Linux-Advocacy Digest #725, Volume #34 Wed, 23 May 01 09:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: evolutionary (oh boy) psychology: the short form (Ian Davey)
Re: Linux dead on the desktop. (Martin Kudlich)
Re: Linux dead on the desktop. ("~¿~")
Re: Linux dead on the desktop. (Martin Kudlich)
Re: Linux posts #1 TPC-H result (W2K still better) ("Donal K. Fellows")
XP "Loctivation" and "Scared-Source" (Terry Porter)
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop (Ian Davey)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) ("David Brown")
Re: Linux posts #1 TPC-H result (W2K still better) (Ian Davey)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[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
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 12:10:04 GMT
JS \\ PL wrote:
> You can't install 99.9% of all programs written for the linux platform in
> one click like you can in Windows.
You mean like SETUP.EXE? Or a Winzip extractor? Hmmm, sounds like
RPM and .tar.gz to me. And those Win tools take more than one
click. Often they require the tedious entry of an ID code.
> You can't walk in to any store and buy a
> piece of hardware and assume it will work with your OS.
As long as it says "For Windows xxxx" on the box <grin>.
I bought a printer (HP 820Cse) that said "For Windows"
on it. How was I to know it didn't mean "Windows NT"???!!
> These alone, are
> time savers that make the price worth it.
Time saver, maybe. Price worth it... not for me!
Linux code and books contain more knowledge per dollar
than any Windows product. Instead of simply running
apps, I'm able to learn what they are doing behind the
scenes. I'm generally productive as quickly, and,
when I'm not, I learn neat things, such as the value
of treating devices as SCSI for mounting.
If learning's not your bag, then stick with Windows.
Chris
--
Please enter your Message Activation
Code now to read this message
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: soc.singles,soc.men,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ian Davey)
Subject: Re: evolutionary (oh boy) psychology: the short form
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 12:12:04 GMT
In article <9efvde$4b6q$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "jet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> I just want to be able to live without them parading it around in my face.
>>
>
>What do you mean by that?
It certainly conjures up an unfortunate image...
ian.
\ /
(@_@) http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/ (dark literature)
/(&)\ http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/libertycaptions/ (art)
| |
------------------------------
From: Martin Kudlich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux dead on the desktop.
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 14:12:46 +0200
Complete nonsense. Linux desktop is not widely accepted because people don't
like changes. The only way to convince my wife to switch to Linux was by not
giving her any other choice - cruel me ;-). Now she likes it as much. All she
uses it for is some email and internet, anyway. I can't see why Mr./Mrs.
Average-Computer-User who *very* likely doesn't do a whole lot more than that
shouldn't be able to use Linux with the same ease as Losedos/Winlows.
BTW, do I have to remind you all of the fact that, amongst other reasons why
OS/2 didn't make it, it was also because a certain other company used business
practices that I can only label "dirty"?
Happy linuxing to everyone. I'm happy with my linux desktop (using icewm most
of the time).
Martin Kudlich
Ayende Rahien schrieb:
> 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.
>
> Comments, anyone?
> OK, well, let us be realistic?
> Flames, anyone?
------------------------------
From: "~¿~" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux dead on the desktop.
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 12:20:04 GMT
"Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9efami$er3$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 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.
14 to 16 MB's of memory? You have one of the most F'd up Office
configurations imaginable, or your normal.dot is 10MB's strong. No, I doubt
that as I don't think you can code with VBA.
Winword, the executable name for Word, is running on right now on this pc.
MS Outlook Express, which you love to hate but love to use, as you did to
make this post, uses much more physical memory than Word.
Could you please post similar stats for Lotus and StarOffice running on your
system so we can see the comparisions? Thank you.
Remember, we're not talking about shared modules -just the physical memory
space of the executable.
Not virtual memory either.
Here are the stats for Word:
CMD ="C:\PROGRA~1\MICROS~2\OFFICE\WINWORD.EXE"
Curr Dir =C:\My Documents
Started by =C:\WINDOWS\EXPLORER.EXE
Data KB =3,332 in mem = 844 in use = 260
Code KB =18,256 in mem = 2,056 in use = 832
Handles Count =49
Windows = 26
The 18,256 figure above is NOT the phsical memory being used, but the total
memory used by the application, which includes the virtual memory footprint
of the application.
If you don't know how virutal memory is allocated in windows then you should
leave the argument at this
point.
And if you'd like a little more detailed information (Handles):
4 : Process 9 PID:FFF4C659, C:\PROGRAM FILES\MICROSOFT
OFFICE\OFFICE\WINWORD.EXE
8 : Mutex 12 OLESCMLOCKMUTEX
C : Mutex 1 MSO97SharedMemMutex
10 : Mutex 1 MSO97BStripMutex
14 : Event 1
18 : Event 1
1C : Event 1
20 : Mapped File 2 Mso97SharedDg1921902720
24 : Mutex 1 Mso97SharedDg1921902720Mutex
28 : Mapped File 1 PrimaryWord98SharedMemoryArea
2C : Event 1 PrimaryWord98Mutex
30 : Mapped File 2 Mso97SharedDg2032902720
34 : Mutex 1 Mso97SharedDg2032902720Mutex
38 : Mutex 7 OleCoSharedStateMtx
3C : Mutex 7 OLESCMSRVREGLISTMUTEX
40 : Mutex 7 OLESCMGETHANDLEMUTEX
44 : Mutex 7 OLESCMROTMUTEX
48 : Mutex 7 OleDfSharedMemoryMutex
4C : Mutex 7 ScmWIPMutex
50 : Semaphore 12 DocfileAllocatorMutex
54 : Mapped File 24 fileAllocatorMutex
60 : Semaphore 1 OleDfRoot00000006
64 : Mapped File 2 DfRoot00000006
68 : Event 1 OleAsyncE00000006
6C : Mutex 5 ObjectResolverGlobalMutex
70 : Mapped File 10 DCOMSharedGlobals12321
74 : Semaphore 12 DocfileAllocatorMutex
78 : Mapped File 24 fileAllocatorMutex
7C : Mapped File 2 Mso97SharedDg1952902720
80 : Mutex 1 Mso97SharedDg1952902720Mutex
84 : Mutex 1 OfficeAssistantStateMutex
88 : Event 1
8C : Mapped File 22 rpcrt4sharedmem
90 : Event 1
94 : Thread 1
98 : Thread 1
9C : Thread 1
A0 : Thread 1
A4 : Thread 1
A8 : Mutex 2 SpoolMutex
AC : Event 3 SpoolDataEvent
B0 : Event 2 SpoolReturnEvent
B8 : Mapped File 2
BC : Semaphore 9 shell.{A48F1A32-A340-11D1-BC6B-00A0C90312E1}
C0 : Semaphore 5 shell.{210A4BA0-3AEA-1069-A2D9-08002B30309D}
C4 : Event 1
C8 : Event 1
CC : Semaphore 3 shell.{7CB834F0-527B-11D2-9D1F-0000F805CA57}
D0 : Mutex 1 MU_ACBPIDS
D4 : Event 1
D8 : Mutex 1 MU_ACB
DC : Event 2
E0 : Thread 1 ThID:FFF544B5, PID:FFF4C659, C:\PROGRAM
FILES\MICROSOFT OFFICE\OFFICE\WINWORD.EXE
E4 : Mapped File 2 FM_ACB06
E8 : Mapped File 2 FM_ACBBD06
Please quit spreading misinformation about things such as memory usage of
applications.
I don't care who makes them, just state facts, please.
------------------------------
From: Martin Kudlich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux dead on the desktop.
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 14:29:36 +0200
So in your opinion if an application is all nicely put away in swap space (or
virtual memory as M$ calls it) then it doens't take up memory. I agree, not
physical memory as in RAM. It's still 18 MB big (and that's only the code
segment) - and terribly slow.
Martin Kudlich
~¿~ schrieb:
> "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:9efami$er3$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > 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.
>
> 14 to 16 MB's of memory? You have one of the most F'd up Office
> configurations imaginable, or your normal.dot is 10MB's strong. No, I doubt
> that as I don't think you can code with VBA.
> Winword, the executable name for Word, is running on right now on this pc.
> MS Outlook Express, which you love to hate but love to use, as you did to
> make this post, uses much more physical memory than Word.
> Could you please post similar stats for Lotus and StarOffice running on your
> system so we can see the comparisions? Thank you.
>
> Remember, we're not talking about shared modules -just the physical memory
> space of the executable.
> Not virtual memory either.
>
> Here are the stats for Word:
>
> CMD ="C:\PROGRA~1\MICROS~2\OFFICE\WINWORD.EXE"
> Curr Dir =C:\My Documents
> Started by =C:\WINDOWS\EXPLORER.EXE
> Data KB =3,332 in mem = 844 in use = 260
> Code KB =18,256 in mem = 2,056 in use = 832
> Handles Count =49
> Windows = 26
>
> The 18,256 figure above is NOT the phsical memory being used, but the total
> memory used by the application, which includes the virtual memory footprint
> of the application.
> If you don't know how virutal memory is allocated in windows then you should
> leave the argument at this
> point.
>
> And if you'd like a little more detailed information (Handles):
>
> 4 : Process 9 PID:FFF4C659, C:\PROGRAM FILES\MICROSOFT
> OFFICE\OFFICE\WINWORD.EXE
> 8 : Mutex 12 OLESCMLOCKMUTEX
> C : Mutex 1 MSO97SharedMemMutex
> 10 : Mutex 1 MSO97BStripMutex
> 14 : Event 1
> 18 : Event 1
> 1C : Event 1
> 20 : Mapped File 2 Mso97SharedDg1921902720
> 24 : Mutex 1 Mso97SharedDg1921902720Mutex
> 28 : Mapped File 1 PrimaryWord98SharedMemoryArea
> 2C : Event 1 PrimaryWord98Mutex
> 30 : Mapped File 2 Mso97SharedDg2032902720
> 34 : Mutex 1 Mso97SharedDg2032902720Mutex
> 38 : Mutex 7 OleCoSharedStateMtx
> 3C : Mutex 7 OLESCMSRVREGLISTMUTEX
> 40 : Mutex 7 OLESCMGETHANDLEMUTEX
> 44 : Mutex 7 OLESCMROTMUTEX
> 48 : Mutex 7 OleDfSharedMemoryMutex
> 4C : Mutex 7 ScmWIPMutex
>
> 50 : Semaphore 12 DocfileAllocatorMutex
> 54 : Mapped File 24 fileAllocatorMutex
> 60 : Semaphore 1 OleDfRoot00000006
> 64 : Mapped File 2 DfRoot00000006
> 68 : Event 1 OleAsyncE00000006
> 6C : Mutex 5 ObjectResolverGlobalMutex
> 70 : Mapped File 10 DCOMSharedGlobals12321
> 74 : Semaphore 12 DocfileAllocatorMutex
> 78 : Mapped File 24 fileAllocatorMutex
> 7C : Mapped File 2 Mso97SharedDg1952902720
> 80 : Mutex 1 Mso97SharedDg1952902720Mutex
> 84 : Mutex 1 OfficeAssistantStateMutex
> 88 : Event 1
> 8C : Mapped File 22 rpcrt4sharedmem
> 90 : Event 1
> 94 : Thread 1
> 98 : Thread 1
> 9C : Thread 1
> A0 : Thread 1
> A4 : Thread 1
> A8 : Mutex 2 SpoolMutex
> AC : Event 3 SpoolDataEvent
> B0 : Event 2 SpoolReturnEvent
> B8 : Mapped File 2
> BC : Semaphore 9 shell.{A48F1A32-A340-11D1-BC6B-00A0C90312E1}
> C0 : Semaphore 5 shell.{210A4BA0-3AEA-1069-A2D9-08002B30309D}
> C4 : Event 1
> C8 : Event 1
> CC : Semaphore 3 shell.{7CB834F0-527B-11D2-9D1F-0000F805CA57}
> D0 : Mutex 1 MU_ACBPIDS
> D4 : Event 1
> D8 : Mutex 1 MU_ACB
> DC : Event 2
> E0 : Thread 1 ThID:FFF544B5, PID:FFF4C659, C:\PROGRAM
> FILES\MICROSOFT OFFICE\OFFICE\WINWORD.EXE
> E4 : Mapped File 2 FM_ACB06
> E8 : Mapped File 2 FM_ACBBD06
>
> Please quit spreading misinformation about things such as memory usage of
> applications.
> I don't care who makes them, just state facts, please.
------------------------------
From: "Donal K. Fellows" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux posts #1 TPC-H result (W2K still better)
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 13:40:03 +0100
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> Now, if only none of us had ever been subjected to those pitiful
> "Enterprise Software from Microsoft" ads on prime-time TV (do they not
> have those in Europe?),
[...]
Not that I've noticed. That airtime seems to be occupied with ads
for HP instead...
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- With a complex beast like Swing, it's not just a matter of "What button
should I push", but rather "How do I put myself into a nice metamorphosis
so that I am deemed acceptable by the Swing Gods." -- Anonymous
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: XP "Loctivation" and "Scared-Source"
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 23 May 2001 12:47:19 GMT
You read it here ...... first !
Copyright Porter and Martin ;-)
--
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 **
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ian Davey)
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 12:51:30 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, JamesW
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>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.
And gay means happy. The english language has always been very good at
evolving, and words do not necessary retain the meaning of their strict latin
translations. If they did we'd still be speaking Latin. As the word is used
currently, homophobe refers to someone that hates gays. Common usage tends to
define the meaning of English words.
ian.
\ /
(@_@) http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/ (dark literature)
/(&)\ http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/libertycaptions/ (art)
| |
------------------------------
From: "David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 14:48:13 +0200
T. Max Devlin wrote in message ...
>Said Eric Remy in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 21 May 2001 16:46:05
>>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.
>
>You wish. It might even be so. But you've provided no more proof than
>he has.
If I claimed that the sky was a lovely shade of green today, you would
happily tell me I was wrong, without feeling the need to prove it in some
way. It's the same here - GreyCloud is talking rubbish, and those of us who
know don't feel required to prove something that is so well established
fact.
>
>>>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.
>
>This means, translated to a modest and accurate statement, that you are
>slightly mistaken and rather confused, here.
No, Max, it is you who is confused. You are mixing up two things here - the
HUP says (roughly) that when you try to measure the position and velocity of
a particle, the uncertainty in the position times the uncertainty in the
position is at least Plank's constant. This means it is theoretically
possible to measure a photon's velocity to any precission, as long as you
don't care where it is. The other thing you are mixing up is the principle
that it is impossible to observe something without changing it. Again, that
is not a problem here - you don't care if the photon is destroyed in the
process of measuring its velocity.
>
>>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.
>
>My, oh my. Can I even hope to sort out such an ugly, useless mass of
>pointless, conflicted rhetoric?
>
>Actually, I think not.
Personally, I don't see why you are confused. Lets pick a nice, simple
everyday example for you. Do you have a mobil telephone? Have you ever
wondered why the arial is the length it is? It will be a quarter of the
wavelength of the radio waves used by the phone, since that gives the best
reception (for that type of antenna). If you multiply the arial length
(including any arial within the telephone) by 4 to get the wavelength, then
multiply by the radio frequency used by the phone, you get the speed of
radio waves in air (please don't try to claim that the wave equation v =
f*lambda has not been proven, or anything similarly stupid). You'll find
that this gives you "c" to within a few percent. If GreyCloud were correct,
then every mobil telephone has an arial around 10 percent too long. They
would still work, but reception would be significantly improved by chopping
off a bit. Don't you think that mobil telephone companies would have
noticed? Or perhaps it is a US government coverup to ensure that the US
military get better mobils than the rest of the world.
>
>>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.
>
>Indeed; to claim that we know it to a very high precision, and yet the
>HUP has no effect on this, is to claim that we know how to add two and
>two together, and the fact that we breath air has no effect on this.
>Save for the obvious fact that if the second were not true, the first
>would not be, either. We would know (with *perfect* precision, no less,
>and perfect accuracy, as well) what c is, if not for the unfortunate
>fact that all measurements, true to Heisenburg's principle, are
>uncertain.
Your philosophical ramblings never fail to amaze me. The HUP has no effect
on the measurements of "c" in the same way that it has no effect on the
measurement of your weight on the bathroom scales. The precision of
measurements of "c" is limited in the same way too - it is a matter of the
quality and precision of the instruments involved. For example, if you use
a 1 GHz clock to time a light beam over a distance of 300 m, you get a count
of a million, and therefore your prescision cannot be better than one part
in a million. No HUP in sight.
>
>>>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?
>
>Waves don't 'travel'; that's the way I explain it. They propagate.
>Likewise, photons don't "travel", either. They stand still in time, and
>the rest of the universe moves relative to them. If you weren't aware
You really like relativity, don't you?
>that different frequencies of electromagnetic radiation travel or
>propagate at different velocities or speeds, AND that light is both wave
>and particle, then you haven't paid the ticket price to enter this
>discussion. That is our starting point; it may be hubris to believe our
>destination terminus will be any different, but it is the premise of
>discussion.
>
The reason this discussion is not going anywhere fast is that your starting
point is completly wrong - in a vacuum, EMR propogates or travels at exactly
the same speed regardless of frequency. There may be tiny differences
beyond our current measurements and theories, but these differences must be
very small indeed. In air, there are also tiny differences - I don't know
whether they are big enough to be measurable, but they are not normally
significant.
So if the "ticket price" required is to believe in something patently and
provably false, then I suggest you and GreyCloud continue this discussion by
private email, or in person at your next Flat Earther's meeting.
>>Max, you're looking for something here that just doesn't exist.
>>Greycloud doesn't understand what he's talking about.
>
>The stupidity of such a statement knows no bounds. Of course he
>understands what he's talking about. YOU don't understand what he's
>talking about. I am unsure what he is talking about; I know damn well
>he understands it, though, and so as he understand it he is either
>mistaken or correct; it is not possible for him to either be wrong, or
>to be unreasonable, unless he does what you've done and given up on
>being reasonable. Which of us do you expect is going to have any chance
>of learning anything and avoiding providing the appearance of a fool,
>whether he does or not: you, or me?
So GreyCloud might be mistaken or correct, but is certainly not wrong? What
are you smoking, Max? Many of his posts are not even in readable English
yet you claim his is not being unreasonable? Keeping an open mind is
commendable, but there are limits.
>
>>>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.
>
>Thus, what he is describing as measuring speed is not what you imagine
>it to be. Are you aware of the fact that, according to the mathematics
>of quantum theory governing photons (which, owing to their relativistic
>velocity, defy precise description, as this discussion illustrates),
>light particles don't travel in straight lines to begin with, but take
>every possible path between any two points? Their very existence, in
>fact, is only really nailed down at the end points where you measure
>them, and saying that they "are", let alone "travel", in the space
>between the points is simply an artifact of our language, built to
>explain the normal world where the probabilities of quantum physics even
>out, and the particles are traveling slow enough relative to each other
>that time/space distortion doesn't become an issue.
>
Max, you clearly have some understanding of light and quantum mechanics (I
have on several occasions said you are not as stupid as you make out). You
don't fully understand what you are talking about, but then, not many people
do understand quantum mechanics. So why are you trying to defend GreyCloud?
Surely you must see that he is spouting junk? You seem on the one hand to
be able to produce some reasonably accurate scientific explanations, while
on the other you are suggesting that GreyCloud could be the next Einstein.
>>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"
>
>'Linux' is an original GNU project, not derivative of anything that came
>before. Dave Cutler never wrote much of anything; he was an engineer,
>he designed things, he was not an author primarily. It is impossible,
>according to the Free Software Foundation, to use Linux in a "single
>commercial application", since if your application is entirely based on
>only GPL code (assuming Linux includes the typical GNU distribution, and
>so ignoring the issue of "system calls") it must be GPL, and cannot be
>commercially licensed.
>
>>Would you bother to try and find any real truth in that sentance? It's
>>obviously false.
>
>You meant it to be gibberish as a sentence, and so it is. Yet, as I
>have demonstrated, all rhetorical claims can be considered reasonable,
>and all claims in your statement can be considered true and correct.
>All tautologies are correct, thus all valid tautologies are reasonable,
>thus your sentence is correct, for it is a tautology, as all statements
>are. Rhetorically, at least.
>
>Being false and being unreasonable are two different things. The first
>has more to do with being correct than being true, and the second is
>more a matter of being incomprehensible than being incorrect.
>
"GreyCloud is talking rubbish and there is no need to prove it". This is
both true and reasonable. But you are trying to sidetrack the discussion
with your philosophies on truth and logic - we've all heard them before, and
no one agreed with you then. Stop trying to be smart and answer the
question in the spirit it was asked - when someone talks complete rubbish,
you tell them so, without bothering to try to prove it.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ian Davey)
Subject: Re: Linux posts #1 TPC-H result (W2K still better)
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 12:54:55 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Donal K. Fellows"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Not that I've noticed. That airtime seems to be occupied with ads
>for HP instead...
The only Microsoft ads we get are cheesy ones for MSN that tuck the MS logo
discretely in the corner. They're intensely irritating and remind me of
certain scenes from the '80's film version of Orwell's 1984.
ian.
\ /
(@_@) http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/ (dark literature)
/(&)\ http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/libertycaptions/ (art)
| |
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
