Linux-Advocacy Digest #770, Volume #34 Fri, 25 May 01 12:13:14 EDT
Contents:
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (T. Max Devlin)
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (T. Max Devlin)
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (T. Max Devlin)
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux posts #1 TPC-H result (W2K still better) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 16:05:31 GMT
Said Rick in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 23 May 2001 17:54:49 -0400;
>Daniel Johnson wrote:
[...]
>> 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.
"Supplant"? "Even... not as good"?
You seem to be speaking gibberish. Yes, if MS raises their prices,
competition could form. How could a product which people by be "not as
good"? Are you trying to pretend that how expensive or cheap something
is has nothing to do with this quality of 'good'?
"Supplant", by the way, indicates to take something's place (usurp).
MS's products enjoy monopoly, so what you've described is Microsoft
purposefully maintaining a monopoly. This is illegal behavior on
Microsoft's part. Further, 'supplant' connotates an underhanded
usurpation, so what you've just described seems to indicate that you
believe competition is dishonest or underhanded by nature. This is
unsurprising, but moronic in the real world, where competition is the
lifeblood of the capitalist economy necessary to support individual
freedom. Only a fascist would consider competition to be underhanded
(or consider underhanded competition to be acceptable). 'Supplant'
means to substitute for, as well as to displace. Your comments are
nothing so much as a definition of monopoly, and why Windows is clearly
and absolutely a criminal monopoly: MS controls the price of their
products not to increase their profitability, but to prevent there from
being any substitute for their product in the marketplace.
>Digital tried that. They died. Go died. Netscape died.
It is, of course, a very successful method of monopolizing. Which is
why it is also a very illegal activity.
>> If Windows becomes expensive enough, Linux on
>> the desktop could actually succeed! Think of that,
>> and tremble.
>
>Microsoft is already expensive enough. Linux can be had for media costs.
>No licensing fees. How much cheaper does it have to get?
>
>> However, MS is not dumb enough to let this
>> happen to them just because of some silly
>> anti-trust theory.
>
>This shows how ignorant and arrogant you really are.
It shows how dishonest he is, believing Microsoft and himself (either
because of his dogma or his activities) are above the law.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 16:05:33 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 24 May 2001
>"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Daniel Johnson wrote:
>[snip]
>> > 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.
>>
>> Digital tried that. They died. Go died. Netscape died.
>
>Microsoft didn't raise their prices for
>any of these guys; in fact they lowered them
>in some cases.
Whatever it takes; the result is the same, and either strategy is
illegal.
>Kinda rough on the competition, to judge
>by the bodycount. But good for consumers,
>certainly.
Yea; monopolization is always good for consumers, everybody knows that!
>> > If Windows becomes expensive enough, Linux on
>> > the desktop could actually succeed! Think of that,
>> > and tremble.
>>
>> Microsoft is already expensive enough. Linux can be had for media costs.
>> No licensing fees. How much cheaper does it have to get?
>
>MS Windows isn't expensive enough that Linux
>is justifiable, not on the desktop.
What's the price point, Daniel? At what break-even point does
monopolization no longer provide monopoly power?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 16:05:34 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 23 May 2001
>"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.
What means what? You're talking gibberish again.
>That counts for something.
Not on your say-so it doesn't. We already know you are dishonest, and a
sock puppet for a criminal organization, and that you lie and believe
yourself above the law. No random sampling of what you claim "it
means", regardless of what 'it' is, need be of concerned to reasonable
people. Their opinions might count for something; you have to work on
your credibility quite a bit before yours can, too.
>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.
That's it, Daniel. Wave your arms really hard; it will make the
spanking sting less.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 16:05:36 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 23 May 2001
>"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.
What you claim as your opinion is sometimes a lie, as it is posturing,
not speculation. When you are not being dishonest, your opinion manages
to rise to the level of "ignorant and naive speculation", but you simply
shy away from any facts indicting Microsoft. It is tough to tell the
two apart, and know when you are lying, and when you are just being
ignorant, which is why I find myself so often pointing out that you are
intellectually dishonest.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 16:05:37 GMT
Said Jan Johanson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 23 May 2001 23:47:06
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>gotta love this guys' consistancy... the rest o the world knows SP6a is the
>most stable version of NT4 on the planet and, of course, his experiences has
>him stuck years back with SP4 - no matter, really, NT4sp4 is still stable
>enough to do the job. But of course he won't admit that either...
Like I said; the several dozen companies I have worked with in the most
critical part of their IT departments (network management) routinely
maintain older service packs, because newer ones are incompatible with
their application systems. It doesn't have a damned thing to do with
the stability of the service pack itself. It is application
compatibility. Over the next couple years, most of these apps will be
upgraded by the vendor, so it is certainly a transient phenomenon.
Still, SP4 had been 'obsolete', in MS's opinion, for almost two years
when I left my position, and it was still widely considered the 'de
facto standard' that vendors were absolutely required to support. The
closer you get to the sock puppet companies, though, the more they
insist on SPN+1, of course.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 16:05:38 GMT
Said Les Mikesell in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 24 May 2001 02:52:30
>"Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>Note how it starts out with a message about the error, and what Microsoft
>told him initially (For those too lazy to look, they said he had bad
>memory, he replaced it with no change).
>Then the 4th message in the thread gives the real 'same as always'
>Microsoft response. (For the lazy:
> "The dev team has looked at this and is working to fix the problem.
> Hopefully it will be fixed in the next web-release. If you have any
> questions just ask!")
That, Ayende, qualifies as a spanking, in case you weren't sure.
>Remind me again why people buy this stuff.
If I said "because commercial software licensing is the work of the
devil" you would consider it too metaphoric, I am sure. How about
"illegal monopolization since the day Bill Gates went into business"?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 16:05:39 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 24 May 2001
>"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:OH_O6.5739$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:9egqgq$f5i$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> > > We accept string values.
>> >
>> > They you should verify that they are URL.
>>
>> Why? Should the supplied object crash if you misspell the URL?
>
>Should, no. Nothing should crash, ever.
>Would, however, is another matter.
Does is what matters, and it *does* crash. Your rather insulting
sock-puppetry trying to pin the blame on someone besides Microsoft
becomes dishonest speech when you start saying that other's "should" do
or have to do something, because *Microsoft* *DOES* sell shoddy goods at
monopoly prices.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 16:05:40 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 24 May 2001
>"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:kC0P6.5801$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:9ei3as$j4l$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >
>> > > Then the 4th message in the thread gives the real 'same as always'
>> > > Microsoft response. (For the lazy:
>> > > "The dev team has looked at this and is working to fix the problem.
>> > > Hopefully it will be fixed in the next web-release. If you have any
>> > > questions just ask!")
>> >
>> > So, there is a bug in the dll, problem found.
>>
>> Yes, that's what I've been saying for months and you windows
>> zealots kept arguing about it.
>
>No, you said there was a bug in IIS.
Fucking *guffaw*, Ayende! Get a clue.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux posts #1 TPC-H result (W2K still better)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 16:05:42 GMT
Said ne... in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 23 May 2001 20:07:42 GMT;
>On May 23, 2001 at 13:40, Donal K. Fellows eloquently wrote:
>
>>"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...
>Question is what would the Advertising Standards Authority or
>whatever they are called these days think of the ads. If I
>remember rightly, ads have to be truthful or they can't be
>shown on telly.
Unfortunately, post-modernism has done away with any ability to answer
such questions. These ads well illustrate why: they are a LIE, truly
DISHONEST, DECIEPTFUL, from beginning to end. Yet no single claim can
be "proven false", because not a single one of the claims is a fact.
The one I remember most clearly (having a transcript would be
HILARIOUS!) is a direct attack on Unix systems. The company needs to
change "but the software..." And then they claim that the *lack of
compatibility* in the "old system" is a problem, solved by using
Microsoft software. !!!
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 16:05:43 GMT
Said Karel Jansens in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 23 May 2001
>T. Max Devlin wrote:
>
>> Said Karel Jansens in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 21 May 2001
>>>T. Max Devlin wrote:
>> [...]
>>>> Those were called "tachyons", and as a part of serious physics theory,
>>>> they disappeared at least a dozen years ago.
>>>
>>>Oh, I don't know. There is still nothing in general relativity which
>>>precludes the existence of tachyons. The problem is that they are on the
>>>other side of the c-barrier, meaning that is will be very hard to learn
>>>anything about them other than the theoretical possibility that they
>>>exist.
>>
>> I'm afraid you don't seem to understand the difference between a label
>> used for a mathematical construct in physics, and the mathematical
>> construct itself. Not being precluded is not sufficient; yes, we know
>> for a fact that tachyons don't exist. There is no theoretical
>> possibility that "c is a barrier", or that anything is "on the other
>> side", or that tachyons 'exist'. None. Get it?
>>
>The fact that c is the absolute velocity only means that, and nothing more.
>That we do not know what is on the other side does not mean that there is
>no other side.
I believe you are mistaken. Your mistake illustrates the difference
between the popular conception of the 'impossibility' of "traveling
faster than light" and the scientific one. The scientific one is as
absolute as anything else which can be reduced to math (which is to say
that nothing else can be so absolute). There "is nothing" "beyond" the
"velocity" of c. Plain and simple; tachyons are imaginary, or
non-existent. Those are the only two choices you have. No metaphysical
'beyond light speed universe' exists.
The term 'velocity' does not apply, it has no meaning, there is no such
imaginary effect possible in the real world. This isn't impossible like
landing on the moon is impossible; this is impossible like changing the
value of pi is impossible.
>>>If anybody else is confused by this, I would like to take this opportunity
>>>to endorse Michio Kaku's book "Hyperspace. A Scientific Odyssey Through
>>>Parallel Universes, Time Warps, and The Tenth Dimension". Since I've read
>>>it, the tenth dimension no longer holds any secrets to me, and I play
>>>hyperguitar for fun <G>.
>>
>> More seriously (and much more currently and scientifically accurately),
>> anyone interested should read "The Elegant Universe" by Brian Greene.
>> Once you've read it, you won't use silly nonsense words like
>> "hyperspace". ;-)
>>
>Please read the book before making silly comments like that.
I am truly sorry; there really is no need. I am well aware of the
conjecture which is still possible. I don't consider any of it
reasonable, though, in comparison to the facts.
>>>The April issue of Popular Science has an interesting article on Weird
>>>Space Drives. Apparently NASA has committed itself (sort of, as usual) to
>>>undertaking an interstellar mission within a 25 to 50 year timeframe.
>>>These guys give a completely new meaning to the term "optimism".
>>
>> You have a completely incorrect understanding of what "undertaking"
>> means. They've been planning interstellar missions "within a 25 to 50
>> year time frame" for longer than they have been NASA! ;-)
>>
>Read the article.
Are you trusting NASA, or the journalist who wrote the article, more
than moi? Is the article web-accessible?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 16:05:44 GMT
Said Edward Rosten in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 24 May 2001
>>>> 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.
>>
>> I really could care less about experiments; I'm not even a *theoretical*
>> physicist, but even if I were, I would be one of those guys who couldn't
>> care less about experiments.
>
>Hmm. Without experiments, you have no way of verifying if your theories
>are correct or along the right lines.
Don't tell me; tell the string physicists.
>>>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 that's what happens when you can reduce everything to almost
>> 'pure math' constructs.
>
>I don't understand this comment. What should reducing everything to maths
>have to do with its releation to the real world?
Because "the real world" is our knowledge of the physical world, and
this might vaguely be described by language, but can really only be "the
real world" if it can be reduced to concrete mathematics.
[...]
>> I see what you are saying. And, yes, that is what I meant by "fatally
>> flawed, logically"; it is only internally consistent. If it is not also
>> consistent with everything externally, it is logically flawed. It
>> isn't, I would say, at all *illogical*, though.
>
>I think that you are confusing "logiclly flawed" with "incomplete".
I am not confusing them, though I will admit they are rather
interchangeable in my context here.
>For
>instance, Newtons Laws are logically fine, it just happens that they're
>incomplete.
They are logically flawed; this does not prevent them from being useful.
That is the point I have been trying to explain. Math is correct or
incorrect, so it is possible for a person to be "wrong" in their math,
and thus ruin the validity of their claims. However, words are not so
concrete; a lingual explanation of something is only "gibberish" if you
don't understand it, and that has nothing to do with whether it is
useful. It was expressed as useful by some other person; you should
first (and always) presume that it is a reasonable and useful
explanation for them. It may be incorrect, mistaken; it cannot be
"wrong". Unless you are going to claim that Newton was *wrong*, and he
clearly was not, despite the fact that they do not completely describe
the universe. His laws, in fact, are not incomplete, but fully formed
and completely consistent. They are, however, logically flawed, because
they cannot be universally applied. Newton's own logic was not flawed,
however, since as far as he knew, it was universally valid.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 16:05:45 GMT
Said Donn Miller in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 23 May 2001 14:28:23
>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-)
Minor correction: the radiation comes from the event horizon, not the
black hole itself.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 16:05:46 GMT
Said Gary Hallock in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 23 May 2001 18:59:06
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> I know what I said. I seem to be one up on you, because I also know why
>> I said it. You can go back and re-read the thread to understand it as
>> well, or answer the question, which you have failed to do.
>
>I have read the entire thread. As usual, you use a lot of words to say
>absolutely nothing.
I must disagree. You do that far more than I.
>I thought you wanted an explanation of what I said.
>But if all you want is an answer ro your question, the answer is
>"Neither".
Alas, it was an 'either/or' question, so you've still failed to answer
it. Don't worry about it; I know that you can't answer it, because you
don't know the meaning of the words well enough.
Thanks for your time. Hope next time you have something to say.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 16:05:47 GMT
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 23 May 2001 >On
Wed, 23 May 2001 03:33:55 GMT, T. Max Devlin
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>It seems to be working supremely well, actually. Whatever gave you the
>>impression I care about "looking good"? That's a rather stupid and
>
>Your doing a great job of not doing it.
>Looking good that is.
Blah, blah, blah.
>>ignorant suggestion, flatheadfishbrain. You've been posting here long
>>enough to know that; we can tell that is true, because, like so many
>>trolls with red, stinging butt-cheeks before you, you've been unable to
>>resist the urge to try to annoy me with silly names.
>
>I didn't start the name calling, you did T-Bone.
>I will cease and desist if you will.
I'm afraid you're mistaken, claire.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 16:05:48 GMT
Said David Brown in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 24 May 2001 12:47:32
>T. Max Devlin wrote in message ...
>
>>You could help me out, here, by trying to explain how physicists
>>consider the 'frequency of a photon'. I'm not sure if the term actually
>>translates at all.
>
>If it makes it easier, you can think of a "photon" as being a wave pulse.
I am interested in accuracy, consistent, and practicality. If it makes
it easier, then I'll decline, thanks. Chances are it makes it less
correct.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
