Linux-Advocacy Digest #968, Volume #33 Fri, 27 Apr 01 01:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: bank switches from using NT 4 ("Chad Myers")
What percentage of open-source programmers are paid for working on open-source
projects? (Dave Martel)
Re: bank switches from using NT 4 ("Jan Johanson")
Re: Women's rights and responsibilities -- child support from...non-fathers.
(Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: bank switches from using NT 4 ("Jan Johanson")
Re: Women's rights and responsibilities. (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: bank switches from using NT 4 ("Jan Johanson")
Re: bank switches from using NT 4 ("Jan Johanson")
Re: bank switches from using NT 4 ("Jan Johanson")
Re: bank switches from using NT 4 ("Jan Johanson")
Re: Women's rights and responsibilities. (Brent R)
Re: e: Feminism ==> subjugation of males ("Goddess")
Re: bank switches from using NT 4 ("Jan Johanson")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: bank switches from using NT 4
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 03:36:49 GMT
"Chronos Tachyon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message news:Iz5G6.1328$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Thu 26 Apr 2001 09:08, Chad Myers wrote:
>
> [Snip]
> >
> > <sigh>
> >
> > I just love the arrogance. It's funny when someone who isn't really
> > all that smart thinks they know so much and then pretends to put down
> > someone they see as less intelligent, when all they are really doing
> > is embarassing themselves.
> >
>
> Hmm, sounds familiar, I wonder who else fits that description... ISTR there
> was this one chap claiming that SSH was horribly insecure because of a few
> minor imperfections in the protocol. Hmm, now who was that?
Heh, grasping at straws again.
I maintained that I was not an expert, nor claimed to be. I was merely
raising questions about what EXPERTS and people who had ORIGINALLY worked
on the product said about it's problems.
How you mistook that for pretense I'll never figure out...
Whereas this guy was all
lofty-high-and-mighty-big-bad-200-years-of-Unix-experience.
If you look up pretense in the dictionary, there's a picture of this guy's ass.
>
> > The fact is, Win2K AS has been in use in production environments since
> > before its official release date. Dell was using Beta 3 for production
> > web servers, accounting systems, as well as several other enterprise
> > applications.
> >
>
> I would hardly trust production systems to beta software from a company
> with Microsoft's track record on stability, but to each their own I suppose.
Their track record with SQL Server 7 and Windows 2000 were impecable. The
beta programs went extremely well. Many corporations were using the beta 3
version of both products in production including Dell, Buy.com, and Barnes And
Noble
to name but a few.
I don't recall it very well, but I was told that the Exchange 5.5 beta program
went extremely well also.
>From what I've seen SQL Server 2000, Exchange 2000 and Windows XP are incredibly
rock-solid products.
Microsoft's trackrecord for stability is top notch.
Perhaps you're referring to back in the NT 3.51 and 4.0 days 6 or more years
ago.
Where was Linux at 6 years ago? Hardly an enterprise high-availability server.
You have no leg to stand on, let along speak from in this department.
>
> > Availability with Win2K AS is extremely high. Unfortunately, it's
> > impossible to compare it with Linux since Linux simply cannot
> > play at that high of an enterprise level. Linux has high availability
> > when you're running a DNS, DHCP, or FTP server perhaps, but it can't
> > seem to do much else without falling over. Lord knows it's
> > not a stable, nor secure web platform.
> >
>
> This paragraph had me LOLing in real life for a good 30 seconds. Chad, you
> certainly know how to perk up my day. Oh, what's that, you're SERIOUS?
> Excuse me...
Just the facts. If you have a hard time swallowing the glaring obvious, then
you should consult a physician. The truth is, the only time Linux is used
in any type of enterprise-level capacity is when it's in some type of
rediculously
large cluster of hundreds of boxes.
I don't see any major stock exchanges, pharmeceutical firms, financial houses,
datawarehousing firms, or the like running on "Enterprise Linux".
OTOH, I seem them running on Win2K Enterprise servers like Advanced Server
and Datacenter server.
Sure, Linux may be able to crank out static web pages with the best of them,
but high-availability millions-of-transactions-per-hour type stuff? ROFL,
Linux is nowhere to be found.
Hell, they just recently fixed a multi-threaded networking kernel issue.
That's kindergarten kernel stuff and they expect us to believe that Linux
is magically Enterprise ready?
Perhaps Linux 6.0, but 2.4 still has a long, long way to go before it's
in the league of Solaris, Win2K, etc.
> OK, I'm back. Well, Linux admittedly isn't quite yet up-to-snuff as far as
> performance goes on the bigger iron machines, although 2.4 has improved the
> situation. But to claim that it merely falls over is bullshit.
2.4 is an improvement, I am not denying you that, but it's still not the
pinnacle
of stability like Solaris or Win2K. There are still major issues with Linux,
not the least of which is no major adoptions in the enterprise arena. The
fact is, we simply don't know how many more failings in the Linux kernel there
are because no one has put it under enough stress or relied on it for their
entire organization like many corporations have with Win2K datacenter.
-c
------------------------------
From: Dave Martel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: What percentage of open-source programmers are paid for working on
open-source projects?
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 21:46:25 -0600
This came up in alt.comp.shareware.authors. I'm sure some work on
their projects on company time and some projects are company projects
(StarOffice), but have always been under the impression that the vast
majority worked for the love of programming. Anyone know?
------------------------------
From: "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: bank switches from using NT 4
Date: 26 Apr 2001 23:05:06 -0500
"Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Jan Johanson wrote:
> >
> > "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Jon Johansan wrote:
> > > >
> > > > But I stated a fact.
> > >
> > > You stated an opinion, pure and simple. You can't assume that you know
> > anything
> > > about what I think.
> >
> > I based my comment upon reading your non-stop spewing of blind hatred
for
> > anything remotely related to MS. I've never seen you once give quarter
to
> > any MS product and given that MS products do not universally 'suck' it's
> > obvious your opinion...
> Windows 2000 as a desktop isn't bad, however, if it was more UNIX like
> in the command line, device layout etc I would instantly move to it.
> However, with that being said, I am going to wait 3-5 months after the
> Windows XP launch and see how things iron out, as I will also buy COrel
> Draw 10 and Wordperfect 2002 if Windows XP turns out to be a good OS,
> however, I am suspicious to whether it will be reliable and stable esp
> after the hype of Windows 2000 was released, I bought a legal copy, then
> to my surprise, I found that the TCP/IP stack is even worse than Windows
> 9x/ME, PPP connections constantly disconnecting,
now see - this just gets my goose every time. [W2K] "TCP/IP stack is even
worse than Windows 9x/ME" - oh , come on! I mean, the NT stack was better
and the W2K stack is supreme. It was tested and beaten upon - even borrowing
technology from the unix you so love and you think it's worse than 9x? This
just screams to me that something is wrong with your evaluation.
p.s., most people fail to realize - you CAN fully manage your W2K box via
the command line. Hell, there IS a telnet server built-in.
<snip>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.men
Subject: Re: Women's rights and responsibilities -- child support from...non-fathers.
Date: 27 Apr 2001 04:10:06 GMT
On Thu, 26 Apr 2001 20:56:21 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Wednesday April 25 11:04 AM ET
> Non-Biological Dad Must Pay Support
[ article snipped ]
Why are you double-posting this ?
Anyway, while the article is interesting, it's also worth mentioning that
recourse one has to challenge "presumption of paternity" varies on a state
by state basis.
It appears that there is a move towards placing greater emphasis on DNA
testing (as a means of challenging paternity) and I for one think that's
a good move.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: bank switches from using NT 4
Date: 26 Apr 2001 23:12:14 -0500
"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Jan Johanson wrote:
> >
> > "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Jon Johansan wrote:
> > > >
> > > > But I stated a fact.
> > >
> > > You stated an opinion, pure and simple. You can't assume that you know
> > anything
> > > about what I think.
> >
> > I based my comment upon reading your non-stop spewing of blind hatred
for
> > anything remotely related to MS. I've never seen you once give quarter
to
> > any MS product and given that MS products do not universally 'suck' it's
> > obvious your opinion...
>
> You don't even know me. I am a published writer, and have published how to
> write Windows NT/95 drivers from the same source code. I have written
articles
> describing the object oriented nature of Windows and how to use the
ability to
> subclass Windows to make programming easier.
I don't need to know this - I can just read your posts and determine that
you simply bash MS products without regard for which one and often simple
disgard any pro-MS comment out of hand. I seriously doubt you've had much
experience with recent MS offerings based on the fact you have often
assigned old w9x and nt4 (pre SP5) quarks to products like W2K and NT4sp6.
>
<snip >
> To say I have a "blind hatred of Microsoft" you make some assumptions
about me,
> which are not true.
I'm not assuming - I read your posts and developed my opinion of your
opinion.
<snip>
> I am quite capable of making "informed" not "blind" evaluations. Windows
9x/ME
> is a joke. It is nothing more than a badly written DOS extender with tons
of
> crap piled on.
Never been a big fan of Win9x stability - but enjoyed what the GUI offered.
But this is a NT advocacy group, not a generic windows advocacy group and I
ALWAYS am specfic that my advocacy is for NT4 post-SP4 and MUCH more so for
W2K. In fact, it's far to say all my comments these days are in regards to
W2K (pre or post SP1, as SP1 wasn't even needed to declare W2K successful)
>
> Windows NT, the kernel used to be pretty good. (I have said this on
numerous
> occasions) In NT 4.0 they moved the GUI and graphical components into
kernel
> space. This is a huge strategic mistake if you want to make a stable OS.
You can say what you will but the fact that NT4sp6 and DEFINATELY W2K is
VERY stable and proven so time and time again undermines your opinion of
this "mistake"
>
> Microsoft does not make "good" software, they make, probably, the worst
> software I have ever seen. They can't design an API if their life depended
on
> it. They still think in terms of DOS. (Why the hell have not driver
letters
> completely gone away?)
Why the hell DO drive letters NEED to go away? (keyword: need). If they
disappeared drive letter today - the next complaint you'd have is: ahha,
see, they have no regard for backwards compatibility! those bastards! And
for someone you say can't design an API - I sure see a boatload of people
using these deadly APIs all the time with great success.
>
> The Windows API is not stable, not standard, and the assumptions it makes
about
> the lower level OS preclude it from being implemented efficiently on
stable
> operating systems.
I don't see ANY supporting evidence and what I DO see going on out there
flies in the face of your claims. I see perfectly stable Windows servers, I
see Windows being "The" standard and your last part made no sense.
>
> I don't have a blind hatred of Microsoft, I have a healthy disdain for
poor
> technology. A lot of which spews from Microsoft every quarter.
Sorry, I just don't buy it.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.men
Subject: Re: Women's rights and responsibilities.
Date: 27 Apr 2001 04:13:51 GMT
On Thu, 26 Apr 2001 20:37:17 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> You failed to provide a single citation.
>
> How can you cite a law which doesn't exist, MORON.
While Kulkis' displays his usual manners (ie none), he is right.
Search the web, it's not like it's hard to find. It's common law,
not legislation.
OTOH, remedies to challenge paternity is (state) legislation.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: bank switches from using NT 4
Date: 26 Apr 2001 23:14:09 -0500
"Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Jan Johanson wrote:
> >
> > "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Jon Johansan wrote:
> > > >
> > > > and all that means... you are a unix dude... ok. so?
> > > >
> > > > Gee, an OS that is bogged down by _buggy apps_ who'd a thunk?
> > > > I'll bet I can create a buggy app that'll bog down any OS if the
bugs
> > were
> > > > gnarly enough eh? silly...
> > > >
> > > > memory usage too high? What's the yardstick? If you compare usage to
> > > > Commadore 64 levels then even Linux is a memory PIG! However, we're
not.
> > And
> > > > 256 megs of ECC RAS2 memory will set you back a whooping $89 - do
you
> > really
> > > > need to be concerned about 486's running with 32 megs?
> > >
> > > $89, no, its is not, you are looking at least $NZ150 for 128MB RAM,
that
> > > is standard, off the shelf memory, I have 384MB of RAM, which works
out
> > > to be around $NZ450 worth of memory in my computer.
> >
> > I'm sorry memory is so expensive for you - but for me and fellow
> > pricewatch.com visitors this is not the case.
> >
> > >The memory usage of
> > > an OS sound be as minimal as possible, for example, the Amiga 500 used
> > > 100K to load Workbench 1.3.2 out of 1.5MB of ram (excluding the
> > > FastMem), compare that to a Average computer, at 128MB, which the OS
> > > alone takes up 32MB of RAM, that is an example of bloat.
> >
> > Well - it would be nice if the Amiga OS had at least 1/8th the
funtionality
> > of the Windows OS so we could even remotely begin to make comparisons.
> >
> > >If Microsoft
> > > concerntrated on making Windows more secure, smaller, both disk and
> > > memory usage, I would be prepared to pay up to $1000 for it, however,
> > > Microsoft insists on sloppy code, well, you get bloat as a result.
> >
> > So, given that you've never actually seen the code and simply because it
has
> > become larger as more features were added, you deduce it's sloppy code?
> > Sherlock Holmes you are not.
> What can Windows do that Workbench can't? full command line, full GUI,
> printers, fonts etc etc. are all available on the AmigaOS.
Are you suggesting that Workbench can do everything that Windows can?
Shall the game begin?
------------------------------
From: "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: bank switches from using NT 4
Date: 26 Apr 2001 23:16:23 -0500
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:yH7F6.7085$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:3ae4f003$0$17265$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > >
> > > > > Except that it isn't true. Many companies are finding that an
NT/2K
> > > > solution is
> > > > > not more stable, is not cheaper, is not easier to manage.
> > > >
> > > > Except that what you just wrote is NOT true. W2K IS much more stable
> and
> > > > cheaper and in every single way imaginable much MUCH easier to
manage.
> I
> > > > mean, night and day differences.
> > >
> > > Stable? Where's the W2K box that's been running for 2 years?
> >
> > Well - I'd imagine that is about as possible as the linux 2.4 (release
> > version) box that's been running for a year. Get it? I'll give you a
clue,
> > W2K release date < 2 years!
>
> Yes, I do understand that it is foolish to make claims about stability
> in something with no history, especially considering the history of
> everything else from that company.
>
Well - the only claims for stability I make of W2K are simple:
I have these W2K machines - they have never crashed. They stay up as long as
I leave them running. I don't know how better to claim uptime than: they are
always up. Whatever the history of other previous products might be - the
product I use today is reliable and stable. I know this because I use it and
it is.
------------------------------
From: "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: bank switches from using NT 4
Date: 26 Apr 2001 23:17:06 -0500
"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9c3fu9$afs$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Stable? Where's the W2K box that's been running for 2 years?
> >
> > Well - I'd imagine that is about as possible as the linux 2.4 (release
> > version) box that's been running for a year. Get it? I'll give you a
> > clue, W2K release date < 2 years!
>
> Yes, well done. You really need everything explained to you in minute
> deatil don't you?
>
No - I think I put it quite clearly.
------------------------------
From: "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: bank switches from using NT 4
Date: 26 Apr 2001 23:22:12 -0500
"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Jan Johanson wrote:
> >
> > "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:zU5F6.6825$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > "Jon Johansan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:3ae45e41$0$2769$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >
> > > > > Except that it isn't true. Many companies are finding that an
NT/2K
> > > > solution is
> > > > > not more stable, is not cheaper, is not easier to manage.
> > > >
> > > > Except that what you just wrote is NOT true. W2K IS much more stable
and
> > > > cheaper and in every single way imaginable much MUCH easier to
manage. I
> > > > mean, night and day differences.
> > >
> > > Stable? Where's the W2K box that's been running for 2 years?
> >
> > Well - I'd imagine that is about as possible as the linux 2.4 (release
> > version) box that's been running for a year. Get it? I'll give you a
clue,
> > W2K release date < 2 years!
>
> Then find us that statistically significant number of NT boxes that have
been
> up for two years.
And where am I going to find you the type of proof I can provide on-line for
such a thing? Especially given the uptime counter in NT4 wraps at 49.7 days?
However, when you want "up" time I think we're both smart enough to know
that it's not necessarily 100% contiguous time, we're talking unexpected
down time, i.e., crash. I look at the farm at work and see servers that I
know have never crashed. Sure, rebooted every few months because of some
hotfix or some patch or perhaps a hardware upgrade/repair. If you were to
run an uptime tool on those machines you wouldn't find 1, let alone 2, years
on any single one - however, there aren't any that I know of that have
actually literally crashed due to the OS puking. Typically, when I think of
the machine running 2 years nonstop I think of the novell server someone put
in a closet and everyone forgot about.
When I think stability and reliability and uptime - I want to know about
unexpected downtime - scheduled reboots for hardware shouldn't count against
uptime calculations.
------------------------------
From: Brent R <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.men
Subject: Re: Women's rights and responsibilities.
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 04:22:58 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > >>>>> Aaron R Kulkis writes:
> >
> > Aaron> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >>>>> Aaron R Kulkis writes:
> > >>
> > >> >> And I was under the impression in the cases of questionable
> > >> >> paternity that a DNA sample could be demanded.
> > >>
> > Aaron> Nope. Paternity is still judged on English common law: whoever
> > Aaron> the mother CLAIMS is the father *IS* the father, until proven
> > Aaron> otherwise.
> > >>
> > >> Can you cite a single state that has a law like this?
> >
> > Aaron> All 50, as they have no statutory law to supercede the common law.
> >
> > You failed to provide a single citation.
> >
> > Aaron> Hope that helps, leftist feeb.
> >
> > Please name a leftist position of mine.
> >
> > Thanks in advance.
> >
>
> Wednesday April 25 11:04 AM ET
> Non-Biological Dad Must Pay Support
>
> By DENISE LAVOIE, Associated Press Writer
>
> BOSTON (AP) - The state's highest court ruled against a man who tried
> to stop making child support payments for a 7-year-old girl after a
> DNA test showed she was not his daughter.
>
> The Supreme Judicial Court said the man had waited too long to
> challenge his paternity. It was 51/2 years from the girl's birth in
> 1993 to the time he first went to court.
>
> "I think what's critical is the parent-child relationship and the
> reliance that's occurred over the years in this particular case,''
> said the mother's lawyer, Pauline Quirion.
>
> The man's lawyer, Thomas Conroy, said his client intends to maintain
> regular visits with the girl but objects to having a court impose
> mandatory child support payments.
>
> For most of the girl's life, the man she thought was her father made
> weekly support payments to the girl's mother. The two were not
> married.
>
> Years later, after the man heard rumors from friends that he was not
> the father, a fertility specialist told him his low sperm count made
> it unlikely he could father a child.
>
> In 1999, after the girl's mother won a court-ordered increase in child
> support payments, he took the girl for a DNA test that determined he
> was not the father.
>
> He then went to court to try to set aside his acknowledgment of
> paternity, entered in court shortly after the girl's birth. He also
> requested reimbursement for all the child support he had already paid.
>
> A judge ordered genetic testing and said that if tests established
> that the man was not the girl's father, he would be entitled to stop
> future support payments.
>
> A lawyer for the girl's mother asked the court to suspend its order
> until the case could be heard by the Supreme Judicial Court in
> February, and the DNA tests were never done.
>
> In its ruling Tuesday, the top court said that although it cannot
> force the man to continue to nurture his relationship with the girl,
> ``We can ensure that Cheryl, who may be deprived of her father's
> affection and longheld assumptions about her paternity, is not also
> deprived of the legal rights and financial benefits of a parental
> relationship.''
>
> As of February, he had paid about $28,000 in child support.
>
> The names of those involved in the case are impounded under paternity
> law in Massachusetts.
> > --
> > Andrew Hall
> > (Now reading Usenet in alt.fan.rush-limbaugh...)
>
> --
> Aaron R. Kulkis
> Unix Systems Engineer
> DNRC Minister of all I survey
> ICQ # 3056642
>
> L: This seems to have reduced my spam. Maybe if everyone does it we
> can defeat the email search bots. [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> K: Truth in advertising:
> Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shalala,
> Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan,
> Special Interest Sierra Club,
> Anarchist Members of the ACLU
> Left Wing Corporate Extremist Ted Turner
> The Drunken Woman Killer Ted Kennedy
> Grass Roots Pro-Gun movement,
>
> J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
> The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
> also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
>
> I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
> challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
> between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
> Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
>
> H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
> premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
> you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
> you are lazy, stupid people"
>
> G: Knackos...you're a retard.
>
> F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
> adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
>
> E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
> her behavior improves.
>
> D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
> ...despite (C) above.
>
> C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
>
> B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
> method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
> direction that she doesn't like.
>
> A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
Damn that is, truly, shocking Aaron. I forwarded it to some people I
know.
Aaron, you are a kook, but you do make some good points.
--
- Brent
http://rotten168.home.att.net
------------------------------
From: "Goddess" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: e: Feminism ==> subjugation of males
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 21:10:33 -0700
"Brent R" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > >>>>> Aaron R Kulkis writes:
> >
> > Aaron> The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
> >
> > >> >>and that that somehow prevented young girls from entering
> > >> >> into Math/Science.
> >
> > >> >Barbie dolls didn't stop me.
> >
> > >> Personally, I wonder who the dumbass was who programmed in the
> > >> "Math is haaaaaaard" into them at one point.
> >
> > Aaron> A realist.
> >
> > Math is not harder than any other topic. That it is
> > is a self perpetuating myth. Thankfully for my daughters,
> > my wife majored in math and is an actuary.
> >
> > Both daughters love math and do great at it. My twelve year
> > old wants to solve the Twin Prime Conjecture (she also wants
> > to cure cancer using molecular biology, so we will see where
> > she ends up).
> >
> > --
> > Andrew Hall
> > (Now reading Usenet in alt.fan.rush-limbaugh...)
>
> People who brag about their kids irritate me.
Why? You can't brag about yours? I'm sorry. :-)
Marg
> - Brent
>
> http://rotten168.home.att.net
------------------------------
From: "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: bank switches from using NT 4
Date: 26 Apr 2001 23:29:06 -0500
"Chad Everett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2001 02:53:19 GMT, Les Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >
> >"Jon Johansan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:3ae45e41$0$2769$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>
> >> > Except that it isn't true. Many companies are finding that an NT/2K
> >> solution is
> >> > not more stable, is not cheaper, is not easier to manage.
> >>
> >> Except that what you just wrote is NOT true. W2K IS much more stable
and
> >> cheaper and in every single way imaginable much MUCH easier to manage.
I
> >> mean, night and day differences.
> >
> >Stable? Where's the W2K box that's been running for 2 years?
> >
>
> Much easier to manage?
yes. MUCH.
>
>
> I put in a Yamaha CD_RW drive a while back so users can
> create CDs on a Windows 2K Pro box. Trouble is, Windows
> 2K Pro will only let the administrator write to the CD-RW
> drive. WIndows "online help and knowledge base": no help.
> Yamaha online help: only administrator can write to CD-RW
> drives in WIndows 2K. Easy CD Creator and NERO app: same
> answer. So Ive got this new CD-RW drive and only administrator
> can even use it. Really nice for the users, huh? A CD-RW
> drive that they can't use.
Hmmm... I'm using DirectCD right now, logged in as a power user. Working
fine for me.
>
> How does this make Windows 2K Pro easier to manage?
What does using a CD-RW have to do with _managing_ a W2K box? It works as a
CD right? You can burn disks right? (I sure can, do it all the time, you
only need to have administrator rights to install the software because it
changes system level drivers).
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
