Linux-Advocacy Digest #724, Volume #34 Wed, 23 May 01 08:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Karel Jansens)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Karel Jansens)
Re: Linux dead on the desktop. (Karel Jansens)
IBM to let Linux fans use mainframe--for free ("[EMAIL PROTECTED]")
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Stephen Cornell)
Re: Single sign-on authentication for Novell, Windows and Linux? (Dean Thompson)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick)
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop (JamesW)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (JamesW)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) ("David Brown")
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (JamesW)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) ("David Brown")
Re: XP 'Loctivation' was: Wintroll nonsense (Terry Porter)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Karel Jansens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 00:29:27 +0000
GreyCloud wrote:
> Karel Jansens wrote:
>>
>> GreyCloud wrote:
>>
>> > Charlie Ebert wrote:
>> >>
>> >> In article
>> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> >> GreyCloud wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >True... but the argument is bascially that SETI project is a hoax.
>> >> >When you download software to your personal computer and believe it
>> >> >is in a just cause to search for ET, one can only look at the
>> >> >absurdities of
>> >> >this research. There are possible alternatives to long range
>> >> >communications other than radio. The big complaint is the data that
>> >> >the
>> >> >end user of SETI receives. I can't even determine if this data is
>> >> >related to the search of ET. This data could very well be a
>> >> >derivative of CARNIVORE or some other project.
>> >> >
>> >> >After all, this is an unmoderated ng.
>> >> >
>> >> >--
>> >>
>> >> I had always believed that gravity would bend and distort such signals
>> >> into
>> >> background noise over such vast distances. I suspected it would be
>> >> impossible to hear anything anyway.
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Charlie
>> >> -------
>> >
>> > Precisely my point. Congress killed the funding to SETI quite a while
>> > ago. It looks like now that SETI has resorted to a gimmick to get
>> > handouts.
>> >
>> > Yes gravity does bend radio waves and to some extent light waves. Not
>> > much signal left due to all the noise the stars are pumping out.
>> >
>>
>> How much gravitational distortion is needed to garble beyond recognition
>> the transmission of say, primary numbers?
>>
>
> Simple, the inverse square law.
>
> Unless you hope to be intercepting ET on the moon that is.
>
That really does not answer the question 'How much...'. As a matter of
fact, it does not make any sense to me at all.
--
Regards,
Karel Jansens
===============================================================
Has anybody ever wondered why Microsoft launched Windows 95
with a song that contains the line: "You make a grown man cry"?
Oh, wait...
===============================================================
------------------------------
From: Karel Jansens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 00:35:22 +0000
GreyCloud wrote:
> Karel Jansens wrote:
>>
>> GreyCloud wrote:
>>
>> > Mig wrote:
>> >>
>> >> GreyCloud 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. And if the radio waves are coming from
>> >> > many million light years away I'd say it was very old news we would
>> >> > be
>> >> > receiving. But I doubt they will get anything from it as they
>> >> > advertise
>> >> > they are looking for. All I know is that the end user gets a block
>> >> > of
>> >> > data to crunch... do we really know what this data is? Could it be
>> >> > entirely something else?
>> >>
>> >> Wow... thats new to me. Here en Europe all electromagnetic waves
>> >> travel at the same speed in the same medium..Didnt knew there was a
>> >> difference on the other side of the Atlantic
>> >> Who cares if the news are mio. of years old. The purpose is to detect
>> >> life elsewhere.
>> >>
>> >> Cheers
>> >
>> > But that life may not be there anymore. So far nothing has been
>> > detected.
>> > Even Congress killed the funding to SETI... figured it was a waste of
>> > money.
>> >
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
> Much better argument. How many intelligent life forms could survive
> long enough to generate strong enough EM waves to be detected here?
> Don't know. But then SETI presumes that ET uses EM waves. Could it not
> be possible to use another form of communications other than EM waves?
> Don't know, but I don't think it is impossible either.
> I believe that there are intelligent life forms out on other planets,
> but it is US that cannot find out if they exist. Especially if these
> life forms are in a "dark ages" like we used to be in.
>
I am quite sure that, if there were indeed advanced civilisations 'out
there', they would most likely have come up with much more efficient ways
of communicating over interstellar distances. Gravitational waves spring to
mind, or zero-point energy modulation, or magic...
Nevertheless, EM radiation is easy to detect by retards like us and can be
generated relatively cheaply. Any civilisation that wanted to make its
existence known to the rest of the universe could do a lot worse than
choose EM radiation.
And finally, we only have the scientific background to search for EM
radiation, so ...
--
Regards,
Karel Jansens
===============================================================
Has anybody ever wondered why Microsoft launched Windows 95
with a song that contains the line: "You make a grown man cry"?
Oh, wait...
===============================================================
------------------------------
From: Karel Jansens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux dead on the desktop.
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 12:01:14 +0000
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:9ee7sc$f9s$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> http://www.linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/opinions/3387/1/
>>
>> I can't say I don't agree.
>>
>> Some points:
>> A> The linux desktop company he's talking about is likely Mandrake.
>> B> He agrees with Daniel about users getting computer/OSes/shells not for
>> the sake of the computer/OS/Shell, but for the applications that it run.
>> C> He seems to agree with me that you can't offer a slightly-less or
>> equal product in order to convice people to switch, you need something
>> vastly sueprior.
>
> Not to mention new innovation. Everything that was out there for
> Linux was either a rehashed 30-year old app with a new GUI
> front end, or a cheap knock-off of a current Microsoft app.
>
"New innovation"???
This Microsoft marketing speek gets funnier with every turn.
--
Regards,
Karel Jansens
===============================================================
Has anybody ever wondered why Microsoft launched Windows 95
with a song that contains the line: "You make a grown man cry"?
Oh, wait...
===============================================================
------------------------------
From: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: IBM to let Linux fans use mainframe--for free
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 10:29:29 GMT
I found this info at:
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/zd/20010522/tc/ibm_to_let_linux_fans_use_mainframe--for_free_1.html
Anyone knows how to get this access?
Zalek
------------------------------
From: Stephen Cornell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: 23 May 2001 11:31:00 +0100
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> But QED cannot possibly be entirely consistent with both quantum and
> relativistic theories.
There is an inconsistency between *general* relativity and quantum
field theory, but *special* relativity does fine. This is plenty good
enough for terrestrial experiments.
> To claim "it is the most accurate and best-tested scientific theory"
> sounds real cool, and impresses non-scientists
It should impress most scientists, too; QED makes quantitative
predictions which have been verified to an accuracy of about 1 part in
10^10 (the resolution of the experiment); you can only get this kind
of accuracy in experiments on light, so other physical phenomena can
typically not be tested to this kind of accuracy.
> I guess, but it kind of spoils it if you already know that we are
> well aware that, despite its strong correlation with experimental
> results, it is fatally flawed, logically.
It's not a complete theory, because it doesn't explain all known
phenomena. Any more complete theory will have to contain QED (or
something that agrees with QED to an astonishing degree of accuracy)
as an asymptotic limit. On the other hand, QED isn't flawed *as a
theory* - it's perfectly consistent internally.
> Perhaps I mispoke myself and should have said "explanation of the
> entire universe" in my previous post. Would that bring me closer to
> "broadly correct"?
An heuristic description is never going to be better than `broadly
correct', because it's never going to contain all the details that a
mathematical theory can.
> Isn't the only "problem with quantum gravity" the
> fact that we have no clue if it really exists at all to begin with?
It certainly doesn't help that there's a paucity of experiments.
However, the much-vaunted problem is that there is a technical
inconsistency between quantum field theory and general relativity -
two theories which, in their own rights, appear (as far as we can
tell) to be accurate in appropriate limits.
I'm afraid I don't know anything about the details of this
inconsistency - if you want to pursue it, I'd suggest you go to one of
the sci.physics groups - they are just as full of dogmatic idiots as
COLA, but there are a few people there who are well qualified to
answer your queries. I used to lurk there, but it proved to be even
more of a time sink than linux newsgroups...
--
Stephen Cornell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel/fax +44-1223-336644
University of Cambridge, Zoology Department, Downing Street, CAMBRIDGE CB2 3EJ
------------------------------
From: Dean Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.netware.connectivity,comp.os.netware.security
Subject: Re: Single sign-on authentication for Novell, Windows and Linux?
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 20:37:29 +1000
Hi!,
> Is it possible to set up an authentication system that will allow
> Windows PC users to connect to Linux, Netware 4.11, and NT/Win2K servers
> with a single logon, and without having to change passwords on multiple
> systems?
You can link passwords on Linux and NT/Win2K systems together with the help of
PAM SMB modules. There are also some PAM modules in existence for validating
logins into Linux through various versions of Netware but normally the Netware
server has to be operating in a bindery mode. I am not sure of too many
authentication modules which actually work with a NDS tree directly.
See ya
Dean Thompson
--
+____________________________+____________________________________________+
| Dean Thompson | E-mail - [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
| Bach. Computing (Hons) | ICQ - 45191180 |
| PhD Student | Office - <Off-Campus> |
| School Comp.Sci & Soft.Eng | Phone - +61 3 9903 2787 (Gen. Office) |
| MONASH (Caulfield Campus) | Fax - +61 3 9903 1077 |
| Melbourne, Australia | |
+----------------------------+--------------------------------------------+
------------------------------
From: Rick <[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: Wed, 23 May 2001 06:43:09 -0400
Dan wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > I think I may have misread some copy. The Model II doew seemt ot be the
> > only one that ran CP/M out of the box.
> >
> > How hard was the upgrade for the 4?
>
> The Model 4 didn't need an upgrade. It also could run CP/M "out of the
> box", just not in 1981! The 4 didn't appear until (Fall?) 1983.
>
> The II and the 4 had no ROMS to get in the way of CP/M. They both
> offered the "full" 64K of RAM needed for real CP/M. They had small
> "boot ROMS" that were switched out once the OS was booted. The Model
> I and III had the BASIC ROMS that needed to be moved out of the way.
> That's what the hardware mods did.
>
> Ahh, memories!!!!!
>
> Dan
Thanks. I did some more looking around the TRS 80 sites. Very
interesting. It's kind of sad Tandy couldnt keep TRS-DOS and/or CP/M
going.
--
Rick
------------------------------
From: JamesW <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 10:04:58 +0100
In article <9ec2u1$c6cq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
> Are you disengenous or stupid? Or both. A homophobe is a person who hates
> gays. That's what the word means.
There has been a linguistic hijacking here...
homo - same
phobos - fear
homophobe - someone who fears things that are the same != a person who
hates gays.
The -gynist suffix is better suited to hatred. cf misogynist etc.
------------------------------
From: JamesW <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 09:13:48 +0100
In article
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [greycloud] says...
>
> Do you ever think that our gov. would tell the world everything? Do you
> trust your Gov. completely? I know they haven't told everything... and
> I end with no more conversation about it. I still rely on a pension
> from them.
>
Do you think the rest of the world relies on your government for
scientific facts? Are the rest of us too stupid to measure c for
different frequencies of EM in a vacuum?
------------------------------
From: "David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 13:22:42 +0200
Let's try and get some terminology straight. I go through this point for
point, and anyone can jump in when they feel they don't like standard
established physics theory. And any real physicists should the details if
my memory has failed me (it has been a while since I have studied physics -
I'm just an amateur now).
Electromagnetic radiation (EMR) consists of waves in electrical and magnetic
fields (the two fields oscillate perpindicularly to each other and to the
direction of motion).
EMR is also known as "light". As a technical term, this is distinct from
the everyday word "light", which physicists call "visible light" (for
obvious reasons).
Thus EMR is light, light is EMR.
Do not confuse EM Radiation with other types of radiation, such as alpha or
beta particles.
Light waves come in discrete packets or quanta, called photons. For some
purposes, these can be considered simply as a bits of light wave, for other
purposes these can be considered as particles.
Light waves come in an enormous range of frequencies - the electromagnetic
spectrum. This is divided into categories depending on the properties and
the way the particular frequencies are generated. There are no fixed
boundaries, because the spectrum is continuous. I'll start the spectrum at
the lowest frequency (corresponding to the longest wavelengths). There may
be some categories missing, but the major ones should be here.
Radio waves (LW, MW, SW, VHF, UHF)
Microwaves
Infra red
Visible light (in order red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, violet)
Ultra violet
X-rays
Gamma rays
All light travels through a vacuum at the same speed, know as "c" or "the
speed of light". This is well established, and has been calculated
indirectly by dozens of different measurements ("c" is involved in a great
many physical relationships), and has been measured directly in many
different ways - both through a vacuum in labs, and through space (bouncing
visible light off the moon or radio waves off space probes). While it may
turn out that current theories are slightly inaccurate and that the speed of
light through a vacuum varies over time, or by frequency, there is no doubt
that "c" is completly constant and independant of the frequency to a very
high level of prescision (I guess c has been measured to at least 10
significant figures).
Light waves slow down when passing through a medium other than vacuum. The
extent of this slowdown is somewhat dependant on frequency. There is very
little slowdown in air, but the speed of light through glass is quite
significant - that is how lenses work. The speed through glass is also
quite dependant on the frequency (corresponding to the colour of visible
light) - that is how prisms work.
Feel free to elaborate on or question this explanation - the hope is that
those of you who have little idea about light waves can learn from this.
------------------------------
From: JamesW <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 12:39:09 +0100
In article <hFwO6.3261$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> even the blackest object will still reflect a tiny amount of light.
>
A black hole?
------------------------------
From: "David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 13:58:12 +0200
T. Max Devlin wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>Said Edward Rosten in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 22 May 2001
>>> If you weren't aware
>>> that different frequencies of electromagnetic radiation travel or
>>> propagate at different velocities or speeds,
>>
>>NOT in free space.
>
>There is no free space; all of the universe is a quantum foam of
>transient particles, we're told.
>
This is one theory that looks fairly solid but is not yet considered
definite. But this "foam" has very little effect for the most part. It may
well turn out that you are, technically speaking, correct in saying that the
speed of light in a vacuum depends on the frequency. But the differences
are tiny - I expect that you will be talking at most of the order of the
tenth significant figure over the range of common light frequencies. All
current measurements have shown that there is no difference, so we are
talking about differences smaller than currently measurable.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: XP 'Loctivation' was: Wintroll nonsense
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 23 May 2001 12:03:43 GMT
On Wed, 23 May 2001 02:27:17 -0600,
Dave Martel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 23 May 2001 07:26:37 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 23 May 2001 00:38:46 -0600,
>> Dave Martel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> One thing I was wondering here is, will making it harder to steal just
> turn casual pirates into serious pirates?
Why steal when there is a free alternative ?
>
>>>
>>>
>>And the web site also said:-
>>"It's interesting that Microsoft uses the word 'activation,'
>>when it's really locking the code to a particular PC," he said.
>>
>>"That carries a different connotation, and
>> Microsoft knows this."
>>
>
> Yeah, as usual MS has a problem telling the simple truth.
>
> I like "Loctivation". Gotta remember that one.
I've released it under the GPL, (www.fsf.org) :)
>
> I've been thinking we should start referring to "shared-source" as
> "scared-source", because that aptly describes MS's current sense of
Now I gotta remember THAT one!
> desperation.
>
--
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux.
1972 Kawa Mach3, 1974 Kawa Z1B, .. 15 more road bikes..
Current Ride ... a 94 Blade
Free Micro burner: http://jsno.downunder.net.au/terry/
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
