Linux-Advocacy Digest #329, Volume #34 Tue, 8 May 01 13:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Linux a Miserable Consumer OS ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("billwg")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("billwg")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("billwg")
Re: Linux a Miserable Consumer OS ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Linux has one chance left......... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: A Windows enthusiasts take on Mundie's speech (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: where's the linux performance? ("signore1")
Re: Cold feet or Reality Check? (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Linux a Miserable Consumer OS ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Linux a Miserable Consumer OS ("Edward Rosten")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: 8 May 2001 16:42:36 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 08 May 2001 16:04:08 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 7 May 2001 14:10:12
>>On Mon, 07 May 2001 05:36:19 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 6 May 2001 15:40:09
>>>>On Sat, 05 May 2001 03:26:43 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 4 May 2001 14:24:23
>>>>>>On Fri, 04 May 2001 04:16:44 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>>>>What can I say, if you say a tautology is not true, you are by
>>>>>>definition wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>>That doesn't mean there's no difference between a statement that is true
>>>>>and a statement that is unfalsifiable.
>>>>
>>>>Being unfalsifiable and being true can be two faces of the same
>>>>statement. The above statement is true. The rest I donīt care.
>>>
>>>That statement is false; all unfalsifiable statements are, by
>>>definition, untrue. This was proven by the philosopher of science Karl
>>>Popper several decades ago.
>>
>>Then you are saying that my original statement, which was an obvious
>>tautology, is false? That's way beyond weird.
>
>Extremely way beyond weird, yes. It is truly Deep Philosophy.
>
>No, I am not saying that your original statement, which was an obvious
>tautology, is false. However, your original statement, being an obvious
>tautology, is false.
Come back when you learn that you should not give a statement and its
opposite as true.
> For an example, consider this perfectly valid and
>reasonable statement: statements do not have faces. Now, I know you
>meant the term metaphorically. But, then, I meant that "all tautologies
>are false" metaphorically. So my rhetoric (some statements which are
>tautologies must be considered true, obviously, or no language is
>possible at all) is canceled out by your rhetoric (that statements have
>faces) and we are left with the simple analytical truth. Which is that
>you are incorrect: a statement which is unfalsifiable cannot logically
>be considered true, ever. Of course, I could be wrong. ;-D
Yes, you are. You are confusing indecidable with false. And/or
unprovable with true.
> [...]
>>>To claim there is a distinction between what you believe and what you
>>>know is an unfalsifiable claim of omniscience.
>>
>>It is, however, an eminently practical course of action.
>
>If you have no intention of ever rising above your own ignorance, maybe.
>I prefer to seek enlightenment, and I can think of no less attractive
>course of action than delusion.
The opposite path is to never accept anything as true, to hold
no axiom as self-evident, and declare all logic statements as
undecidable. Your choice.
> [...]
>>>Who would ever license code which does not work?
>>
>>Anyone who wants it to be protected by copyright, yet used by someone
>>else.
>
>No, I meant, "Where would you find a 'someone else' who would have a
>reason to license code which does not work?"
That is not my problem. If he exists, good. If he doesn't, good.
However, I must point out: often, you find them at schools.
>>Since the code is copyrighted, only through a license can anyone
>>else look at it.
>
>I'm sorry; copyright cannot possibly prevent anyone from looking at
>copyrighted anything.
If I give you a piece of code without a license, you are not allowed
to do anything with that code, because that copy of the code was not
legally obtained. Ask your lawyer.
>>> You're presuming that
>>>the "bunch of code" does not need modification (making it a derivative
>>>or a separate copyrighted work, not the original "bunch of code" at all)
>>>in order to become part of a program.
>>
>>I am presuming nothing. It may need to be modified, it may not need to
>>be modified. It makes no difference.
>
>I must insist it does. It goes to the very nature of the existence of
>this "API" thing.
If you claim it makes a difference, surely you can coherently express
the difference.
>>> This is, again, the point of the
>>>matter: in theory this might be possible, but to try to defend it as a
>>>practical reality is to presume perfection of all programmers.
>>
>>Non-working code is copyrighted by default.
>
>Not "non-working".
Yes, non-working.
> Code that does not work; it is supposed to but it
>doesn't, it is worthless as an example, it cannot be incorporated in a
>functioning program without impairing that function.
Nonsense, expressed by someone who obviously doesn't know programming.
> Such code might
>metaphysically be covered by copyright, but you're never going to have
>to go to court over it, because nobody will ever care.
Suppose I wrote the algorithm for a decrypting algorithm, but
I don't write the functions used to feed it data. That code is
non-functional, it does nothing. Yet unmodified, it can be
integrated in a larger work that decodes data.
> In an analytical
>sense, copyright isn't an issue until its worth some money to somebody.
>Your "tree falling in the woods" default might make a sound, but there's
>nobody there to hear it.
And that makes no difference when someone goes later and picks the wood.
> [...]
>>>So all APIs exist?
>>
>>All APIs that exist indeed exist. Those APIs that don't exist are not
>>APIs.
>
>Good point. Unfortunately, it isn't a valid response to my statement.
>Your injection of the extraneous phrase "that exist" into my statement
>removes the context in which I said it.
It's a common logical trick. Instead of saying "all members of A",
I say "all members of A and B" and "all members of A and ~B" and
tackle them separately.
Logically, it makes no difference whatsoever.
> My point is that APIs don't
>exist to begin with. "They" have a label, though, so obviously that
>point is nonsensical if you're going to apply it metaphorically. It is
>an analytical claim: APIs are like "ideas", they don't empirically
>exist.
Again, I disagree. If you are going to say that without any evidence,
you are simply operating in a different system than I am, and we
can not agree.
> Reference to APIs is a convention for reference to one or more
>libraries. APIs that don't exist are anything you want them to be,
>because they are imaginary, and therefore they can be APIs. Not all
>APIs exist, therefore APIs don't exist, in the way that a program or a
>library exists.
>
>>> If an API "can't exist or not exist", and it is
>>>possible ("if it doesn't") for it not to exist, then no APIs exist, or
>>>all APIs exist.
>>
>>Just because I give a consequence of nonexistence, it doesn't mean the
>>nonexistence is actual.
>
>Certainly. Nevertheless, the consequence of nonexistence in this case
>is inevitability, making it actual.
That doesn't follow.
>>> Apparently, we've got a fractured abstraction here.
>>>Either APIs *can* "exist or not exist", or they do not exist. You know
>>>my vote is for the latter; they are abstractions that are handy for
>>>referring to complex relationships between various mathematical codes,
>>>but they don't ever exist as concrete things.
>>
>>And that's where I disagree, because I have manipulated APIs.
>
>Wow. What's it like? Were they squishy? Slimey? Course? Warm?
>Frigid? Heavy? What did they look like? What color were they?
An API looks like a long collection of words and symbols. It has no
tactile features until you print them. They are often black and white.
>>I have
>>been asked to create them, I have given them to others, I have waited
>>for them to exist, I have used them after they do. Saying they don't
>>exist is like saying my hands don't exist.
>
>Not by quite a bit of a shot. Your hand is a physical object,
Prove it.
>>>>> If so, what signifies this
>>>>>'existence' in a concrete sense? Does an API simply 'exist' as soon as
>>>>>someone says it does?
>>>>
>>>>Almost. Iīd say as soon as someone creates it.
>>>
>>>It is apparent to me that you enjoy otherwise useless epistemological
>>>babbling. So I will accommodate you.
>>>
>>>If an API 'exists' as soon as someone 'creates' it, then there can be no
>>>APIs, since none have ever been created, but only described. You can't
>>>"use" an API, you can only "use" a library (or stub) corresponding to
>>>(described with) the API. The API remains an abstraction, entirely.
>>
>>You 'use' the API, to create the implementation of the API, like
>>you create a blueprint to create a house, like you create a method
>>to factor a polynomial.
>
>Does a library implement an API, or does a program?
Usually, a library.
> Which is the essential "use"?
When deciding if a function of a library operates correctly, you test it
against the specified behaviour.
>>>This presumes that you actually meant something when you said "creates",
>>>of course, and I believe you did not.
>>
>>Actually, I did mean pretty much what you said, only you are wrong.
>
>No, you meant something other than 'creates', though the term is the one
>you used. YOU of course understood your thought, so you assume that I'm
>wrong when I inform you it was incomprehensible. Perhaps you should try
>to communicate more precisely.
Perhaps you should explain in congress that the creators of IP are
not creating IP.
>>> You meant to simply beg the
>>>question, "is an API created as soon as someone says it does", and
>>>entirely identical philosophical question to the first one. And so, in
>>>trying to pointedly and apparently successfully to avoid answering the
>>>question, we are left only with the fact that you are ignorant, and
>>>happy with that state of affairs.
>>
>>Well, you seem to think APIs are not used and they don't exist.
>
>No, I did not say they were not used, only that they do not exist. ;-)
>
>>I know that to be wrong. I would say you are ignorant in this particular
>>matter.
>
>Then you obviously did not understand what I meant. Your bad.
Perhaps.
>>>>> It seems likely, since it is an abstraction, not
>>>>>a thing.
>>>>
>>>>An API is a thing. Yet it is a thing that can be created. Like a book.
>>>
>>>A book is a physical object. Is a book describing an API an API, or a
>>>book?
>>
>>A book is a book, of course of course.
>
>I think we've managed to identify the level of your intellectual
>capabilities.
And you are looking at it from down there.
>>> If it is both, then the API is a description, a characteristic of
>>>a book, not an object like a book.
>>
>>It doesn't follow from the above.
>
>Why not?
Why doesn't it follow from the color of the sky that apples are purple?
>>>>>Is not being a car sufficient?
>>>>
>>>>No, it is necessary, but not sufficient. Of the things that are not
>>>>cars, some are APIs. Of the things that donīt exist, there is no
>>>>way to know if any is an API.
>>>
>>>Your kindergarten level epistemology is cute, but very simplistic.
>>>Can't you go any faster?
>>
>>Well, since you are asking silly things like "is not being a car
>>sufficient to be an API?" I thought I would slow down to your speed.
>
>What? You can't keep up with such a simple an obvious question? (The
>correct answer is "no", in case you were having trouble.) Are you SURE
>you know how to speak English?
What question? "Is not being a car sufficient?" ? I did say "no".
>>>>> Then it would always exist,
>>>>>wouldn't it, since an API is never a car?
>>>>
>>>>No.
>>>
>>>Why not? Things that are not cars exist, don't they?
>>
>>Because not being a car is not sufficient to be an API. Your
>>premise is wrong.
>
>It is not my premise. Roberto said that APIs that don't exist and cars
>that don't exist are somehow related.
Nope. I said "it is not an API and it is not a car". That doesn't
express any relation between cars and APIs, except in your febrile mind.
> I'm just trying to determine the
>nature of their metaphysical relationship.
The relationship is of an imaginary nature.
>>In that case, it makes no sense. The things that don't exist
>>have no properties. Among the properties they don't have is
>>the property of being an API (and that of not being an API,
>>as well).
>
>Likewise and simultaneously, things that don't exist have every
>property. Among the properties they have is the property of being an
>API, as well as the property of not being an API.
Nope.
>The problem with logic, the one that reason was created (metaphorically
>speaking) to overcome, is that it is utterly useless for dealing with
>what doesn't exist, regardless of how useful it might be for dealing
>with what does.
>
>>Since the premise is false, the consequence is irrelevant
>>and snipped.
>
>Well, now you can just go back and comment on it, since the premise was
>not false at all, not even in a metaphorical sense.
I disagree for obvious reasons.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux a Miserable Consumer OS
Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 18:43:38 +0100
> Edward Rosten wrote: centipedes? At one point in time, arthropods (of
> which the centipede is
>> one) and vertibrates diverged from one point and gained their various
>> skeletons. I doubt they split from centipedes since centipedes are land
>> based arthropods and vertibrates started off as sea based life forms.
>> I'm not an expert on this, and this is about the limit of my knowedge.
>> I'd sugest you consult a paeleontologist.
>
> Actually, centipedes all prefer very damp environments (except maybe the
> house centipede, but even those prefer some dampness), so it's not
> unreasonable to suspect that at one point in their evolution they were
> water inhabiting.
Seems like a nonsequiteur to me. Penguins used to fly. Then again,
everything came from the sea at one point.
-Ed
--
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: "billwg" <[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: Tue, 08 May 2001 16:38:02 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> billwg wrote:
> >
> > I think that you would be hard pressed to cite any such e-mail that
> > described a requirement for any illegal contract negotiation. Microsoft
has
> > been very rigorous in following the Consent Agreement in all actions
> > subsequent to signing the Consent Agreement.
>
> you misspelled "tiptoeing on very-carefully worded changes they nogotiated
> into the Consent decrees so that they could violate the spirit of said
decrees."
>
> Judge Jackson recognized this, which is why he said he wants them broken
up.
>
Actually not the case. Judge Jackson stated that he had no idea as to what
to do, so he simply did what the DOJ asked on the theory that they had "won
the case". The DCCCOA isn't real supportive of that notion and is mumbling
about the lack of due process. We shall see.
------------------------------
From: "billwg" <[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: Tue, 08 May 2001 16:32:09 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> The fact is, some of the people who read the book who did like
> Microsoft, don't anymore.
>
A Tempest in a Teapot. Pro-MS people might skim it and curse the authors
and won't buy it. Anti-MS people will buy and read it and chant with their
own choir that it is right on. No one else has read it. No one has changed
their minds one whit. The only thing that has happened is that the author
has moved some money from the pockets of the antis into his own. The antis
see that as victory and the author chuckles!
------------------------------
From: "billwg" <[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: Tue, 08 May 2001 16:46:17 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said billwg in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 07 May 2001 02:01:50 GMT;
> [...]
> >Well, the DOJ was pretty stumped on this issue. They tried to claim that
> >adding a browser to Windows was some sort of illegal conduct and they
wanted
> >the famouse $1,000,000 per day fine, but they didn't get that, even from
the
> >friendly Judge Jackson. I may be incredibly naive, but I think that, if
the
> >DOJ had any real contractual evidence showing a direct violation of the
> >consent decree as the cited letter purports to be, they would have
presented
> >it to Jackson and had a big, big party all night long. They did subpoena
> >just about every contract ever signed by Microsoft with every OEM. And
they
> >didn't find anything that they used in court. That tells me that there
> >wasn't anything that they could use in court and that means that Rick's
cite
> >is a bogus event.
>
> I think you're just steam-rolling towards the destination you've already
> picked out. There is plenty of evidence just like the letter Rick
> showed. The point is, such evidence is non-compelling, in a legal
> sense; Microsoft can't be convicted for simply choosing not to sell
> Windows without DOS. Anti-trust doesn't work like that. It is the
> monopolization, not the strategies used to monopolize, which are
> illegal.
>
There are laws and agreements, you know. I personally don't see why it
should matter to anyone but the customer as to how Microsoft wants to
package what they have to sell. If the consumer doesn't like it, the
consumer will be more likely to buy an Apple computer or a Linux computer
the next time. Microsoft isn't losing their customers, that's a fact.
Maybe they could gain more by doing something different, maybe not. That's
up to Microsoft's management to decide.
But any tying contract where you have to buy two separate products such as
Windows 3.1 and MSDOS was prohibited to Microsoft after 1995 as part of the
Contempt Agreement. That became a law vis-a-vis Microsoft. Novell could do
it with DR-DOS and Novelle Lite, but Microsoft could not. And, in fact,
they have not done so since the agreement was signed. That is a fact.
It is also a fact that the popularity of Windows software has not declined
in the market subsequent to the 1995 Consent Agreement and the OEMs are
still in need of being able to supply it to the consumers who do not want
anything else. It's the same phenomenon as last Christmas when the Barbie
Volkswagens were flying off the shelves and other models and similar
products were not selling. The consumer is fickle and the vendors know
that. They fall in line because their customers make them do so. Until
somebody comes up with something that the bulk of consumers want instead of
Windows, Windows is going to be the king of the hill. And that's a fact.
> >That it was published in an anti-MS book is no surprise. But that
doesn't
> >make it true, just another legend eagerly believed by those who want to
feel
> >vindicated in their dislike of Mircrosoft.
>
> You say that as if they don't have a reason to dislike Microsoft, but
> just chose to do so because they like hating big companies. So why
> don't they all hate GE?
>
> --
> T. Max Devlin
> *** The best way to convince another is
> to state your case moderately and
> accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
>
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux a Miserable Consumer OS
Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 18:46:59 +0100
> It seems that Snakes and reptiles became cold blooded as a form of
> natural defense. Many animals can see in the infrared, and thus see
> heat. By being cold blooded, the animals blend into the background,
> even in the infrared. Since they can't fly, they needed some other way
> to keep from being eaten.
I think the theory is that mammles and birds used started off down the
warm body path by trying to maintain their body temperature high in order
to remain more active for more of the time. As we speak, the iguanas on
the galapagos are doing that now. Who knows, in 1e6 years we could have a
third warm blooded group.
-Ed
--
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux has one chance left.........
Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 16:50:10 GMT
On 08 May 2001 06:26:49 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
wrote:
>Linux authors who release their code under the GPL, ****DON'T****
> want any money.
>
>And we aren't working hard to support Linux, we are just giving something
>back, as the Linux community has done so much for us.
That's all well and good, and commendable as well, but will the answer
still be the same when others are cashing in on their work?
Flatfish
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts
Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 16:51:08 GMT
On 08 May 2001 06:37:05 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
wrote:
>
>One is not a hypocrit for using Windows and advocating Linux imho.
>
Whatever happened to that Linux machine he ordered from one of the
Linux hardware places?
Flatfish
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: A Windows enthusiasts take on Mundie's speech
Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 16:51:31 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Matthew Gardiner
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Tue, 08 May 2001 15:35:57 +1200
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Edward Rosten wrote:
>>
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Bob Hauck"
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > On Sun, 06 May 2001 23:18:54 -0700, Matthew Gardiner
>> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Oh, just as a follow up, how can a GPL program fork? when all
>> >> modifications must be made public and handed back to the author. The
>> >> only time a program can fork is under the BSD license.
>> >
>> > How do you explain GNU Emacs vs XEmacs then? Or GCC vs EGCS?
>>
>> EGCS is a prefect example of a fork rejoining again. There is no fork any
>> longer.
>>
>> As for GNU Emacs, this is down to the religiois fanaticism of RMS: he
>> wanted every contribution to come with a signed document from the author
>> to prove it was their work and it would remain GPL, or something.
>>
>> -Ed
>Just had to add, Samba is another one that has just recently forked, one
>group will continue down the same path, the other is focusing on getting
>samba communicating with the proprietary add ons Microsoft has done to
>the SMB protocol. Once the forked version becomes stable, the both have
>agreed to merge the tree. The question was, has there ever been a long
>term fork in GPL apps? that is, one lasting 20-30 years?
I don't think GPL has been in existence for that long. Of course,
there is the Sr5Vx / BSD fork... :-) but that's not freecode,
except perhaps for FreeBSD.
>
>Matthew Gardiner
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 8d:17h:09m actually running Linux.
Linux. The choice of a GNU generation.
------------------------------
From: "signore1" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: where's the linux performance?
Date: Sat, 5 May 2001 20:41:30 -0700
Hi,
hopefully some of these guys can help you to speed things
up. (swap file, ect..)
One thing you will notice in time is that your linux box
does not crash. Very rarely, netscape will crash the x-server
though. In general, power loss is the main source of linux
reboots.
Try using StarOffice. StarDraw works much better for me
than powerpoint. It seems to have a cleaner design that gets
around some of the annoying "features" in power point (like
the inability to make a line horizontal/vertical after resizing).
The Star equivalent of word however seems to have copied
many of the "features" of word. I suggest LaTeX, but there is
a learning curve involved.
regards
Ken
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Cold feet or Reality Check?
Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 16:55:27 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, GreyCloud
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Tue, 08 May 2001 00:05:43 -0700
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Mikkel Elmholdt wrote:
>>
>> "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:UCvJ6.7172$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >
>> >http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/cn/20010505/tc/
>> >microsoft_shelves_office_xp_subscription_plan_1.html
>> >
>> > You be the judge...
>>
>> Naaaaa ... as far as I can see, there's no talk about removing
>> the "feature" about having to register your copy of XP over the
>> Internet (that would have been nice). This subscription stuff is
>> IMO a minor thing, compared to that. Some Open Source companies.
>> like Red Hat (i.e. Red Hat Network), are also doing something
>> along the same lines (or talking about doing it).
>>
>> Much more "interesting" is the apparent plan to refuse Office 95
>> owners an upgrade. (Take that, you cheap SOBs ...)
>>
>> Mikkel
>
>So, you're rich I see! Why should anyone throw out software if it works
>for them?
>All the better to sway them to Linux.
Word 2002. Now with the NEW, IMPROVED paper clip....
:-)
>
>--
>V
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random ad slogan here
EAC code #191 8d:01h:18m actually running Linux.
[ ] Check here to always trust monopolistic software.
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux a Miserable Consumer OS
Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 18:57:11 +0100
>> Birds don't produce milk for their young like mammals. This is am huge
>> evolutionary step for a single bridge species to make. It allows the
>
> evolutionary? It amazes me how many people have fallen for the lie of
It isn't a lie, it's a theory.
> mutations being the cause for the existence of all the species of
> animals living today
if you can think of a better theory, please tell us. In fact evidence for
evolution is mounting: look at the stuff we can do with genetic
algorithms now. Why can't nature do the same kind of thing?
> (not to mention how "lucky" we are that a star
> exploded that gave rise to a planet with a perfect enough enviornment to
> support life Talk about order in chaos; far fetched bed time stories
> more like it).
Well, it is perfect for supporting the life that evolved on it, but then
it would, wouldn't it. Planets with liquid methane at -50C are perfect
for supporting life that has evolved on them too :-)
> It amazes me how scientists can be stupid enough to say
> that a single bolt of lightning (1.21 gigawatts for those BttF fans)
> caused amino acids to go haywire and make something out of nothing (a
> single celled organism) which led to the evolvement (their words,not
> mine) of the human species.
I don't think anyone believes it was the work of a single lightning bolt.
There are other very interesting theories, such as thee one about life
evolving out of clay. It is bery neat and the compelling thing is that at
no stage does it require a huge jump.
Before laughing this off, read the book:
Seven Clues to the Origin of Life
A, g. Cairns-Smith
Cambridge University Press, 1985
0-521-39829-2
> I resent the fact that I, as a member of the human race, came from an
> ape
You came from a primate, probably not an ape. And if you resent it, well,
tough, learn to love with it.
> and that birds used to be dinosaurs with feathers.
What is there to resent about this?
> Did they just
> keep waiting for 'evolution' to give them hollow enough bones to be able
> to fly? hogwash
I'm not going to waste too much time here. Try reading some books on
paeleontology before rubbishing other peoples work.
>> parents to not have to leave their young unattended to go out in search
>> for food. I have to agree that birds definately appear to be more
>> closely releated to reptiles than mammals although I'm no evolutionary
>> biologist, so this is mere speculation on my part.
>>
>
> birds are warm blooded, reptiles are cold blooded if im not mistaken;
> big difference
Not huge. One requires automatic regulation of boody temperature, the
other does not. At the moment, Galapagos iguanas have to do it by hand,
so that they don't cool off too much and drown when they swim in the sea
to get algae.
Mabey they too will be warm blooded given enough time.
-Ed
--
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: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux a Miserable Consumer OS
Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 18:57:57 +0100
> Being warm blooded is not the thing that makes a mammal, having mammae
> is what makes the mammal. Birds do not nurse their young, mammals do
Yes they do. Hatchlings are fed by their parent(s).
-Ed
--
You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.
u 9 8 e j r (at) e c s . o x . a c . u k
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
