Linux-Advocacy Digest #671, Volume #34 Mon, 21 May 01 17:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Eric Remy)
Re: Mandrake 8 sets the standard - for Desktop users anyway. (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Mandrake 8 sets the standard - for Desktop users anyway. (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Eric Remy)
Re: Mandrake 8 sets the standard - for Desktop users anyway. (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Mart van de Wege")
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Who to install a .gz.tar file? (James Knott)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Win 9x is horrid (Fred K Ollinger)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Eric Remy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 16:46:05 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Said Eric Remy in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 21 May 2001 09:37:50
>>In article
>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>>> > The speed of light has never been measured in a vacuum!
>>>>
>>>> It has. You can also calculate the speed of light without measuring it
>>>> directly.
>>>
>>>Ah, but there is the rub... All light speed measurements have so far
>>>been done in AIR!
>>
>>So I supposed that air extends all the way out to the Pioneer spacecraft?
>>
>>GreyCloud, you're wrong. Completely. The speed of light in vacuum is
>>known to tremendous precision. If it wasn't, NASA wouldn't be able to
>>track spacecraft light hours away nor use radio ranging systems to
>>measure distances.
>
>I just love this shit. "GreyCloud, you are wrong; completely."
Well, let's see. In the post I'm replying to, GreyCloud claims all
measurements of c have been done in air.
Statement truth: dead wrong.
>GreyCloud didn't say a damn thing about whether the speed of light in
>vacuum is _known_ to any arbitrary precision. He pointed out that it is
>not *experimentally proven*, and in fact cannot be, since in order to
>measure light's speed, you must change its velocity, according to
>Heisenburg.
You're very confused here.
First, Greycloud claims radio waves travel at 0.88c. This is
experimentally proven wrong *every* *single* *day*. It's true for
certain media, certainly, but has nothing at all to do with c.
Second, the HUP has nothing at all to do with the value of c. c is a
fundamental physical constant. We know it to very high precision, and
the HUP has *no* effect on this.
>I think the problem GreyCloud is having making himself comprehensible
>(hence, Eric's difficulty in providing any reasoning to counter it,
>resorting to the asinine 'you are completely wrong' bullshit) is
>confusion over the distinction between the terms "quantum packet of
>energy" and "particle [of light]", which is subtle but does exist. Both
>qualify for the word "photon", but the math you use must be distinct.
And how does this deal with Greycloud's "Radio waves are not light" and
"Radio waves travel at .88c" crap?
Max, you're looking for something here that just doesn't exist.
Greycloud doesn't understand what he's talking about.
>GreyCloud's 'quantum packet' speeds up and slows down around matter, and
>does not achieve full c except in a perfect vacuum and taking Hiesenburg
>into account using statistics (requiring the counter-intuitive reading
>in certain trials of photons traveling at greater than c, proving even
>that a gedanken experiment, not an empirical one). But the photon
>always travels at c in all mediums; it is only the repetitive absorbtion
>and later emitting of photons by atoms of matter that seem to "slow them
>down" in a medium.
I'm well aware of this. Greycloud is still wrong. He's not even
operating on this level: he totally misunderstands what radio waves are
and believes that their speed has never been measured in vacuum.
Here, let's try a similar sentence more along the cola lines and see how
you react:
"Linux is a MSDOS derivative, written by Dave Cutler and has never been
used in a single commercial application"
Would you bother to try and find any real truth in that sentance? It's
obviously false.
--
Eric Remy. Chemistry Learning Center Director, Virginia Tech
"I don't like (quantum mechanics), | How many errors can
and I'm sorry I ever had anything | you find in my X-Face?
to do with it."- Erwin Schrodinger |
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Mandrake 8 sets the standard - for Desktop users anyway.
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 20:43:36 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> > I try not to be a fanatic. After being a Born Again Christian, I don't
> > want to be that fanatical or closed minded again.
> Amen!
And amen to that too!
> > Why do you think my 3D
> > scene editor MSE is available on both Windows and Linux?
> I have three theories:-
>
> 1/ You're a degreed Electronics and CS person who loves
> technology and is excited about it. Sadly you ran over
> a gypsy once, who pointed a finger at you before dying and uttered
> the words "Linux.....DHCP". This unfortunate event has placed a curse
> on you, and you will never get DHCP working!
No...
> 2/ You're a Wintroll and need to add some legitmacy to your Linux
> posts (a new and confusing technique).
No...
> 3/ None of the above :)
Correct!
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Mandrake 8 sets the standard - for Desktop users anyway.
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 20:45:57 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> Discovered the mouse and keyboard ???
Yes, amazingly stupid, isn't it? I mean, "oh look the mobo has changed,
therefore the keyboard, mouse, graphics etc. have all changed too! I
simply must reboot at least two or three times.".
Puh-lease!
> I wasnt aware that keyboards and mice had a standard methodology
> for discovery ?
Computer: "Please press any key".
User: "Where's the 'any' key?"
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: Eric Remy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 16:48:38 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Said Jasper in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 21 May 2001 12:29:14 GMT;
>>On 20 May 2001 13:35:11 -0500, "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>>I thought you were educated? Time to go back to class...
>>>
>>>radio waves travel slower than light...
>>
>>How embarrissing. Radio waves are light.
>
>How embarrassing? Light is radio waves, too; yet as waves, some
>frequencies travel slower than others.
In vacuum, all frequencies of EM radiation travel at c.
(Yes, yes, in various media this isn't the case. But if you want to
correct someone you should be precise.)
--
Eric Remy. Chemistry Learning Center Director, Virginia Tech
"I don't like (quantum mechanics), | How many errors can
and I'm sorry I ever had anything | you find in my X-Face?
to do with it."- Erwin Schrodinger |
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Mandrake 8 sets the standard - for Desktop users anyway.
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 20:47:28 GMT
In article
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> > I've no idea why you would think I managed VMS very poorly.
> >
>
> Because you said they crashed a lot.
I said they crashed. I didn't say they did it a lot.
> > As for any talented IT pro installing Linux with ease, I work with a few
> > Doctors and guys more intelligent than I am, you should the cursing they
> > indulge in when using Linux!
> >
> I wonder what they are doing then?
Trying to use a Linux box to write 3D sound software for the PS2.
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: "Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 22:51:11 +0200
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
In article <9eb5jo$16h$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>> Sorry to interrupt you Erik, but I've done some 6502 assemly
>> programming. The instructions may *execute* in a single cycle, but the
>> architecture was horribly innefficient in that it had to do all its
>> data processing in memory, thus spending a lot of cycles just fetching
>> data. For example LDA
>> #$ff, which would load the accumulator with the value FF would actually
>> take 3 cycles to complete, according to the C64 reference manual.
>> (IIRC, it could have been 2 cycles, but the point stands)
>
> IIRC, every instruction toowk 2 cycles, minimum, one to fetch the
> instruction, one to execute it, giving it 0.5 bogomips for the 1MHz
> version
>
> -Ed
>
>
>
Yeah well,
I don't have my reference guide anymore :( I was pleasantly surprised
that I still knew a lot about 6502 programming. I read this before going
to work, and I had snippets of old code playing through my head all the
time. I think I am going to scour the flea markets for a real C64. (yeah
yeah, I know I could run VICE, but a *real* C64 is a lot cooler).
If your assertion is correct, then the majority of 6502 instructions
would take 3 cycles: fetch instruction, fetch data, execute. This sounds
corect to me and of course would demolish Erik's point even more.
Mart
--
Gimme back my steel, gimme back my nerve
Gimme back my youth for the dead man's curve
For that icy feel when you start to swerve
John Hiatt - What Do We Do Now
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 20:53:16 GMT
All EMR in a vacuum travel at the same speed "C" , which is for all
practical purposes is the speed of light.
If in some other medium (ie:air, moist air etc) the refractive index
(or dielectric constant) would have to be included in order to tell
how much the EMR has been slowed by the medium.
Basic high school physics....
On Mon, 21 May 2001 16:13:18 +0000, "Gary Hallock"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
>> You'd have to be pretty clueless, Gary, not to be aware of the duality
>> of physics. If radio waves were the same as light waves, how come we
>> can't see them?
>>
>
>One sees only what one wants to see.
>
>Gary
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 20:54:51 GMT
On Mon, 21 May 2001 21:44:34 +0200, "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said GreyCloud in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 19 May 2001 11:39:40
>> >Edward Rosten wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > I think the SETI program is a farce! No offense to you, but I often
>> >> > wonder what good does it do them? Radio waves travel a little slower
>> >> > than the speed of light.
>> >>
>> >> Radio waves travel *exactly* at the speed of light, since they're the
>> >> same stuff.
>> >>
>> >
>> >The National Bureua of Standards has measured it to be about 88% of c.
>> >It does not travel at the speed of light. Neither do electrons in a
>> >copper wire.
>>
>> Through air, maybe; through the vacuum of space, it's a lot closer to
>> 100%.
>
>So, you are ignorant about more then just computers, T. Max?
>
>C is the speed of light in vacuum, it moves in 100% C in vacuum.
Correct.
T-Bone is way out of his league on this one, but he will more than
likely post some 1000 word diatribe about the politics and conspiracy
theories behind the speed of light.
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 20:53:41 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> >It's called Standard Business Practice. Are there any business's out
> >there that don't do this?
>
> None of them do, until you can prove to a judge or jury beyond any
> reasonable doubt that they do. That's called Rule of Law.
Most companies want you to buy their products. They also make sure you
stay with their products by tying you to them in some way.
> So while your ability to *unreasonably* throw around accusations of
> felonious conduct might seem like 'thinking' from your own perspective,
> anyone who knows a thing about monopolization or real business knows
> that, indeed, only monopolists attempt to monopolize. You may claim the
> distinction between attempting to compete and attempting to monopolize
> are unreasonable; indeed, you are not alone in that claim. But it isn't
> hard to notice that the only ones who seriously believe the claim are
> those which have monopolies threatened by legal prosecution.
So, I have a monopoly threatened by legal prosecution? Now how do I have
that? Do I have any stake in Microsoft other than being a user? No
shares, sorry. Don't work for them either. The company I work does
Windows work but we can easily move into other markets.
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 20:57:01 GMT
Said Quantum Leaper in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 21 May 2001
[...]
>Wrong Max, people do buy what everyone else has, because everyone else told
>them to buy it.
Well, that would be "people buy what everyone else tells them to buy",
not "what everyone else has". Ever heard of William of Occam? You can
either go round and round with circular logic forever, or you can
recognize that throwing in a "because..." invalidates your argument.
Take your pick.
>The problem is alot of users don't know what is best for
>them, so they ask their friends who they believe know more then they do...
>They also buy what their company uses, since then they don't have to learn
>some new, it just like at work. I know alot of people who have bought their
>computer because somebody they trust, told them it was the best for them,
>even though it may not have been the best for them.
The variety of ways that a consumer gathers information
not=withstanding, the only reason any consumer buys what they do is
BECAUSE they bought it. Second-guessing their individual logic is
illogical, and results only in second-guessing 'the market', not
double-checking either the limitations of the producers, or the demands
of the consumers.
You can go so far as to use such teleologies as "they chose to", or "it
met their needs" or "it was worth the price" or "it was the best
alternative" ONLY if the inherent premise of a free market of free
enterprise and free competition is the basis for the capitalist system
being examined. Monopolization is not capitalism, and so such
explanations are simply apologizing for the monopoly.
The only "reasons" Windows is common is because MS monopolizes, because
according to federal law most famously codified by Senator Sherman, that
is sufficient to explain the matter, and according to the rules of logic
most famously codified by William of Occam, that is therefore all that
is necessary. Whether you unfold 'monopolization' to mean 'having too
large market share' or 'executing anti-competitive strategies to
increase or sustain market share' is a secondary issue, but potentially
just as meaningless, in consideration of Occam's Razor. Normally, I
myself would shy away from the teleology that "having large market share
is illegal", but the Supreme Court has noted that as little as 40%
market share can be, all by itself, evidence of monopolization which
must be reasonably defended against, or it could, again all by itself,
result in a conviction.
--
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]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 20:57:02 GMT
Said Karel Jansens in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 21 May 2001
[...]
>Let me start by stating that I am personally very sceptic about the
>existence of intelligent life outside our own planet. The evolutionary and
>anthropological road which leads to us is simply too full of weird
>coincidences and one-time conditions. Also, consider the fact that in the
>600 million years that multi-cellular life has existed, only one proven
>case (well, sort of <G>) of intelligence has evolved.
"Evolutionary and anthropological road" doesn't mean anything more than
"weird coincidences and one-time conditions", Karel. Seriously. It's
called "contingency" by evolutionary biologists.
Also, consider the fact that out of the ONE case of biological evolution
of life, intelligence has evolved, I'd say the skeptic would doubt your
claims more than Carl Sagan's.
>But being sceptic about intelligence does not mean that I do not think
>extraterrestrial life is impossible. Life appears to have started almost
>immediately after our planet was formed. This might indicate that this
>process must have occured many times over in the universe. At this moment
>however, we only have one way to investigate if life has evolved elsewhere,
>and that is by searching for intelligent life that can communicate with us.
>The search of SETI is not so much the search for intelligence as the search
>for life itself.
You overstate your case, and make GrayCloud's point all the more
compelling. There are many other methods of investigating whether life
has evolved elsewhere. SETI is exclusively and only the search for
*intelligent* life. If your goal is to determine whether life itself is
unique to the Earth, SETI would be absolutely the most wasteful possible
approach to the matter.
>In another 20 to 50 years, new space-based telescopes will probably be good
>enough to detect not only the simple presence of planets around nearby
>suns, but to actually be able to make spectrographic analyses of their
>atmospheres and detect the presence of chlorophyl-like molecules (or even
>some other, as yet unknown stuff). By then, SETI will have to redefine its
>goals.
Not even the tiniest bit; SETI's goals are still far beyond what visual
frequencies can provide, even if we build an interferometer the size of
the solar system. Intelligent life would encode their data using radio
frequencies, and only the statistical approach that SETI takes, not any
direct observation, could possible show the effect that SETI is looking
for. This, again, highlights the difference between your argument and
GreyCloud's. He claims that the garbling of the signal would make SETI
unfeasible; you have indicated why this is not the case. Trying to
encode data on visible frequencies would not be something that sentience
would be required for, in fact. There are, after all, prime numbers
indicated in the use of chlorophyl, though I am not sure where they
might be. Certainly, the molecule itself is not 'encoded data', though
one would have to discuss the very meaning of the term 'sentience' to
some degree in order to prove or disprove that claim.
There is meaning in the SETI project, which is why it is an ongoing
concern. Whether there is "purpose", which GreyCloud disputes, is
something that one must have a termination to determine; its purpose
might be to discover sentient life existed somewhere else in the
universe millions of years ago, or its purpose could be to disprove that
same claim. The meaning, which is predicated on the beginning, not the
end result, is to provide hope that we are not alone, and that it is a
job it performs admirably, if unconsequentially for the most part.
So both of you are mistaken. You because you misunderstand the meaning
of SETI, which is to search exclusively and specifically (and thus with
a much greater range and ability than visual survey) for *intelligent*
life (sentience). He, because he misunderstands the purpose of SETI,
which is a scientific investigation, not a technological demonstration
alone. Not coincidentally, neither of you are wrong, yet both of you
are mistaken.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: James Knott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
linux.redhat.misc,comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.help,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.redhat,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Who to install a .gz.tar file?
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 20:57:15 GMT
Edward Rosten wrote:
>
> > Mladen Gogala wrote:
> >>
> >> Voila! Mkisofs is installed into /usr/local/bin. Make sure that you do
> >> not burn copyrighted music to your CDs as it is bad for your soul and
> >> for the recording industry profits.
> >
> > FWIW, Canadians can now legally copy copyrighted music, for their own
> > use.
> > The copyright owners get reimbersed through a levy the government
> > slapped
> > on blank CDs, audio cassettes etc.
>
> That's appauling. People should not have to pay a levy for backups and
> people should not pay a levy on data CDs.
I agree. And since I'm not the type to copy copyright material, I get
charged for someone else's copying.
That's government for you, though I understand it's far worse over in
Germany, with taxes on things like photo copiers, fax machines,
computers that can do multimedia etc.
I wonder how much of that money actually gets to the artists? It
reminds me of the "tire tax" placed on new tires sold in Ontario. This
tax was supposed to pay for proper disposal of used tires. It's been in
place for over 10 years, but as far as I can tell, not a nickle of it
has been spent on proper tire disposal. Then there are the gas taxes
and licence fees, that far exceed what the government spends on roads.
Yet they claim we have to have toll roads, because the government
doesn't have the money to pay for them. This after telling us for years
that we had higher gas taxes, because we didn't have road tolls.
--
Replies sent via e-mail to this address will be promptly ignored.
To reply, replace everything to the left of "@" with "james.knott".
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 20:55:55 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> >I based my claim on the SETI/Intel Website. So they were wrong - no doubt
> >being optimistic in their claim.
>
> No, you were wrong, because you did not critically examine their claims
> before accepting them as fact. Get it? *YOU*, Pete, not they, were
> wrong. They were most probably mistaken, at least, but it wouldn't
> require an engineer to recognize that they are simply using the term
> 'super-computer' rather loosely. YOU should not have gotten confused by
> it.
I see a supercomputer, I call it as such. I see nothing wrong there.
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 20:56:47 GMT
In article <9eaihp$hfu$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> One of Pete's favourite pastimes is snipping people to distort their
> meaning to prove his point.
Got any examples of that?
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 20:54:53 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha! "It just works." LOL!
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
Wake me when he says something intelligent.
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 20:57:48 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> It is necessary for his particular form of trolling. Just as Erik
> Funckenbusch wields the "argument from ignorance" like a master, using
> it as an abstraction error to make any point he has entirely
> unfalsifiable, Pete likes to use what I call 'rhetorical inversion'.
> Take any statement out of context, and you can either prove the opposite
> is true, or pretend the statement IS its opposite (by simply
> misunderstanding both statements within the tautology) and then proving
> it false. He is like a very young boy, who has just discovered the joy
> and wonder of playing with his pee-pee.
>
> Finally, we complete the set by hypothesizing that, since Erik mangles
> things metaphorically using classical logical fallacies, and Pete uses
> rhetorical devices to accomplish similar ends, there should be some
> troll representing the analytical alternative to Erik's metaphorical
> logical failures, and Pete's rhetorical logical failures.
>
> Interestingly enough, it seems that Flathead/clair's more blatant and
> fundamental dishonesty (one might even say 'honest dishonesty')
> corresponds to this hypothetical possibility.
>
> As Erik misinterprets things purposefully, and Pete purposefully
> pretends to misinterpret things, Flatfish simply lies. Erik will fail
> to respond to points which refute his argument, Pete will snip out
> points which refute his argument, but Flatfish will simply claim they
> are not points which refute his argument.
>
> Support for this analysis, I think, might be found in discussing the
> possibility of a consensus position within this three-tiered 'troll
> position' method for some other well-known troll.
>
> So, as an educational exercise for the reader, I submit the question.
> Of the three categories:
>
> A) Analytical; relating to the correspondence of fact to numbers
> B) Rhetorical; relating to the correspondence of words to facts
> C) Metaphorical; relating to the correspondence of meaning and purpose
> to words
>
> Which category, in contrast to the putative assignments I've already
> made, should Chad Myers be placed in?
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
Huh, huh, did somebody say something? Oh it's you!
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 20:59:41 GMT
In article
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> > Yes, you can run the SETI one, but can you run the cancer research one on
> > Linux?
>
> Whats that got to do with SETI??
It's one of the examples of a distributed supercomputer.
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 20:59:11 GMT
In article
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> Go back to the SETI page... they have their program for linux x86 as
> well.
Yes, the SETI one does, but the cancer research one doesn't!
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 21:01:23 GMT
On Mon, 21 May 2001 21:29:34 +0200, Peter Köhlmann
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>How come that we don´t see infrared?
For the same reason you can't hear a bat sending out it's sonar, the
wavelength is out of the spectrum for which the human eye can respond,
or in the case of the bat, the human ear.
We as humans can see light from blue to red. The word INFRA-red means
it is past red in the EM spectrum.
>I simply can´t believe this discussion. And that from americans, where the
>world thought they are great engineers and scientists.
>I think you should start making horseshoes again, because you will need
>them badly in the next years. Just forget about electricity and such other
>advanced stuff.
Huh?
flatfish++++
"Why do they call it a flatfish?"
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Fred K Ollinger)
Subject: Re: Win 9x is horrid
Date: 21 May 2001 21:02:19 GMT
chrisv ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: >The problem Microsoft has is that they are an operating system company
: >in an era where the operating system is becomming a ubiquitous item.
: >In a few years people aren't going to care what OS is installed;
: >they'll all come with every basic tool you need (internet,
: >word processor, spreadsheet, audio/video tools, etc.). Microsoft's
: >offering will be just another face in the crowd -- the real money will
: >be made on hardware.
: You are joking, right? Hardware, whether it's a cell phone, a
: satellite receiver, or a computer, is something that is GIVEN AWAY so
: that you can sell software and services!
Show me where I can get a free computer if I buy windows.
Fred
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
