Linux-Advocacy Digest #718, Volume #34 Wed, 23 May 01 00:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux dead on the desktop. ("Matthew Gardiner")
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) ("Gary Hallock")
Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust! (T. Max
Devlin)
Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust! (T. Max
Devlin)
Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust! (T. Max
Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (T. Max Devlin)
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux dead on the desktop.
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 15:26:29 +1200
I use Lotus Smart Suite on my Wintel machine, and it only takes up 4MB of
memory vs. Word's 14-16MB of memory. That doesn't include the minor detail
that it (MS Word) dies when I open a 4, heavily graphical document. Really
great coming from a piece of software at the cost of $1300 per copy.
Matthew Gardiner
>
> So, have you tried writing long technical documents with Word? I mean
> a document with strict formatting requirements, tables and figures that
> need to be cross-referenced to the text, and possibly footnotes and
> equations.
>
> The problem with Word for that kind of work is that it seems designed
> around the idea that the user wants to control every single aspect of
> the document individually (i.e. create "flash and pizazz"). But in
> fact, for technical documents, you want to let the computer do that.
> Otherwise, you end up violating the formatting rules all over the
> place. Yes, Word has styles, and no they don't fully solve the problem
> because the other paradigm keeps getting in the way. There's also a
> number of mis-features that cause grief in this area.
>
> For instance, why _do_ they have "float over text" on by default when
> you insert a graphic? Does anybody really want that for serious work?
> Howcome bookmarks break so easily when you add new material? Why
> doesn't it have reasonable rules (more sophisticated than widow/orphan
> control) about breaking paragraphs across pages instead of making the
> user fiddle with manual pagebreaks? And the way text styles inherit
> from each other is...well...baroque is a good word. There's more, but
> those come immediately to mind.
>
> I did get all the auto-shit turned off, and Clippy too. That reduced
> the annoyance factor quite a bit. I also started leaving out the
> graphics until the text was mostly done, to keep it from moving things
> around at random. I gave up trying to use bookmarks to number my
> figures, and I insert them as metafiles instead of trying to do any
> fancy embedding. So it gets the job done, eventually.
>
> LyX still causes me _far_ less braindamge. It has no problem keeping
> track of figures and footnotes and tables and cross references. It
> (well, LaTeX actually) is also quite smart about formatting text,
> placing figures, etc, to the point where I just don't have to fiddle to
> make things look right. It "just works".
>
> Word is better for putting together the church newsletter or a short
> brochure (there's that "flash and pizazz" again). LyX is better for
> writing long technical or adademic documents.
>
>
> > Somehow, millions of people use Word very efficiently and demand
> > even more features from,
>
> Well, I question your premise. I think most Word users "get by".
> Anything resembling efficiency is purely by accident.
>
> I also think it is MS that is asking for new features so they have
> something to sell to the PHB's. Word has quite enough features for
> actual users. I don't know a single user who is asking for more
> features (and the company I work for is standardized on Office). They
> would sure like some of the existing features to be fixed though.
>
> --
> -| Bob Hauck
> -| To Whom You Are Speaking
> -| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: "Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 23:26:20 +0000
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Said David Brown in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 22 May 2001 10:45:58
>>GreyCloud wrote in message
>>>It figures... Eric, get out of your narrow Paradigm! Start doing some
>>>original thinking for yourself instead of letting a professor tell you
>>>how to think! Crap indeed! Even Gallileo is rolling over in his grave.
>>>Tell that crap to the NBS!
>>
>>To paraphrase - "why believe what thousands of scientists have proven
>>again and again? Be original - make up your own science as you go
>>along."
>
> You say that as if Newton weren't proven incorrect.
But there is a very important difference here. Newtons laws still work
to a great degree of accuracy in the slow macroscopic world. Yes, they
were incorrect, but the predictions of Newtons laws stand up to
experiment for many cases. Relativity, to be valid, must and does stand
up to the same experiments. There are simply some experiments for
which Newtons laws predict the wrong result and relativity predicts to
correct result. Experimental evidence shows that the speed of radio
waves in a vacuum is the same as the speed of visible light in a vacuum.
No theory that predicts the speed of radio waves in a vacuum to be 0.88c
is valid because it contradicts experimental evidence.
Gary
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 03:33:40 GMT
Said Chad Myers in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 22 May 2001 13:33:38
[...]
>I only use IE on Solaris now because it's the only thing that
>works! [...]
Bwah-ha-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.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 03:33:42 GMT
Said Chad Myers in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 22 May 2001 13:38:27
>"Brian Langenberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:9eeah6$f9i$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy "JS \\ PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> <drivel snipped>
>>
>> What a headline: "MS-Windows User Enjoys More MS-Windows"
>
>"... because [...]
--
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.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 03:33:41 GMT
Said Chad Myers in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 22 May 2001 15:41:57
>"Roberto Alsina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >"Michael Marion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> Matthew Gardiner wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > If Microsoft wants to earn the same respect as the likes of NCR, UNISYS
>or
>> >> > Xerox, then maybe they should start porting IE to more than just Mac,
>> >> > Windows and a few obscure UNIX's.
>> >
>> >Yeah, you know, those "few obscure UNIX's" like Solaris, HP-UX,
>> >and Digital Unix.
>> >
>> >If those are obscure, what's your definition of common?
>>
>> Linux, FreeBSD. The number of people using web browsers on Linux is probably
>> ten times the number of people using web browsers in Solaris,
>> HP-UX and DU combined.
>>
>> The unix-like desktop market is so Linux+FreeBSD centric it's not even
>> funny.
>
>Solaris and HP-UX are hardly "obscure", though, regardles of which
>world you're living in.
The rhetorical argument.
--
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.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 03:33:43 GMT
Said Chad Myers in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 22 May 2001 15:40:13
>"David Steinberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:9eect7$nun$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Chad Myers ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>>
>> : I though you guys hated the mousy-clicky stuff?
>>
>> When will you learn, Chad? There is no "you guys." Linux users are
>> best defined by their diversity. What I like, another user may
>> despise. From more or less the same large set of packages that are
>> collectively called a Linux system (or, to make RMS happy, a GNU/Linux
>> system), we are all able to pick, choose, and configure to create the
>> desktop or server environment in which we are most comfortable.
>>
>> Those who cannot handle such choice simply accept whatever Microsoft says
>> is the only way to do things this week.
>
>You mean, [...]
--
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.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 03:33:44 GMT
Said Chad Myers in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 22 May 2001 17:49:25
>"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> "JS \\ PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > Internet connection stays when switching users!
>>
>> Wow. Welcome to Slackware 1.0.
>
>And NT 3.51.
Yea; *now* you know that. <*Smirk*>
>> > And get this - Applications even stay open and are there (still
>> > open) when returning to that user.
>>
>> And to GNOME 1.0.
>
>Really? How do you exit GNOME as one use, log on as another,
>then log back in as the first and have all apps still running?
What do you mean "still"? Why would you want to exit GNOME just to log
on as another user?
It is obvious from JS PL's brief description of XP's gentle benefits
that it is going to be such a hugely pathetic joke, and will be so
unable to work correctly and reliably, that nobody but sock puppets and
naive victims are ever going to consider it any more of a worthwhile OS
than DOS 2.0.
--
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:
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: Wed, 23 May 2001 03:33:45 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 22 May 2001
>"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Daniel Johnson wrote:
>> >>
>> > Had GEM taken off, we would know be
>> > arguing about whether Digital Research
>> > had unfairly crushed Microsoft. :D
>>
>> Hardly. Gary Kildall did not have the arrogance
>> and killer instinct of Bill Gates.
>
>IMHO, [...]
There is some variability concerning the expansion of that acronym,
Daniel, but I don't think you'd qualify regardless.
--
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:
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: Wed, 23 May 2001 03:33:45 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 22 May 2001
[...]
>A pretty silly thing for Digitial Research
Digital is a corporation; it does what is profitable, or what is not
profitable (if it doesn't do what is profitable well enough). It is
incapable of doing anything "silly".
--
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:
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: Wed, 23 May 2001 03:33:46 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 22 May 2001
>"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Daniel Johnson wrote:
>> > A pretty silly thing for Digitial Research
>> > to do, I'm sure you'll agree.
>> >
>>
>> DR didnt do it, dolt, IBM did.
>
>Pretty weird of DR [...]
As with "silly", "weird" doesn't qualify as a comprehensible analysis of
business activity.
--
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:
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: Wed, 23 May 2001 03:33:47 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 22 May 2001
[...]
>MS could surely soldier on with Windows 9x
>for quite some time, I think.
>
>I think both Windows 9x and NT need to be
>in there; losing either would seem to derail
>their current plans.
DOS is where the monopoly still is. NT is an "also ran", as is W2K
(only more so on this last).
XP is just going to be the new MS Bob.
--
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:
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: Wed, 23 May 2001 03:33:48 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 22 May 2001
>"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Daniel Johnson wrote:
>> > No, I don't think it did. The stuff about
>> > merit came into this thread when I made
>> > the argument that the merits of Windows
>> > had been what attracted developers, and
>> > that this was what Microsoft's little
>> > empire was based.
>>
>> Actually, Windows programming back then
>> was pretty rough stuff, very difficult.
>
>Back when? In 1981 Windows didn't
>exist. In 1985, it did, but it was so
>difficult and so rough that it was
>avoided.
>
>In 1990 it finially managed to be
>a reasonably good tool for development;
>and crucially, it was still pretty cheap.
That back when. It was pretty rough stuff, very difficult, according to
people who seem to have WAY more reasonable an opinion than you do,
Daniel. It ain't a whole lot better now; MFC is still an industry joke,
but its an industry standard joke, by now. And BOY does it *SUCK*!
--
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:
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: Wed, 23 May 2001 03:33:49 GMT
Said Rick in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 22 May 2001 16:54:22 -0400;
>Daniel Johnson wrote:
[...]
>> I know your opinion on this matter;
>> I observe that you can't defend it, but
>> must repeat it over and over.
>
>I can, and do, defend my posision at least as well as you.
No, Rick, you make him look like a fool; simply defending your position
would require that he ever come up with a single rational argument
against your opinion, and he has not yet done so, as far as I can tell.
Seriously; you're doing a great job, but Daniel is a troll. You ought
to stop feeding him; you just end up playing his troll games.
--
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: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 03:33:50 GMT
Said Jan Johanson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 22 May 2001 19:26:12
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Jan Johanson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 20 May 2001 13:09:12
>> [...]
>> >Yea yea, buncha chinese guys exploiting a SINGLE vulnerability that there
>is
>> >a fix out for already. how can you blame the OS if it's operators don't
>keep
>> >it current? You can't.
>>
>> Of course you can. Blame-throwing posturing aside, if an OS is so
>> pathetic that it strains all bounds of reason in how insecure and
>> bug-ridden it is,
>
>but it's not so your remaining comments are a moot point.
Having no response is having no response. Pretending that it is
nitpicking doesn't help.
>It's amazing how desperate you are to try to deflate Windows 2000's success.
>It's not insecure and it works great. Your continued denial of such basic
>obvious facts makes you quite annoying to attempt to debate with....
>really...
It's just an "if", Jan. There's no need to be so afraid of it that
you're afraid to discuss it. Unless, of course, we are in agreement
that it is not an "if", but the fact of the matter.
--
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: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 03:33:51 GMT
Said Jan Johanson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 22 May 2001 19:27:10
>"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>SP4 and we never had reason to reboot unexpectedly. SP5 and SP6(a) were fit
>& finish patches.
SP5 and SP6 both proved so bug-ridden that a number of companies I've
worked with (including parts of my own) froze at SP4 whenever possible.
Often, of course, they still needed to upgrade, since it isn't like SP4
was actually magical enough to make monopoly crapware stable or
reliable.
--
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: Wed, 23 May 2001 03:33:52 GMT
Said Pete Goodwin in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 22 May 2001 20:37:39
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>> >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.
>>
>> 'All' companies want me to buy their products. Any attempt to forestall
>> competition or engross the market is illegal monopolization. The only
>> available "tying me to them in some way" is providing competitive
>> merits, or a lower price, in order to entice me to so tie myself to
>> their brand in order to enjoy the benefits of their product.
>
>You said it.
Obviously. What's your point? Eager to misinterpret it, but unable to
figure out how? You may have skipped over the fact that MS has not
offered lower prices, or other competitive merits, but only the
aforementioned illegal monopolization.
But I didn't say that. The federal judge said that last part.
>> >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?
>>
>> Apparently; you've shown yourself to be a sock puppet. Most sock
>> puppets are professionally or fiscally entangled with Microsoft.
>
>Entanglement implies I'm trapped. Yet I don't feel as such. I moved from
>one area into Windows, I can just as easily move out again.
If I had meant "trapped", I'd have said 'trapped'. "Entanglement"
implies, I think, cluelessness more than anything else, considering the
context is 'being a sock puppet for a criminal monopoly'. Cluelessness
or dishonesty, rather.
>> >shares, sorry. Don't work for them either. The company I work does
>> >Windows work but we can easily move into other markets.
>>
>> "Can"? How are we to know "can", but for your contention that "does
>> not" is the equivalent of "won't", Mr. Sock Puppet? You've a vested
>> interest in maintaining the status quo, and that status quo involves
>> monopoly crapware, both financially and technically self-destructive but
>> unavoidable being forced on consumers, both OEMs and consumers.
>
>From "can" to "does not" to "won't". If that isn't a clear example of how
>you're twisting words, I don't know what else is.
Then apparently you don't know what is. I was pointing out that you
used "can" dishonestly, or mistakenly. Your response seems a clear
indication of which it was, but I'll leave that for the reason of others
to judge.
>Earlier on you claim I'm a sock puppet based on laughably thin evidence.
>Then you build on this sinking ship, twisting words as you go, making me
>(apparently) say exactly the opposite of what I actually said.
>
>Are you in politics?
I am in your face.
>> And so deduction indicates your company, in doing "Windows work", is
>> neither a reseller nor a very highly regarded end-user solutions
>> provider. And that You, Mr. Sock Puppet, cease to qualify even as an
>> end-user, yourself. Perhaps if you didn't troll COLA, you'd simply be
>> another sad victim of the monopoly. But it makes no sense to consider
>> your opinion that of a self-interested consumer, given you are known to
>> have vested interests as a sock puppet.
>
>Your deductions are ludicrous. Besides which there is enough evidence out
>there to indicate that the company I work for are very highly regarded.
So's Microsoft, according to you. Guffaw.
--
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: Wed, 23 May 2001 03:33:53 GMT
Said Pete Goodwin in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 22 May 2001 20:39:32
>In article
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
>> BWAH-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!!
>
>ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
On an off-subject topic which frequently recurs, allow me to point out
that accusing Pete Goodwin of copyright violation for being unable to
come up with his own rhetorical device would be entirely silly;
supportable in theory but a waste of time in practice. Simple amateur
plagiarism; not even worth calling a lawyer over.
--
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: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 03:33:54 GMT
Said Gary Hallock in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 22 May 2001 18:38:04
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
>> Was that supposed to be mumbo-jumbo, or just gibberish?
>>
>
>I thought it was obvious. You said:
I know what I said. I seem to be one up on you, because I also know why
I said it. You can go back and re-read the thread to understand it as
well, or answer the question, which you have failed to do.
--
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: Wed, 23 May 2001 03:33:55 GMT
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 22 May 2001
>On Tue, 22 May 2001 16:59:28 GMT, T. Max Devlin
[...]
>And yet another example of how T-Bone waits for the question to be
>properly answered and then proceeds to parrot the answer.
>
>Just like he did with the Direct-X discussion.
>
>You could at least try and change a few words to make it look good.
It seems to be working supremely well, actually. Whatever gave you the
impression I care about "looking good"? That's a rather stupid and
ignorant suggestion, flatheadfishbrain. You've been posting here long
enough to know that; we can tell that is true, because, like so many
trolls with red, stinging butt-cheeks before you, you've been unable to
resist the urge to try to annoy me with silly names.
--
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: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 03:33:56 GMT
Said Edward Rosten in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 22 May 2001
>>>For instance, did you know that photons do *not* travel only in a
>>>straight line? In fact, they take a path which is entirely "random,
>>>without meaning", or should I say they take an infinite number of such
>>>paths, between any arbitrary Point A and Point B.
>>
>> I do not know that, because it is wrong. What you present, is a very
>> distorted and misunderstood version of the multiple history calculations
>> of quantumelectrodynamics.
>
>FWIW, I think he's referring to one of the methods used in classical
>mechanics (I can't remember the name)
>where you can consider an object to take any path from A to
>B, no matter how wierd the path.
>
>What he missed was that it is the lowest energy path that is taken.
>
>I think that's what he was referring to, but it is kind of hard to tell.
It is called the "sum-over-paths" mechanism, yes that is what I am
referring to. Yes, I realize that the mathematical approach is archaic;
the teleological explanation is not so easily outdated, however. It is
neither wrong, nor distorted, nor misunderstood; it is simply mistaken.
But only as a scientific theory of physics, that is, only in terms of
math. The counter-intuitive nature of light remains. The fact that it
is so warmly received by those with some knowledge of the subject is
because they believe that lingual descriptions are irrelevant. This is
appropriate, of course, since their concern is the math, and the
'explanation' is secondary. But believing that because their are new
mathematical mechanisms doesn't mean that the old lingual explanations
are somehow "wrong". This is particularly important for people with a
great deal of education need to keep in mind, less their knowledge
hamper, rather than fuel, their ability to do science.
There isn't any amount of math that can prove the 'mistaken' explanation
I have given to be untrue, nor any experiment that could do so, either.
All of it is still perfectly valid in terms of providing an
understanding of how the universe works, to the first order of
approximation which is all that is necessary for grasping the
abstractions without bothering with the math.
--
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
******************************
