Linux-Advocacy Digest #731, Volume #34 Wed, 23 May 01 15:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop ("Rich Soyack")
Re: Linux Mandrake Sucks!!!!
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Donn Miller)
Re: evolutionary (oh boy) psychology: the short form ("jet")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Rich Soyack" <[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 18:13:11 GMT
"Ian Davey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <SgQO6.2199$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Rich Soyack"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >How about hatred of homosexuals?
> >>
> >> That's a perfect example of why homophobe is used to describe someone
who
> >> hates homosexuals. There's no other word for it.
> >
> >What's wrong with that phrase?
>
> It's not concise enough.
And "homophobe" is not correct usage of the word.
>
> >>
> >> > Homophobe is not common usage in the USA.
> >>
> >> I'm not sure I believe that,
> >
> >As I don't believe that homophobe is in common usage in the UK.
>
> Well it is, you can bury your head in the sand all you want.
Not accepting what you say is the same as "bury your head in the sand..."?
> You'll even find
> it used in the mainstream media and news organisations, here you go:
When I worked in The Netherlands last year I read English newspapers and I
don't remember seeing it in common usage.
>
> http://newssearch.bbc.co.uk/cgi-bin/KSEnglish.
Nothing was on this site when I tried accessing it.
> exe?
>
method=mainQuery&ATNMYFIELD_Headline=&db0=English&xoptions=sortboth&numresul
ts
> =1000&BATCHHITS=25&querythreshold=50&query=homophobic
>
> In the UK you can't get much more mainstream than the BBC.
Again, when I was in The Netherlands I watched BBC and don't remember
hearing it. By the way,
isn't BBC an organ of the Liberal Government?
>
> >> I've certainly seen plenty of Americans use it.
> >> Though perhaps it's nervousness about using the "H" word amongst
certain
> >> circles, unless ranting about those who are "goin' to heeelll".
> >
> >Those who use the word "homophobe" here over use it. It is coming to
mean,
> >the act of disagreeing with a political stand taken by homosexuals.
>
> Not at all, it's closer to a term like racist. And homophobes are just as
> likely as racists to physically assault the targets of their hatred,
Gee, I hope jumping to conclusions isn't the only exercise you get.
Rich Soyack
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Linux Mandrake Sucks!!!!
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 18:16:01 GMT
On Wed, 23 May 2001 18:05:40 GMT, chrisv <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>>>Whatever happened to the ++++?
>>
>>
>>Linux users were complaining that I was putting their el-cheapo Hayes
>>Modems circa 1995 into escape (command?) mode :)
>
>There was a guy back in the Citadel days that went by the handle
>"+++ATH0" which of course will make you modem hang up.
don't almost all modems have a time delay where they require some inactivity
before honoring a "+++" command?
>
>He was a troll (or "ruggie", as we said back then).
>
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 18:22:05 GMT
"Karel Jansens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Daniel Johnson wrote:
> Windows 3.1 _did_ refuse to run on top of DR-DOS 6.0, and I can prove it.
> It required a patch disc from Digital Research to fix it. The patch made
> some trivial changes to a couple of files of DR-DOS.
>
> I have retail copies of Windows 3.1, DR-DOS 6.0 and the patch disc to
prove
> my case.
I suspect you are thinking of a separate issue;
because of bugs in DR-DOS, Windows 3.1
would not run in standard mode; but it would
run in enhanced mode, if you have a 386.
There was never a patch to defeat the AARD
thing, so I do not think you can be
dealing with same issue.
[snip]
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[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 18:22:07 GMT
"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Daniel Johnson wrote:
> > > I said dBase II. dBAse II ran on the Apple II
> >
> > I rather doubt it. It would be a from-scratch
> > rewrite, and it would be crippled by the
> > limitations of the Apple II.
>
> You are making assumptions again. go back and read your snips. You have
> lost some context.
I don't see what I've missed. Porting
between platforms back then was much
more painful than you seem to think.
[snip]
> > Relational databases? Most of these early
> > guys were flat-file databases.
>
> Was dBase II relational?
I don't think it was.
[snip]
> > Assembly source isn't transferable. You don't
> > believe that either product was written
> > in a high level language do you?
> >
>
> Was it? Wasnt it? Can you say for SURE what language it was written in?
Yes, I can be pretty sure. We're talking
operating systems, and those would be written
in assembly for *years* after this point.
That's how the MacOS was written, for
instance.
[snip]
> > Not so. Every new computer line begins its life with
> > no users. They only take off when some developer
> > codes for it *anyway*, and users want to get that
> > developer's app.
>
> But with a new platform... there arent any splashy developer tools.
Wanna bet? A smart platform vendor will provide
as complete a toolchain as possible, on their own.
Both Apple and Microsoft did so.
> How
> can developers develop without splashy development tool? Why, it defies
> ALL reason. Every one just KNOWS there has to be a passle of developer
> tools bevfore a developer will develop anything.
>
> /sarcasm (just in case you missed it)
Most developers won't write their own tools,
actually. Too much hassle. That is why platform
vendors do not limit themselves to GUI libraries
and filesystems. Thats' why products like MPW
and MacApp existed for the Mac, and why
Microsoft came out with the C, C++ and
even Visual Basic compilers.
You may think you were kidding, but
actually you are on the money this time.
[snip]
> > > It did. Do some research. Go to a library, since you cant use google.
> >
> > If you did the research, you can tell me:
> > What percentage of Apple II series
> > computers had SoftCards installed?
>
> So?
It's pretty darned small, isn't it?
There just wasn't a reason for it.
The Apple II was a very popular
computer with a *lot* of software
for it; other 8-bits were eating into
its marketshare by 1980 but it was
still top-of-the-heap for a little
while longer.
[snip]
> > I'm not saying that. I never said that. That notion
> > exists only in your fervid little imagination.
>
> So, WP, SS and DB ARE meaningful work. Micros then DID do WP, SS and DB,
> so how could they not do meaningful work?
I never suggested they could not do meaningful
work; that also exists in yoru fervid little
imagination.
I am suggesting that the databases on 8-bit
micros, like the one in AppleWorks, were
toys- glorified cardfiles.
You really can't do more than that if
your idea of mass storage is 144k
diskettes.
But the 8-bits were decent spreadsheet
platforms if you didn't ask outlandish
much of them.
And they were tolerable word processors,
too. They eventually became pretty
good low-end word processors, once
they had better keyboards and 80
column text and so on. But that didn't
happen until far too late.
[snip]
> > Many accountants *were* amazed; it was
> > very innovative.
> >
> > Of course you could do better on a PC, but
> > remember that VisiCalc came out before
> > the PC existed.
>
> How could you do better on a PC when the first spreadsheet was Visicalc
> and it came out for the Apple II first, and was ported to the PC for a
> while?
You used Lotus 1-2-3. :D
Or you used the port of VisiCalc; that
at least got you 80-column displays
and more memory for your worksheets.
[snip]
> > No, but 144k is pretty crampt, even for
> > a small office.
>
> Better than pencil and paper.
No, actually.
If the computer can't hold your
data, and a bunch of 3x5 cards can,
then the 3x5 cards are better.
[snip]
> > > Only what Ive read in many articles and books, since I didnt know them
> > > personally.
> >
> > What articles? What books?
>
> You cant read, either?
Well, I can't read your mind. :D
[snip]
> > > No big business offices use SQL?
> >
> > Some do, some don't. The ones who
> > are using mainframes aren't doing so in
> > preference to using MS Office, but in
> > preference to SQL Server, Oracle, etc.
>
> So, first you say big offices DONT use SQL, then you say they DO use
> SQL. Sheesh.
I didn't say that, either. You are having
some real reading comprehension problems
there.
Some people really, really, care about stability.
They avoid young, immature products like
Oracle and SQL Server; they use proven
mainframe technology.
It's not that hard.
[snip]
> > Come on. You aren't going to tell me
> > those little things outpaced a PC
> > *too*, are you?
>
> I'd say that the first laptop was pretty snazzy. It was a wonder for its
> day.
Yes, everyone was wowed at the time.
But it was deeply compromised to make it
so small.
No disk drive included, for instance.
> AND, Im in the process of figuring out how to use one as a
> tetminal. It replaced my IIe while I waited for my GS to arrive. It
> wasnt adorable, or cute or any of those little insults. It was a fine
> tool.
Hmmmmm. It was not really the
equal of a IIe, you know.
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[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 18:22:08 GMT
"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Daniel Johnson wrote:
> >
> > "Quantum Leaper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:zrzO6.22194$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > > Atari, Color Computer and C64 were all cheaper than the Apple II.
> >
> > So were quite a few others, actually. There
> > were a *lot* of different PCs available then.
>
> No. There NO other PC's then. There wasnt until teh IBM PC. The others
> were personal computers.
Errrr... you are aware of what the acronym
"PC" stands for, right?
Back then it was hardly the exclusive
province of IBM's machines. THat had
to wait until more software was
available, and the IBM PC's graphics
capabilities got better.
> <snip>
>
> > > The GS came out in what 1984 or 85, it was after the C64, I do
remember
> > > that, since the C64 had the best sound until the GS.
>
> The IIgs came out in Fall of 1986
Pretty late. Much *too* late; it was up
against 80286s by then, and the 386 was not
far off.
[snip]
> The IIgs GUI conformed to the Apple Human Interface Guidelines. You
> could run the original deskop on a IIe. Now... do you know how it
> worked?
Yes, I even programmed it once. It worked darned
near exactly like the UI of a Macintosh, but in
color.
You could not ever use it on a //e however. There
was a horrible bastardized thing involving a special
font on the later Apple IIs, but it was not the
same at all.
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[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 18:22:09 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 22 May 2001
> >[snip- unbearable repititions AARD silliness]
>
> [snip - useless repetitions trolling silliness]
>
> I mean, really, Daniel. Why bother?
I'm a glutton for punishment, Max. :D
What's your excuse?
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[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 18:22:09 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 21 May 2001
[snip]
> >> >I suppose you are trying to exclude
> >> >Microsoft's Unix and Macintosh apps,
> >> >and I would too.
> >>
> >> MS would, and has; none of us have, except your imaginary attempt just
> >> there to apologize for the monopoly.
> >
> >What a strange sentence to put there. Did you
> >misparse the paragraph above, too?
>
> No; your confusion results from my decision to answer your comment both
> metaphorically ("MS would try to exclude...." non-Windows apps from our
> consideration) and rhetorically (we would exclude MS's apps as examples
> of this imaginary point you're pretending to make).
Oh, I see. You were trying to be clever. My apologies;
I was reading you too literally.
[snip]
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[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 18:22:10 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 21 May 2001
> [...]
[snip]
> >How about, "the smallest set of products that, if somehow
> >lost, would derail Microsofts business model, future
> >plans, etc".
>
> Yup, that's sounds perfect.
Hey were agreed on something! Film at 11! :D
> And you would have to have an IQ in the
> single digits to be stupid enough to believe that is anything but
> Windows.
I would include Windows, definitely. No argument there.
But I would include also MS's other development tools,
without which Windows would be academic.
Remember, if you don't have an SDK, a compiler,
and so on, you can't *use* the API Windows
presents.
> If you were honest as well as smart, you'd recognize that it
> is, in fact, not even Windows, but is still DOS, though that product is
> carefully hidden away inside Windows and its existence is denied by MS.
Hang on there. Now you are saying Windows *isn't* a
core product for Microsoft, but DOS is.
Is that what you want to be saying, really?
> Their customers know, though, which is why MS is having such trouble
> getting rid of WinDOS (9x to the sock puppets).
Most of the trade press calls it things like
Window 9x in preference to "WinDOS".
All sock puppets, I guess.
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[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 18:22:11 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 21 May 2001
[snip]
> >Weeeell. I daresay that by 1989, if you could
> >find a original IBM PC 5150, it would be cheaper
> >than a C64. It would also be older, of course;
> >you could still buy a new C64 then, couldn't
> >you?
>
> God-damn you are clueless, Daniel.
I looked it up, and I was right. The IBM PC 5150
was discontinued in 1987; the Commodore 64C,
in 1993.
In '89 you could buy a brand new C64, but
not an original IBM PC.
*Amazing* longevity the C64 had,
wasn't it?
> I *hate* to say that, you realize;
Yes, I noticed. You greatly prefer "dishonest" to
"clueless", for some reason that I have yet to fathom.
> there is nothing I hate more than having to admit that the only reason I
> could understand why someone would post something as stupid and silly as
> they have (comparing old computer hardware prices to new machines, and
> that's just the tip of this iceberg) is because they are utterly and
> completely and entirely clueless, or simply such a dishonest person that
> they are pretending to be, in order to aid and abet criminal behavior.
It continues to amaze me that you can't wrap your
brain around the notion of somebody disagreeing
with you.
> Damn you, sir. Damn you to hell.
Why Max, I'm beginning to think you don't
*like* me.
:D
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[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 18:22:11 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 21 May 2001
> [...]
> >You don't seem to take *my* word
> >for anything, you know.
>
> You've made it abundantly clear that you are way too dishonest or stupid
> to take your word for *anything*, no matter how trivial. We know.
I still wonder what "dishonest" means to you; you've made it
clear that it does not mean that you think I'm lying.
> Some of your silly claims might snow the dullards who are somehow unsure
> of Microsoft's culpability. We've got no honest people left who defend
> Windows in public, in case you haven't noticed.
Could it be that you define "dishonest" as "pro-MS"?
I find it hard to reconcile your claims with
reality if that isn't what it means.
[snip]
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[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 18:22:12 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 21 May 2001
> [...]
> >That is also a consideration, but I don't see that Windows
> >had a very large cost advantage then.
>
> I don't see why it should need to be very large at all. The trick is
> simply that it is maintained long enough to ensure that all competitors
> have been taken out with other anti-competitive attacks.
... or competitive ones, for that matter. Yes?
> After that, of
> course, you can maintain monopoly prices, and steadily ensure that
> consumers pay more and more and more for the product over time, as MS
> has done for the past twenty years or so.
No, not really. Windows typically costs around $10-$20
per computer, and it hasn't changed much since it took
off.
There's a reason for this; Microsoft knows that if they
jack up prices enough, they will create an opportunity
for a competitor to supplant them, even if that
competing product is not as good.
If Windows becomes expensive enough, Linux on
the desktop could actually succeed! Think of that,
and tremble.
However, MS is not dumb enough to let this
happen to them just because of some silly
anti-trust theory.
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[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 18:22:19 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 21 May 2001
> >> As have we.
> >
> >I'm quite astonished to hear that you think
> >Windows is the best platform for developing
> >desktop applications.
>
> You don't think having 95% of the market tied to a monopoly makes a
> difference? Just how stupid ARE you, Daniel?
Well, it makes a difference; it means Windows
has better driver support than it could if
MS had to write all the drivers themselves.
That counts for something.
But I think it can be overstated; MS could
and did write drivers for it in the bad old
days before it became so popular, and
managed to get by okay on that front.
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[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 18:22:20 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 21 May 2001
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[snip]
> >It's my opinion ...
> >
> > ... and this may be purest optimism, unadulterated
> >by gritty reality ...
>
> I don't see why you bother claiming to have opinions, and then so
> rapidly backing off of them by stating they are pure speculation.
My opinions are quite often speculation, but by no
means always. I think my disclaimer is reasonable.
> Either you believe it is optimism, or you believe it isn't.
I'm not sure about this one. What do you think?
> It is not
> coincidental that you preferred the more rhetorically pointless
> alternative, that it is your *opinion* that it *may* be optimism. It is
> not simply a quibble that I point it out.
Oh, yes it is. :D
> It is not a trivial matter
> that you repetitively and routinely use such flawed rhetoric.
I do use such rhetoric. I *like* such rhetoric. Is that
a problem?
> My opinion is you're full of shit, from head to toe, Daniel. It is my
> opinion that it does not merely seem that way; you are dishonest and
> annoying and relatively incapable of sustaining rational thought, at
> least in written discourse.
I actually could have guess that was your opinion,
but thanks for telling me anyway. :D
> >... nut it's my opinion that actually very few peopl
> > are so wrapped up in their hatred of MS as to believe
> >that no debate or disagreement is even *possible*.
>
> Federal courts aren't 'a few people wrapped up in hatred' of some stupid
> software production company.
I was not aware that the federal courts and
declared that no disagreement with their
verdicts is possible.
Wouldn't that make the job of defence lawyers
rather difficult? :/
> >I would suggest that the majority of Microsoft's
> >enemies would at least admit to the existance of
> >actually supporters of MS who actually, you know,
> >mean it.
>
> I know for a fact that the only people left who support Microsoft are
> relatively unintelligent, or sock puppets.
That's an opinion too, though you don't seem
to be able to tell.
> This is not prejudice, but
> the results of observation.
You read minds, then?
> I will happily leave it to others to
> determine which category any one MS supporter might belong in, or even
> if there is any difference between the two.
You don't see a difference?
> The typical
> uber-capitalists who most routinely ignore the technical deficiencies
> and presume "all commerce is legal commerce" might count as either, and
> I have no litmus test in mind.
You still haven't been able to make a case that
there *is* a better product out there for the market
Windows dominates.
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[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 18:22:21 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 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".
It named itself "Intergalactic Digital Research" when it
was founded.
I think it is quite capable to doing silly things. :D
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[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 18:22:22 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 22 May 2001
> >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,
That is to say, according to people who agree with you. :D
> 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*!
MFC is not part of Windows, you know. You might
try a different framework if you don't like it.
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[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 18:22:23 GMT
"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[snip]
> 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.
My I ask, um, why?
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 14:28:23 -0400
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Edward Rosten wrote:
> They absorb enything that hist them, however, they do radiate as well.
>
> Black holes have to radiate to obey the 2nd law of thermodynamics. It's
> calles Hawking radiation.
It's something about matter becoming extremely superheated as it
accelerates towards the singularity, which causes X-rays to radiate from
the black hole. (Let me guess - now someone will be saying X-rays are
faster than light, right? 8-)
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: "jet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.singles,soc.men,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: evolutionary (oh boy) psychology: the short form
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 11:30:37 -0700
Danielle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Wed, 23 May 2001 02:18:52 -0700, "jet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> >Richard Thrippleton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> In article <9ed45k$ajv2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, jet wrote:
> >> >
> >> >Aaron R. Kakis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> jackie wrote:
> >> >> > amusingly enough if homosexuality is genetic the genes promoting
it
> >may
> >> >> > well be more numerous today because homophobia is so universal.
that
> >is
> >> >> > to say, by forcing men who would prefer the only the company of
men
> >to
> >> >> > marry a beard society has generated more of the very thing that
might
> >> >> ^^^^^
> >> >> is this a typo?
> >> >
> >> >LOL! Aaron you have reached levels of ignorance that are shocking even
> >for
> >> >you!
> >> >
> >> >A beard is a member of the opposite sex a homosexual person gets
married
> >to,
> >> >or has a similar kind of relationship with, in order to look straight.
> >> Never heard that phrase before. Guess _I'm_ ignorant too....
> >> You know what felching is?
> >>
> >> Richard
> >
> >Yeah, it's licking the cum off of someones ass after anal sex.
> >
> >J
>
> Sorry, but ouuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu!!!!!!
Not something I would want to try.
J
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
