Linux-Advocacy Digest #987, Volume #33 Fri, 27 Apr 01 10:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: t. max devlin: kook (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Baseball (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Baseball (T. Max Devlin)
Re: t. max devlin: kook (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Baseball (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Microsoft hit new security 'level' :-) (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 13:16:11 GMT
Said Roberto Alsina in alt.destroy.microsoft on 26 Apr 2001 13:22:24
GMT;
>billh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>"Roberto Alsina
>>
>>> >Yet the question remains unanswered.
>>>
>>> Yup.
>>>
>>> > Just what is this "global society" you say exists?
>>>
>>> Why should I answer that?
>>
>>Good bye. Plonk.
>
>Well, you didn't answer that, either.
LOL
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 13:16:12 GMT
Said Aaron R. Kulkis in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 26 Apr 2001
>Chad Everett wrote:
[...]
>> >Roberto Alsina
>>
>> He's in Argentina.
>
>But he makes constant PRETENSES that he is in the US.
LOL! Sure he does, Aaron.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 13:16:27 GMT
Said Joseph T. Adams in alt.destroy.microsoft on 24 Apr 2001 23:05:42
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
>: Are you guys planning on starting any revolts in order to restore the
>: lawful government of the US?
>
>You are free to believe whatever stereotypes you want.
>
>However, the Ohio Unorganized Militia is and always has been a
>law-abiding organization. It exists to protect the life, liberty and
>property of every U.S. Citizen and legal resident alien.
You can believe any delusions you want, but we already have more
trustworthy organization than your private band of supposedly peaceful
thugs to take of that for us, thanks.
[...]
>We do not initiate violence.
You have guns, though. Yet your threatening someone else which you
believe an enemy of the US or yourself or your friends, family, or
property (!) with that gun, and say you are not initiating violence?
>We sometimes respond to threatened or
>actual violence initiated by government against innocent citizens.
So you're an unlawful organization which intends to overthrow the
government, is that it?
>However, our fire response teams are armed ONLY with video cameras,
>tape recorders, and notepads. Guns stay at home.[...]
Why not just let the guns stay in the stores, as you already apparently
have more deadly weaponry, if your aim is to defend freedom rather than
usurp the rightful power of the government wrongfully.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 13:16:28 GMT
Said Chad Everett in alt.destroy.microsoft on 24 Apr 2001 12:57:20
>On 24 Apr 2001 18:02:36 GMT, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Chad Everett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
>>>You clearly stated that you personally believe that [any killing not in
>>>self defense] includes [killing at war].
[...]
>Bzzzt wrong. And you claim that you lectured on logic?
>That's not what your sentence said at all. I provided the definition
>of "includes" for a reason.
I'm afraid you're mistaken, Chad. Roberto was perfectly correct in
pointing out that killings in self defense are possible in war, and none
of his statements have been inconsistent with his current statements.
He has not stated all killing in war is murder, and he has well
supported his logic in claiming that some killings in war are murder,
and being in war does not prevent them from being murder, unless the
intent is to defend the waging of war for no purpose.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 13:16:30 GMT
Said Joseph T. Adams in alt.destroy.microsoft on 24 Apr 2001 21:28:13
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>:>: How does eating fish on fridays connect to loving my neighbour?
>:>
>:>You may be confusing the teachings of a particular sect (the Roman
>:>Catholic Church) with those of Christ. They're not necessarily the
>:>same thing.
>
>: Well, I'm afraid you have to pick your sect before you can say anything
>: at is the "teachings of Christ". He didn't necessarily even exist.
>
>There is ample evidence for the life of Christ. There are very few,
>if any, historians who doubt His existence. Most of those who are not
>Christians doubt the veracity of the Biblical accounts of His life,
>but that is an entirely separate issue.
According to a panoply of theists and philosophers who have been
investigating this very issue for several years (known as "The Jesus
Project"), this is quite incorrect. You might mistake the claims of
those within the sects we speak of as providing some authority, but I
assure you it does not. Whether there was any one man who corresponds
to the Jesus Christ of the Bible is at best conjecture. At best, he is
an amalgam, composed primarily of myth. Certainly, anyone who doubted
that any man that might correspond to Jesus Christ is some specific way
existed would be overdoing it, but claiming that historians do not doubt
"His" existence is, as well.
>Also, all mainstream Christian denominations are in complete agreement
>regarding what Jesus said. There are a few places where they do not
>agree about what He *meant*. That is an entirely separate issue as
>well.
Oh, bull. That is entirely the issue, the only issue. Once a persons
words have been translated, what, four or five times, talking about what
he "said" as different from what he "meant" is quibbling, hell, its
nothing but arm-waving.
>The prohibition against eating meat on Fridays was a rule of the Roman
>Catholic Church, not a teaching of Christ, and it is no longer in
>effect, except in Lent. It hasn't been for decades.
And until they changed their mind, they claimed that this 'rule' was the
word of God, same as you or any other sect would like to claim that
Jesus's words were.
>If you want to discuss Christianity, it would be a good idea to learn
>a little more about it.
Well, believe it or not, I was well aware that fish on fridays was no
longer mandated by the Pope, since I was in about the seventh year,
IIRC, of my twelve years of Catholic schooling, when it was announced.
>Roberto would be well advised to do the same.
>He is very knowledgeable about KDE, among other things, and you are
>knowledgeable about many things as well. But neither of you
>demonstrates any grasp of the fundamental teachings of Christianity at
>all, and that makes it fairly difficult to have a rational discussion
>about it.
I would guess that Roberto would agree with me that it is this silly
prattling about "fundamental teachings" which must be "grasped" which
makes it impossible to have a rational discussion about it, because
there is nothing at all rational in it. It is a matter of Faith, not
logic, and myths, not reason. I am very familiar with "the teachings of
Jesus", which I why I thought it important to point out that one has to
pick a sect before you can even claim to know what those "teachings"
are. The Bible is history, yes, but it is not a history book. Jesus'
teachings exist, yes, but whether Jesus did or not is far more debatable
than you seem willing to recognize.
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 13:16:31 GMT
Said Chad Everett in alt.destroy.microsoft on 24 Apr 2001 11:53:04
-0500;
>On Tue, 24 Apr 2001 16:14:50 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>You missed my point; OBVIOUSLY it didn't mean 'thou shalt not kill', as
>>plants and animals can be killed. So when you say "it means 'murder'"
>>you're pretending like there were judges and juries and rules of
>>evidence, so as to exclude involuntary manslaughter. My point is that
>>it means 'murder' or 'slay', AND 'kill', and therefore any reasonable
>>person must conclude it means 'to kill another human being'.
>>
>>Thou shalt not. It doesn't say "thou shalt not... unless they are Evil
>>or enemies of Israel."
>
>I understand your point and you have just made it clearly here too.
>
>"Thou shalt not murder" can only be understood if it is taken in
>context with the other direct commands of God. If you are going to
>use the Bible as a source in a debate, then the entire Bible can
>be taken into account, otherwise the entire Bible would soley
>contain 10 commandments. God gave a commandment "Thou shalt not murder",
>He also said that He doesn't lie, He also said that He is a just God,
>He also told men on many occassions to go to war and kill people.
>He also said that all men deserve to die. He also provided a way
>out, and on and on..... The commandments can only be understood
>when you attempt to understand what God wants beyond the literal
>interpretation of the one sentence commandment.
>
Which is to say there's little real reason for bothering with "what God
wants" to begin with. If we are not able to comprehend what he said,
that "thou shalt not kill" means thou should not kill, without further
consideration of many other things, then why is it that we cannot derive
the fact that we shouldn't kill other human beings from the
consideration alone? If the Bible is merely a rubric, then it is
useless, and should not contain those ten commandments, or any other
direct statement of 'what God wants'. It does, however, and so pointing
out that we don't expect that God's commandments were intended as
puzzles, but as true divine dictates, is more in keeping with the Bible
than your more tepid level of belief. If man must interpret the word of
God, it is the interpretation of Man that we are dealing with, not the
word of God at all. Whether there actually is a word of God becomes
pointless, as I said.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 13:16:32 GMT
Said billh in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 24 Apr 2001 16:58:39 GMT;
>"T. Max Devlin"
>
>> If the prosecution proves you were in no mortal danger, or would not
>> have reasonably believed you were in mortal danger, then self-defense
>> becomes wrongful death. If you want to play games, that is. But I
>> think the fact that you pulled my comment out of context is enough to
>> show your lack of argument.
>
>In some jurisdictions in the USA a stranger invading your house is grounds
>for use of fatal force. You're not required to show that you were in, or
>thought yourself to be in, mortal danger.
Do you always allow your ethics to devolve merely to what is legal? You
are not required to show you were in danger, but if someone else should
show beyond a reasonable doubt that you were not, nor did you think that
you were (reasonably), then you're going to have a 'guilty' verdict on
your hands, and whether you believe you did the right thing is not an
issue, since all criminals believe they are innocent, anyway.
A stranger invading your house MAY BE grounds for use of lethal force
(there is never any grounds for 'fatal force', as it were, and I would
claim the distinction would be whether the intent, or merely the effect,
is the death of another). There is no "is" allowed when dealing with
matters of this nature, despite your intense, no doubt fervent, desire
for only nice, easy, "true/false" questions in real life.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 13:16:33 GMT
Said billh in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 24 Apr 2001 21:18:38 GMT;
>"Roberto Alsina"
>
>> >> > If the prosecution proves you were in no mortal danger, or would not
>> >> > have reasonably believed you were in mortal danger, then self-defense
>> >> > becomes wrongful death. If you want to play games, that is. But I
>> >> > think the fact that you pulled my comment out of context is enough to
>> >> > show your lack of argument.
>> >>
>> >> In some jurisdictions in the USA a stranger invading your house is
>grounds
>> >> for use of fatal force. You're not required to show that you were in,
>or
>> >> thought yourself to be in, mortal danger.
>> >
>> >
>> >Yep, this is very true in South Carolina and Texas (probably other
>> >states also). The law is referred to as the "Don't Ask" law. If
>> >an intruder breaks into my house here in Texas then the State gives
>> >me the right to be judge, jury, and executioner. The incident won't
>> >even go to the grand jury.
>>
>> Actually, I think the situation right now is that it is not legal
>> to kill the intruder, but that the attorneys hace decided not to
>> prosecute that specific crime.
>
>You are again wrong. The "situation right now is" that it is legal to kill
>the intruder in some jurisdictions without having to prove you felt yourself
>to be in mortal danger.
Thick as a brick, isn't he, eh, Roberto?
>> There's a gulf between "legal" and "not prosecuted".
>
>There is also a gulf between the truth and what you believe to be true.
I guess this is why this conversation has been so entertaining; you
don't even have enough ability to grasp abstractions as Roberto does.
Which is wider, bill, the gulf between the truth and what Roberto
believes to be true, the gulf between the truth and what you believe to
be true, or the gulf between what you believe to be true and what
Roberto believes to be true?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 13:16:34 GMT
Said billh in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 24 Apr 2001 23:09:02 GMT;
>"Roberto Alsina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>From Section 9.41 ( Protection of One's Own Property)
>
>A. A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, moveable property is
>justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor
>reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or
>terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the
>property.
I don't see any authorization for deadly force, specifically. So
Roberto was, of course, correct. The DA has apparently decided not to
prosecute people who use deadly force (for possible crimes involved in
using excessive force, as indicated by the 'degree' mentioned in the
statute) because of the difficulty of determining how much force was
"immediately necessary".
[...]
>Bottom Line: If you burglar a house at night in Texas you must be prepared
>to die at the hands of a citizen using justifiable deadly force.
Your assumption that deadly force is automatically justifiable is where
your problem is.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: t. max devlin: kook
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 13:16:35 GMT
Said Peter Hayes in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 24 Apr 2001 19:44:36
>On Tue, 24 Apr 2001 16:14:54 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>
>> Said Peter Hayes in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 14 Apr 2001 21:37:57
>> >On Sun, 08 Apr 2001 10:30:53 -0400, "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >> Ever see a true newbie in front of a Windows machine?
>> >
>> >I first came across the GUI in the form of an early Apple computer in an
>> >electrical store in Glasgow, Scotland in the early 80s.
>> >
>> >I remember fiddling with the mouse, occasionally getting some response, but
>> >the double-click process isn't intuitive, and I gave up largely
>> >unimpressed.
>> >
>> >The GUI isn't intuitive at all, without instruction or training, and double
>> >clicking doesn't help. KDE's single click is less unintuitive for the
>> >newbie, what's more natural than one click on an icon to run the app?
>>
>> One click on the icon to select the icon, one double-click to run the
>> app, that's what. The desktop is a metaphor, not just a cute-looking
>> menu.
>
>Whether you see the desktop as a metaphor or a menu is irrelevent.
Irrelevant to what? I thought we were discussing using the desktop; I
would suggest how you use it might be relevant. (!)
> It's how
>intuitive it is that matters.
How intuitive something is must be considered a result, not a cause, or
the meaning of the term 'intuitive' simply vanishes, and you are left
with it's idiomatic meaning, "familiar".
>I know from many non-computer literate users
>who have difficulties with double-clicking that single-clicking is much
>better.
And who should know more than people who don't know anything? People
have "difficulty" with single-clicking, too, and would prefer a TUI at
every turn (telepathic user interface), at least until the OUI
(omniscient user interface) becomes practical. Until they become
familiar enough with the idea that the icons on a desktop are metaphors
for objects, and one can either just touch them (single click, select)
or 'open' them (with the magic of technology, reduced to merely
single-clicking twice in succession.
I know from many computer novices that getting to the control panel
where you can increase the double-click window to make it easier to use
the desktop metaphor can be difficult, so I usually do it for them.
>The user has to double-click within a given time, or not much if anything
>happens. Double-clicking within a few tens of milliseconds only comes with
>practice. Arthritic users find it excruciatingly difficult.
Believe it or not, that's been considered, and every system that uses a
double-click typically has some way to increase the window, and often
even to expand the 'spot' for the double-click, because having to keep
the mouse on the same pixel for both clicks can also be difficult.
You learned to walk, I think you can handle two clicks within a few tens
of milliseconds.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Baseball
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 13:16:37 GMT
Said jim dutton in alt.destroy.microsoft on 25 Apr 2001 13:48:57 GMT;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Nomen Nescio wrote:
>>>
>>> how many retailers sell linux machines again?
>>> jackie 'anakin' tokeman
>>>
>>> p.s. sneering & not bathing does not a viable marketing strategy make
>>
>>Only a moron would wonder about the sales of a
>>free downloadable operating system.
>>
>>Into the breech steps jackie!
>
> If sarcasm bit you on the ass Chris would you notice?
>
> Never mind we saw the answer.
>
> -Jeem, The stupidity runs deep in that one
Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!
Random gibberish does not a reply make, Jackie. Perhaps some remedial
writing classes, in addition to the remedial reading classes, might help
you out a bit to understand why.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Baseball
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 13:16:38 GMT
Said jim dutton in alt.destroy.microsoft on 26 Apr 2001 13:55:30 GMT;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>jim dutton wrote:
>>>
>>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>> Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> >Nomen Nescio wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> how many retailers sell linux machines again?
>>> >> jackie 'anakin' tokeman
>>> >>
>>> >> p.s. sneering & not bathing does not a viable marketing strategy make
>>> >
>>> >Only a moron would wonder about the sales of a
>>> >free downloadable operating system.
>>> >
>>> >Into the breech steps jackie!
>>>
>>> If sarcasm bit you on the ass Chris would you notice?
>>
>>It didn't bite me, though. Sarcasm is often conveyed by
>>voice tone, or, in text, by quotes and other symbols.
>
> Well as this is a written medium your falacious ploy at voice tone
> is a dog that isn't gonna hunt. As far as sarcasm being annotated by
> quotes you simply pulle dthat out of your ass. Nice try but considerably
> lame. Other symbols! You really are one dumb muthafucker.
While demonstrating the fact of the matter, you claim it is false. How
delightfully moronic.
>>Although jackie may have meant sarcasm, his writing did
>>not convey it.
>
> On planet Chris the sanctimonous tard.
Looks like you've got yourself a pet, Chris. Don't forget, YOUR the one
who's going to have to walk the troll at two o'clock in the morning, and
make sure the others don't feed him too much.
>>> Never mind we saw the answer.
>>Who's "we"?
>
> Your mother and I.
See, Chris? It doesn't matter if you want him; if he follows you home,
you've no choice but to keep him, or move.
>>> -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"".
No, Jeem, that's "irony". Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha!
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: t. max devlin: kook
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 13:16:39 GMT
Said Nomen Nescio in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 25 Apr 2001 00:50:13
>Peter Hayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 Apr 2001 16:14:54 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>> > One click on the icon to select the icon, one double-click to run the
>> > app, that's what. The desktop is a metaphor, not just a cute-looking
>> > menu.
>>
>> Whether you see the desktop as a metaphor or a menu is irrelevent. It's how
>> intuitive it is that matters. I know from many non-computer literate users
>> who have difficulties with double-clicking that single-clicking is much
>> better.
>>
>> The user has to double-click within a given time, or not much if anything
>> happens. Double-clicking within a few tens of milliseconds only comes with
>> practice. Arthritic users find it excruciatingly difficult.
>
>double clicking minimizes the sort of annoying accidents that a single
>click based system makes all too likely.
Yes, that is the analytic analog to my metaphoric description. Good
job, Jackie. Thanks for trying.
>most people who are good at using computers do not understand this, which
>is why properly capitalized companies designing user interfaces hire
>specialists and do studies with actual users instead of confabulating
>from thier irrelevant personal experience.
Or, if you're like Microsoft, you just do it that way because the
company who's customer's you'd like to steal do it that way, but then
you follow it very sporadically, so that even the actual users are
clueless which way the system works.
It's the non-computer literate ('clueless') that tell MS in their stupid
"usability" labs that double-clicking is "too hard". Real computer
innovations occur because of the otherwise irrelevant personal
experience of some engineer or designer and the selection effect
produced by a free market.
IOW, MS says "Doh!"
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Baseball
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 13:16:41 GMT
Said Nomen Nescio in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 25 Apr 2001 03:20:02
>Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> eeped:
>> Nomen Nescio wrote:
>> >
>> > how many retailers sell linux machines again?
>> > jackie 'anakin' tokeman
>> >
>> > p.s. sneering & not bathing does not a viable marketing strategy make
>>
>> Only a moron would wonder about the sales of a
>> free downloadable operating system.
>
>funny, i could have sworn i saw a bunch of nerdos whining about how
>mean old microsoft was preventing retailers and vendors from selling
>machines with linux preinstalled via those mean nasty monopolistic
>agreements.
Well, this is an 'abstraction error' on your part, hinging on the
concept of 'prevent'. It is not a physical barrier, and therefore
exceptions to its effects are not contradictory to its existence.
>it is good that at least one person concedes that linux's absolute
>failure to penetrate the desktop is entirely the fault of the system
>rather than blaming microsoft for its woeful inadequacies.
Again, an abstraction error. This one may be the more familiar
"category error", depending on what you meant by "the system". This
would be illuminated by your conception of "fault", which is also rather
unexplained. Fault for selling Linux (which is done, in growing
numbers) or fault for not selling more Linux (because, after all, the
monopoly is still in place)?
Think harder.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Microsoft hit new security 'level' :-)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 13:16:41 GMT
Said Ray Chason in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 26 Apr 2001 06:31:07
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roy Culley) wrote:
>
>>http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/8/18516.html
>>
>>Roll on .net so that we can all let Microsoft look after our
>>valuable data. What a joke they are. :-)
>
>While this is a major gaffe on the part of Microsoft, I'm willing to
>be fair.
Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha. Sucker.
>If a binary-infecting virus for Linux existed in the wild,
>this could in principle happen to Linux as well; and the usual bit
>about not being root would only mitigate the damage, and would be
>of no help at all if the infected binary was installed setuid root.
"Could" is not "would", unless, of course, you're dealing with the
defects of monopoly crapware.
>Those of us who habitually compile from source would probably be
>unaffected.
Which seems to include every distributor, so your earlier supposition of
'could' seems in doubt, as well.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
