal
> ideal simply does not have any actual scientific foundation. The
> problem of altruism is far more valid that anyone wants to pretend, and
> unfortunately theories of altruism are the distinct foundation of both
> positions. The conservative argument thus abandons the validity of
> "feelings", while the liberal proposition embraces it viscerally.
>
> This all comes down to the reason for Socrates' error. Until very
> recently (thanks to advances in neurobiology) we have been unable to
> determine if "feelings" are physical, or metaphysical. Even knowing
> they are emergent properties of our brains merely begs the question,
> unless we can describe the science mathematically.
>
> >I also respect the need to have open discussion about these
> >issues; the last thing we need is a closed mind on *any* issue or
> >*any* president, no matter how badly he butchers the English
> >language.
>
> Bush is a dangerous moron; I am open to discussion of this fact.
Clinton was a dangerous genius; I am open to discussion of this fact
as well.
> >> The concept of class warfare comes from Marx, which is communism,
> >> and both liberals and conservatives have a very strong affinity,
> >> which both deny just as strongly and both are accused of by the
> >> other just as routinely, with communism; the democrats in the
> >> socio-economic method, and the republicans in the political method.
> >
> >Class warfware has been around a lot longer than Marx; much of the
> >Bible is about class warfare (and race warfare, and genocide, and
> >infancide, but I digress...)
>
> Plenty of all the rest, but I am unaware of any class warfare at all in
> the Bible. Not that I'm an authority, but having gone to 12 years of
> Catholic school, I'd suspect its because its not there.
Off the top of my head:
The Israelites in Egypt (racial and class).
The Pharoses and the Samaritans (class).
One could argue that the entire old testament is a lesson in setting a
part one culture from another; kind of an anti-multi-culturalism.
--
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nick Maclaren)
Crossposted-To: comp.theory,comp.arch,comp.object
Subject: Re: Blame it all on Microsoft
Date: 26 Apr 2001 20:15:47 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Paul Repacholi wrote:
>> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > Can they robuset enough to continue operating during a nuclear war,
>> > like TCP/IP?
>>
>> Huh, IP can seldom cope on a GOOD day. The idea of an IP based network
>> staying up under severe stress is just too funny to be funny.
>
>That's a BANDWIDTH issue, which has nothing to do with robustness.
>
>Hope that helps, feeble-minded twit.
Hmm. If the bandwidth limitations of IP were all the problems it
caused me, I would have a much easier life. If you look into its
design - I won't say more carefully, because a quick glance will
do - you will see that it is the antithesis of robust.
The fact that it was designed to work on unreliable transport media
doesn't mean that it delivers a reliable result, whatever sense
you apply to reliable. TCP is nominally a 'reliable' channel, but
is prone to failure saying just "shan't", jamming at several levels,
and so on.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren,
University of Cambridge Computing Service,
New Museums Site, Pembroke Street, Cambridge CB2 3QG, England.
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tel.: +44 1223 334761 Fax: +44 1223 334679
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
