Linux-Advocacy Digest #750, Volume #34 Thu, 24 May 01 11:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: aaron kulkis steals his brother ian turdboy's crack pipe ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: aaron kulkis steals his brother ian turdboy's crack pipe (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop ("Rich Soyack")
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop ("Rich Soyack")
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) ("David Brown")
Re: A Newbie Linux User Asks: ("fmc")
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) ("David Brown")
Re: Win2k Sp2 Worked perfectly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: A Newbie Linux User Asks: (Anonymous)
Re: Win2k Sp2 Worked perfectly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Warning to new users of Windows XP ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: aaron kulkis steals his brother ian turdboy's crack pipe
Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 10:16:48 -0400
Roberto Alsina wrote:
>
> On Thu, 24 May 2001 02:37:16 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Steve Chaney wrote:
> >>
> >> Errunt R Kookla eeped:
> >>
> >> >No need to go to such expense, seeing how you promptly destroyed yourself.
> >>
> >> Welch!
> >
> >As I said...why should I go to the trouble of convening a court
> >to destroy you....
> >
> >when you fucking self destructed in less than 10 minutes.
>
> So, when you say "say that again and I'll see you in court", you
> actually mean "say that again and I will pretend you didn't"?
He lost all credibility when he got more ridiculous the next time around.
No need to prosecute the matter when Steve off's himself.
>
> --
> Roberto Alsina
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
L: This seems to have reduced my spam. Maybe if everyone does it we
can defeat the email search bots. [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
K: Truth in advertising:
Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shalala,
Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan,
Special Interest Sierra Club,
Anarchist Members of the ACLU
Left Wing Corporate Extremist Ted Turner
The Drunken Woman Killer Ted Kennedy
Grass Roots Pro-Gun movement,
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: aaron kulkis steals his brother ian turdboy's crack pipe
Date: 24 May 2001 14:29:16 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 24 May 2001 10:16:48 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Roberto Alsina wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 24 May 2001 02:37:16 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Steve Chaney wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Errunt R Kookla eeped:
>> >>
>> >> >No need to go to such expense, seeing how you promptly destroyed yourself.
>> >>
>> >> Welch!
>> >
>> >As I said...why should I go to the trouble of convening a court
>> >to destroy you....
>> >
>> >when you fucking self destructed in less than 10 minutes.
>>
>> So, when you say "say that again and I'll see you in court", you
>> actually mean "say that again and I will pretend you didn't"?
>
>He lost all credibility when he got more ridiculous the next time around.
>
>No need to prosecute the matter when Steve off's himself.
So, yes, you will pretend he didn't say anything. Nice to know you are
as spineless as I suspected.
Lesson one: if you want to be a worthy man, don't threaten.
Lesson two: if you want to be a honourable man, don't threaten in vain.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
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: Thu, 24 May 2001 14:30:00 GMT
"Dan Pidcock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Thu, 24 May 2001 10:26:53 GMT, "Rich Soyack" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >> >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?
> >>
> >> The BBC is independant of the government, and has existed under liberal
> >and
> >> conservative governments alike.
> >
> >When did teh BBC become independent of the Government?
> >
> >The following is from the BBC site:
> >
> >BBC Financing:
> >
> >The BBC relies on two main sources for its funding, the television
receiving
> >licence fee, and the Grant-in-Aid for the BBC World Service.
> >
> >The licence fee has been in operation since the BBC was formed and has
been
> >endorsed by successive Governments since 1922. The fee is paid by people
> >wishing to receive television signals and the fee is set by the
Government.
> >
> >Clause 12 of the Licence and Agreement forbids the BBC to obtain revenue
by
> >the broadcasting of advertisements or from commercial sponsorship of
> >programmes, thus there are no advertisements at all on the BBC. Radio or
> >television.
> >
> >"No we don't show commercials whatsoever. We are prohibited by our
Charter
> >and the Licence Agreement which is linked to the Charter, from showing
any
> >advertisements or anything like that. It's this mechanism which
guarantees
> >our independence you see" (Moss, Personal Interview, June 1991).
> >
> >Sounds like its not indepent of the government unless something has
changed.
>
> Don't know how you got that impression from the quoted text.
> Endorsing something does not mean you are in control of it.
Opps, wrong quote. I really should read these thing after I paste them.
Anyway,
isn't the BBC fully funded by government funds, some of which are paid by
mandatory
television licensing fees?
>
> >Also, the current government is Liberal so the current BBC seems to be an
> >organ of the Liberal Government.
>
> Current government being liberal - why do you say that?
Isn't the BBC an organ of the government? If you pay for something don't
you have
a measure of control over it?
Rich Soyack
------------------------------
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: Thu, 24 May 2001 14:31:39 GMT
"Dan Pidcock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Thu, 24 May 2001 10:30:26 GMT, "Rich Soyack" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>
>>method=mainQuery&ATNMYFIELD_Headline=&db0=English&xoptions=sortboth&numres
u
> >l
> >> >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?
> >>
> >> The BBC is independant of the government, always has been, whether
under
> >> liberal or conservative governments. You can guarantee the opposition
> >parties
> >> would kick up a big stink if it were any other way. It's there as a
public
> >> service broadcaster and as such, belongs to the people.
> >
> >Its funded by the government but independent of the government?
> >Interesting.
>
> It is mostly funded by the license fee, which is paid by people who
> own TVs - not the government.
But those fees are mandated by the government, right? Sort of like the
highway
fund in the USA is funded by gasoline tax.
>
> ITV uses the tern homophobe just as much as BBC so your argument is
> bollocks.
Again, when I was in The Netherlands I don't remember hearing that term used
on
news shows.
Rich Soyack
------------------------------
From: "David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 16:28:54 +0200
T. Max Devlin wrote in message ...
>
>>Occasionally, breakthroughs may be made by amateurs, but I will continue
to
>>trust the opinions of real physists over random outbursts from people who
>>clearly have no idea what they are talking about.
>
>Clearly, he has an idea what he is talking about; according to him, his
>explanations come from a Nobel-prize-winning physicist in a specialized
If I said that grass is a type of tree, and a Nobel-prize winning biologist
told me so, would you believe me then?
Think, Max. Have you noticed how many posts GreyCloud has produced in the
past couple of days? None. He has probably realised that since dozens of
people, including physics professors, have refuted his claims, that he has
probably made a mistake. Maybe he did read something by a Nobel prizer
winner, but he misunderstood it (this is the kindest explanation I have for
his posts).
>educational course. He didn't claim any breakthroughs, only a
>counter-intuitive teleology concerning the behavior of light in true
>vacuum. Perhaps some people might reject counter-intuitive claims about
>physics outright, but I would call them "pig-headed", more than "real
>physicists". Real physicists know that there is quite a bit that is
>counter-intuitive about light, and everything else in our universe.
>
Yes, there is plenty of counter-intuitive stuff in physics - that's part of
what makes it fun. But it does not follow that because a claim is
counter-intuitive, it must be correct.
>>>>One of the American states (Maryland, IIRC) decided that it was too
>>>>complicated for schools to teach about "pi" being 3.14159..., so they
>>>>redeclared pi to be 4 and insisted that this be taught in schools.
>>>>Fortunately, this did not last long. Perhaps GreyCloud is following
this
>>>>philosophy.
>>>
>>>...and since this happened (allegedly), pigheaded trolls have been
>>>trotting it out to try and refute the fact that they are being
>>>pigheaded. It is as if you were claiming that pi only has as many
>>>digits as you memorized in grade-school, and then it stops.
>>
>>No, it is as if I were claiming that a state education board is not in a
>>position to redefine pi, or as if I were claiming that interested but
>>ignorant amateurs are not in a position to contradict the findings of a
>>centuary of expert science.
>
>You are mistaken in your assessment. The analogy is bogus: it clearly
>indicates your miscomprehension of what was actually claimed. The first
>one, anyway. Your second analogy seems incomprehensible to me. I
>suspect a grammatical error.
>
The first analogy is certainly tenuous - it was more an example of the sort
of riduculous things people do and say when they know nothing about a
subject. In the second paragraph, what is catching you is not a grammatical
error, but the sarcasm.
------------------------------
From: "fmc" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: A Newbie Linux User Asks:
Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 14:39:08 GMT
See if there's a Linux version of Netscape Instant Messenger. Even if it's
not the same program as AIM, they should work together.
fm
"WJP" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I have relatives in another state that use AOL software exclusively for
> their internet connection. This appears to me to be a stumbling block
> for me to completely get rid of Windows from my PC's. (Those relatives
> have no intention of switching to Linux or getting away from "AOL
> Hell"). I am vaguely familiar with VMWare and wine, however, those
> programs still require Windows to be installed ( unless I misunderstand
> the way these programs are "set up"). Heck, if I have to have Windows
> installed to run either one of those, I might as well continue using the
> AOL software "within" Windows. Does anyone know if there is Linux-based
> software which can be used to provide interface with AOL's software?
> Does Netscape for Linux have the AOL Instant Message capability?
>
> You may be wondering why I asked these questions in a Linux advocacy
> news group. The reason is thusly: I agree that most Linux
> distributions provide numerous applications in their "bundles", however,
> unless there are program capabilities included to cover situations such
> as described above, the requirement for Windows installs will continue -
> regardless of what a person, such as myself, would prefer to install. In
> other words: I cannot "safely" tell my wife that she can no longer talk
> on-line with her sister just because I want to be "Windows free".
>
> Regards,
> Bill Powell
> USAF/USA (Ret) Management Systems Analyst
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
------------------------------
From: "David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 16:35:54 +0200
T. Max Devlin wrote in message ...
>Said David Brown in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 23 May 2001 13:58:12
>>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.
>
>The conclusion that GreyCloud claimed that the difference between light
>speed at various frequencies in a vacuum *is* immense (12%) was a
>fallacy. It was an inaccurate extraction of what he actually said.
>
>In the last paragraph of your post, you seem to have finally arrived at
>the point you should have started from. GreyCloud himself would
>consider them accurate, consistent, and practical, I think, and further
>would probably agree with me that they support his position. Having
>finally understood how what he said is comprehensible, you can now
>*begin* to engage him in discussion concerning its correctness or
>validity or implications.
>
>I just love free inquiry.
>
We're getting somewhere...
I think we are agreed that all current measurements and theories show that
the speed of all EMR in a vacuum is the same regardless of frequency, to a
very high precession. There are also experimental unproved (and also
un-disproved) theories which suggest there will be slight variations in the
speed depending on the frequency.
If that were what GreyCloud had said, then you would be correct in defending
him. However, that is *not* what he said:
GreyCloud wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>Edward Rosten wrote:
>>
>> > I think the SETI program is a farce! No offense to you, but I often
>> > wonder what good does it do them? Radio waves travel a little slower
>> > than the speed of light.
>>
>> Radio waves travel *exactly* at the speed of light, since they're the
>> same stuff.
>>
>
>The National Bureua of Standards has measured it to be about 88% of c.
>It does not travel at the speed of light. Neither do electrons in a
>copper wire.
>
I think this is pretty explicit - GreyCloud claimed that radio waves travel
through space at 88% of "c". I say this is rubbish. You have effectively
said it is rubbish. The only person who possibly believes it is GreyCloud
himself, and he has sensibly stopped posting.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Win2k Sp2 Worked perfectly
Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 14:56:21 GMT
On 24 May 2001 02:12:08 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
wrote:
>That's called a letter bomb I believe, was the explosion
>severe,or just limited to your pc ?
It was my free update from Mandrake and came in the form of a CD with
instructions to su to root and run liveupdate.
It took about 10 minutes and the system was toast.
Some update.
>>
>> Sorry but Linux still sucks and Windows ROCKS!!!!!
>
>Is this a clue that you were the poster whos repeditive
>"Windows ROCKS" trollism, was really you :-
Generally I don't say Windows Rocks, but I never miss an opportunity
to put the other half in there.
flatfish++++
"Why do they call it a flatfish?"
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 10:57:46 -0400
Subject: Re: A Newbie Linux User Asks:
From: Anonymous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
You just setup IP masquerading
and you can connect every PC in your
home to the Internet.
AOL is one of those proprietary
dialup services. There's not much
you can do but get rid of AOL,
unless AOL is smart enough to come up
with an alternative. But then again,
they're obsessed with owning the
interface to the Internet much as
Microsoft is obsessed with owning
the desktop screen.
The solution of course is to just
sidestep them both altogether.
I use Optimum Online as my primary
ISP with a masquerading firewall
that allows my entire home network
to access the Internet. I use
Verizon DSL as my secondary
ISP, but I rarely really need
to use it because Optimum Online
is so reliable.
DSL in general is vastly inferior
to Cable internet. Most DSL schemes
require the use of pppoe, an added
annoyance that only adds one more thing
that can break. Hence, it tends to make
DSL more unreliable. Also DSL typically
has slower download speeds than cable.
Phone lines are generally a more inferior
means of propagating electrical signals
than coax. Since coax is designed to carry
RF signals, naturally it is more friendlier
to higher bandwidth signals than phone lines.
This is why cable internet is generally better
than anything you can get over a phone line.
WJP wrote:
>
> I have relatives in another state that use AOL software exclusively for
> their internet connection. This appears to me to be a stumbling block
> for me to completely get rid of Windows from my PC's. (Those relatives
> have no intention of switching to Linux or getting away from "AOL
> Hell"). I am vaguely familiar with VMWare and wine, however, those
> programs still require Windows to be installed ( unless I misunderstand
> the way these programs are "set up"). Heck, if I have to have Windows
> installed to run either one of those, I might as well continue using the
> AOL software "within" Windows. Does anyone know if there is Linux-based
> software which can be used to provide interface with AOL's software?
> Does Netscape for Linux have the AOL Instant Message capability?
>
> You may be wondering why I asked these questions in a Linux advocacy
> news group. The reason is thusly: I agree that most Linux
> distributions provide numerous applications in their "bundles", however,
> unless there are program capabilities included to cover situations such
> as described above, the requirement for Windows installs will continue -
> regardless of what a person, such as myself, would prefer to install. In
> other words: I cannot "safely" tell my wife that she can no longer talk
> on-line with her sister just because I want to be "Windows free".
>
> Regards,
> Bill Powell
> USAF/USA (Ret) Management Systems Analyst
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------== Posted Anonymously via Newsfeeds.Com ==-------
Featuring the worlds only Anonymous Usenet Server
-----------== http://www.newsfeeds.com ==----------
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Win2k Sp2 Worked perfectly
Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 14:58:32 GMT
On Thu, 24 May 2001 10:33:11 GMT, "Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Perfectly working system? You had a perfectly working Linux system? Wow.
>Funny you never mentioned it until you could do so in a derogatory context.
>
>Not that I think this was intentional or anything. :)
Well,as perfectly working as a Linux system can be :)
But at least it booted and kde worked until that update CD was
installed.
flatfish++++
"Why do they call it a flatfish?"
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Warning to new users of Windows XP
Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 15:03:42 GMT
On Thu, 24 May 2001 17:16:36 +1200, "Matthew Gardiner"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>lol
>
>btw, I am still testing SP2. Fucked up once and had to re-install Windows
>2000 from scatch. So much for a great OS by Flatfish's account.
>Matthew Gardiner
No.... So much for your ability to follow directions when you
installed it.
It's on 3 systems now and works perfectly.
flatfish++++
"Why do they call it a flatfish?"
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
