Linux-Advocacy Digest #333, Volume #35 Sun, 17 Jun 01 13:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why homosexuals are no threat to heterosexuals ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: More micro$oft "customer service" ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: MSnbc calls MS on MS's FUD campain! ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: What does XP stands for ??? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: The usual Linux spiel... (was Re: Is Open Source for You?) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: The usual Linux spiel... (was Re: Is Open Source for You?) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: OT: The point of all of this... (was Re: Where is American pride?) (T. Max
Devlin)
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- He Created Unix, But Now Uses Microsoft Windows (T. Max Devlin)
Re: OT: The point of all of this... (was Re: Where is American pride?) (T. Max
Devlin)
Re: The Win/userbase! ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why homosexuals are no threat to heterosexuals
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 11:50:16 -0400
Rick wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> >
> > Rick wrote:
> > >
> > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > drsquare wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, 15 Jun 2001 19:39:01 -0400, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> > > > > (Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > Perhaps this is why he never gets any sex.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> I do...with WOMEN.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Women. Thats plural. Thats multiple sexual partners. Well, did you know
> > > > > >your risk of contracting HIV is increasing exponentially?
> > > > >
> > > > > Which is also going against all the right-wing idealism he seems to
> > > > > favour so much.
> > > >
> > > > false premise.
> > > > I'm NOT right wing.
> > > >
> > > > Right wing and Left-wing political views are BOTH a form of SOCIALISM
> > > >
> > > > and...since I'm a libertarian, and libertarians are opposed to socialism
> > > > in ALL forms, that means that I am opposed to right-wingers just as
> > > > strongly as left-wingers.
> > > >
> > > > Hope that helps, you politically illiterate MORON.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Aaron R. Kulkis
> > >
> > > I repeat.
> > > Women. Thats plural. Thats multiple sexual partners. Well, did you know
> > > your risk of contracting HIV is increasing exponentially?
> >
> > No, that would be LINEARLY, you idiot.
> >
> > And that's based on the assumption that I engage in the SPECIFIC
> > acts which make one open to infection.
> >
>
> I love it fools who show their ignorance, arrogance and bigotry.
> Sex with multiple partners is having sex with more than one person at a
> time, or having mutltiple partners serially.
>
> And, unless you confine yourself to oral sex, you ARE engaging in
> activity which makes you open to infection.
>
> You really should take an AIDS Awareness Course.
My mother's a nurse. Through the medical publications she gets, I've
been thoroughly aware of the issues since the beginning of the outbreak.
Looking to newspapers, and Time and Newsweek for medical information
is about as stupid as one can be.
The medical community is convinced that the majority of men in the US
who identify the cause of infection as heterosexual sex...are lying.
Primarily, because, outside of extremely unusual circumstances, there
is no mechanism for the necessary transport.
Remember....virii are NOT bacteria. A bacterium can move on its own.
A virus can't.
>
> > >
> > > <Rude and obnoxious sig snipped.>
> >
> > --
> > Aaron R. Kulkis
> <Rude and obnoxious sig snipped.>
--
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: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More micro$oft "customer service"
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 16:06:32 GMT
"Tim Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> in article JtOW6.84660$[EMAIL PROTECTED],
> Daniel Johnson at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 6/16/01 3:30
> PM:
[snip]
> >> Both Web browsers however. Since when has the Acrobat reader
(application
> >> OR plugin) become a browser?
> >
> > Since it was born. That what it was *always* for.
>
> No, a plugin was created to add functionally to the browser - not to
become
> the browser.
The functionality it adds is to enable your browser
to browse PDF-format pages.
That it is implemented as a plugin seems pretty
immaterial to me. Do you really thing that all the PDF
files out there will suddenly become 'web pages'
if and when someone writes a browser with native
PDF support?
[snip]
> > Sure there are. There just aren't very many, compared
> > to HTML.
>
> Yet in all the times I've asked, nobody can direct me to anything but a
> stored PDF file NOT a PDF web page.
It's the same thing. HTML is simply not the magic
you seem to think it is. It's just a file stored on a server
and served on demand, just like PDF.
[snip]
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MSnbc calls MS on MS's FUD campain!
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 12:04:06 -0400
Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
> Linux Admin wrote:
> >
> > MSnbc (remember what the MS stands for) shines a light on MS FUD!
> >
> > http://www.msnbc.com/news/587140.asp?cp1=1
>
> Here's an interesting excerpt:
>
> But in its statements, Microsoft tends not to
> emphasize the fact that the
> GPL also allows companies to write
> their own proprietary programs that
> work in connection with a GPL program,
> as long as those programs don't
> themselves contain any GPL software.
> "You can write a proprietary
> word-processing program that runs on
> Linux - that's fine," said Jorge L.
> Contreras, who deals with open-source
> issues at Hale and Dorr, Boston's
> largest law firm. "Microsoft is spinning
> this the way they feel they need to."
>
> As if we didn't know that already.
>
> I hear all kinds of crap about the GPL.
> I hear all kinds of crap about Linux.
> I also hear all kinds of crap about Windows. From
^^^^
You misspelled "disastrous real world experiences"
> linux advocates, windows advocates, and Microsoft.
>
> Chris
>
> --
> Thanks for reading my message. Please pay up. My rates are:
> US $0.35 for humorous posting. US $0.55 for trolling in Windows newsgroups.
> US $0.60 for advice to Linux users. US $269 for advice to Windows users.
--
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: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What does XP stands for ???
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 16:21:09 GMT
Said Chris Ahlstrom in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 15 Jun 2001
>Stuart Fox wrote:
>>
>> "Matthew Gardiner (BOFH)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > >
>> >
>> > With the inclusion of raw sockets, its now known as eXPloitation
>> >
>> You really are dense aren't you Matt? One guy complains because MS
>> completes it's sockets implementation to make it standards compliant, and
>> now it's a security hole? It's a security hole in most *nixes then as
>> well.
>
>Stuart's correct. However, there are a couple of reasons why it
>is a little worse on XP:
>
>1. There will probably end up being a lot more users of XP as
> Microsoft renders its services inaccessible to the older
> versions of Windows.
>
>2. The balance of these users will connect to the Internet
> in ignorant bliss.
>
>Of course, that's not Microsoft's fault, is it?
You understate the case. Yes, Stuart is correct that access to raw
sockets is definitely *not* a security feature. It is an access
feature, and as such is distinctly contrary to security issues.
However, in contradiction to what Stuart claims, raw sockets are not "a
security hole on unix as well". Unix is on the whole a very secure
operating system, with decades of constant refinement to ensure not
merely that any potential exploitations are patched, but to ensure that
the basic engineering makes a random bug less likely to provide a
security hole. Again, there are things within Unix itself which are not
designed for security, but for access. But it is Microsoft's operating
system(s) which turn the simple existence of raw sockets into a security
hole. MS has the worst OS on the planet, security wise, and no, it is
not simply because they are statistically more common or a large target.
It is because the engineering within the code itself is sub-standard
because there is a third possible way to "improve" the software. Rather
than make it either more secure or more accessible, they can make it
more anti-competitive, by carefully choosing which aspects of
interoperability or compatibility they wish to support. The choice is
always a bad one, in terms of improving the product, because it is not
in gaging how well the product fairs in competition, but whether it
forces people to buy more monopoly crapware, that is at issue.
--
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: The usual Linux spiel... (was Re: Is Open Source for You?)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 16:21:11 GMT
Said Greg Cox in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 14 Jun 2001 02:06:43
[...]
>I distinctly remember third party mem drivers but I can't remember when
>exactly they were available. I believe several memory board
>manufacturers included them with their board so you could fully utilize
>the memory.
>
>>
>> There was certainly no multi-tasking process manager available for DOS3.31,
>> as there was for DRDOS7. Taskmax I think it was called.
>
>Again, I remember there were third party products to fill this hole. In
>other words, I don't think DRDOS introduced any enhancements that
>weren't already available for MS-DOS from third parties.
Pointless quibbling. DR-DOS had it, MS-DOS didn't.
>You CAN
>rightfully bitch that you had to spend extra money on third party
>solutions to bring MS-DOS up to what DRDOS had out-of-the-box.
And you can, and we do, rightfully question why MS-DOS maintained
monopoly-level market share, despite the fact that their product was
clearly inferior in at least this one regard, particularly given the
fact that the issue was obviously important, given the third party
driver support.
Now, if David Petticord were following this discussion, I would hope
that he would manage to recognize that this consideration is similar to
his idea that the section 1 tying conviction should be thrown out on
appeal. Was DR acting anti-competitively by tying their memory solution
to their DOS, rather than selling it as a third-party add on to MS-DOS?
An a priori consideration that reduces the matter to a gedanken
experiment is unnecessary. We need only look at the market share, and
recognize that DR's market position provided them no chance whatsoever
to wield monopoly power. Microsoft had the vast majority of the market
locked in with PPLs (and, soon, tying DOS to Windows). Was it a matter
of marketing strategy, or incompetence, that their product needed third
party tools to become an acceptable alternative?
>Microsoft was definitively behind the ball on this. Here is a good
>example of where competition in the market forced Microsoft to get off
>its butt and put out better, more complete, products.
They used PPL contracts and other leverage and threats and FUD to
destroy DR-DOS's market. Sure, they also bolted some very poor memory
management into their product, but that was just to kill off the third
party add-on market. They needed Windows to be the only way to get DOS
to work well.
>> There was definitely no GUI, DRDOS came with Viewmax (aka Gem).
>
>If you thought Microsoft stole the "look and feel" from Apple for
>Windows just look at GEM sometime.
True, Windows does look a lot like GEM in some of the widgets. But
certainly the look and feel of Windows is generally all Macintosh.
>Apple sued DRI. I seem to remember
>they settled with DRI changing some stuff and paying Apple some $$$.
That would be surprising; I didn't know anything about any such claim.
Chances are DRI just settled before it ever got to be a real suit, and
Apple expected Microsoft to do so, as well. After all, negotiating
payment for inclusion of your technology in someone else's product is
how most intellectual property works.
As for GEM being more derivative of Mac than Windows, as you seem to be
claiming, I would say you are mistaken. I have used all three, and
Win95 is certainly nothing more than a Mac clone, in large regard,
whereas any other relationships between the three just come down to
"well, they are all GUIs of substantially similar design".
>> You could run windows as a process in taskmax.
>>
>>
>> If we're talking about the memory map issue, then that is surely a
>> real-mode issue, fundamental to the rather broken design of MSDOS?
>
>No, the real-mode issue originated with the Intel 8086/8088 CPU design.
>(The CPU was capable of directly accessing 1MB of memory.)
>
>But, again, Microsoft was WAY slow in coming out with an OS that took
>advantage of protected memory.
Doesn't that always seem the case?
>I believe most of this delay was caused
>by Microsoft's plan to leave the DOS world to real-mode and use OS/2 as
>the product that fully supported protected mode.
So eventually, don't all of these successive delay's caused by whatever
random Microsoft plan you want to imagine mean that the industry is
decades behind because of their monopolistic strategies?
>DOS/Windows would be
>left to low-end/home computers and OS/2 world be for high-
>end/businesses. This is similar to the Win9x is for home and WinNT is
>for the office plan they later settled on. OS/2 version 1.0 basically
>worked but was a real pig on the hardware of the day. It also had poor
>DOS backward compatability. It flopped in the market.
If there had been a market, maybe it would have "flopped" as you say.
As it is, it left MS with the same monopoly power of PC OSes at the end
then at the beginning. How is it not, then, attempted monopolization,
which, though it failed, is still illegal? What makes you think that
the entire industry being stuck with the more disfunctional product for
years and years and years just because MS couldn't pull off their little
technical coupe is an acceptable mode of competitive development?
>In the meantime,
>the Windows group at Microsoft shipped Win 3.0. It had a rudimentary
>kind of multi-tasking and supported larger memory areas than plain DOS.
It was all that Microsoft needed to justify calling it "advanced", with
its rather nightmarish (but you don't have to put that in the ads)
multi-tasking and its very rudimentary (again, you can just claim that
is 'innovative'; when you have monopoly power enough to force the
product onto almost every system, people will believe it) GUI.
Therefore, MS decided to stab everyone else in the back, using the fact
that their OS/2 bombed and their Windows was a surprise success`to
secure even more monopoly power.
At this point, their focus switched from anti-competitive OS licensing
back to anti-competitive language toolset licensing.
>It ran OK on the hardware of the day and its DOS compatability was
>excellent (surprise!). It started selling like hotcakes. Microsoft had
>OS/2 that wasn't selling on the one hand and Windows 3.0 that was
>selling really well. Microsoft decided to go where the market led
>(where the money was), dropped OS/2, and concentrated on Windows.
An alternative possibility is that MS wanted to maintain unilateral
control over the OS, and intentionally tanked OS/2 in order to screw
IBM. They worked very hard to get Windows multi-tasking and DOS
compatibility to the 'less than completely disfunctional' level when it
can be employed as monopoly crapware, fully intending to use it to go on
to secure an application barrier to entry so that eventually they would
be the only PC software company of any worth, and Bill Gates can enjoy
the fruits of his megalomaniacal ambitions.
While telling press and partners that OS/2 was the platform they
intended to replace DOS, they were actually implementing a strategy to
prevent DOS from being replaced. In the dishonest way that breaking the
law always seems to demand, when Windows was minimally functional, they
first ensured it was already "successful" by tying it to OEM DOS sales
(the same bolting onto their DOS monopoly that is the hallmark of
Microsoft OS "development"; somehow fixing the technical failings is
beyond their competence, but adding whole new bug-ridden packages is
called 'improving') before admitting that OS/2 was dead, and Windows was
the platform of the future.
Honestly, I can understand your presuming that MS was incompetent but
lucky; it's very fair of you. But after a while, it just seems
dimwitted. They are quite competent at monopolizing, and that's all it
takes to explain what happened at any point in their history. Arguably,
the same could be said of any company with substantial market share.
That doesn't mean the arguments in those cases would be convincing,
though, and recognizing Microsoft's actions as illegal does not require
a presumption that all other similar actions by other companies are
illegal.
Was MS caught by surprise at the success of Windows, or was it a
carefully arranged outcome, made all the more convincing by the millions
of people who know the facts only from what the trade journals repeated
from Microsoft press releases and vague urban legends modeling corporate
marketing strategy as the battle between gargantuan imaginary beasts?
Well, as I've explained elsewhere, it really isn't difficult at all to
tell the difference between competitive and anti-competitive actions.
And you cannot establish or maintain monopoly power with competitive
actions. If you're still skeptical about Microsoft's legal guilt after
twenty years of evidence of anti-copetitive monopolization, you *are*
dimwitted.
--
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: The usual Linux spiel... (was Re: Is Open Source for You?)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 16:21:13 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 15 Jun 2001
>"Christopher L. Estep" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>> Microsoft has to write a completely different OS for Itanium because
>*Intel*
>> made a relevant and rational decision to leave IA-32 backward
>compatibility
>> out of Itanium altogether.
>
>No, they don't have to write a completely different OS.
>NT is portable. So they don't need to write the whole thing from scratch.
>*Yes*, they probably wouldn't be able to just re-compile it to IA-64.
>But the amount of modifications that they need to do is minimal.
>
>I can assure you that the difference between x86 & ia-64 are smaller than
>those between x86 & Alpha, PPC & MIPS.
So why is IA-64 support for Windows taking so much longer than IA-64
support in Linux?
[unsnipped]
>>Linux had to do the same thing (Itanium vs. IA-32).
>>
>>Not exactly news.
Linux already did it. Windows is months or years behind. That sounds
like news to me. You think people considering whether to use Microsoft
software over the next few years will think it is news?
--
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: OT: The point of all of this... (was Re: Where is American pride?)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 16:21:16 GMT
Said drsquare in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 14 Jun 2001 13:27:33
>On Thu, 14 Jun 2001 11:04:53 +0100, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> (Thaddius Maximus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>
>>"Stephen S. Edwards II" wrote:
>>>
>>> IOW, it was a lack of patriotism (ie: the love for one's
>>> country and its ideals) that put Europe in the shitter.
>>
>>Amen, brother!!! A country without patriotism is east pickins.
>
>It was patriotism that caused the war in the first place.
BZZZZZ. You have used the word 'patriotism' incorrectly. We realize
that your argument rests on presuming it is synonymous with 'fascism',
and I've tried to explain to you the difference, but, no, it was not
patriotism that caused the second world war.
--
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.linux,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dennis Ritchie -- He Created Unix, But Now Uses Microsoft Windows
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 16:21:14 GMT
Said drsquare in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 15 Jun 2001 05:13:37
>On Thu, 14 Jun 2001 22:49:44 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> (Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>
>>drsquare wrote:
>>
>>>> I've just downloaded that, and I'll install it when I can get all the
>>> dependencies and conflicts worked out. That's the good thing about
>>> Windows, you just download the installation programs and install it,
>>> you don't have to bother about all the dependencies and package
>>> conflicts etc.
>>
>>Unless the installation program replaces some key Windows DLLs
>>or mungs some Registry entry.
>
>Never happened with me. [...]
Your lack of experience is uncompelling.
--
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: OT: The point of all of this... (was Re: Where is American pride?)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 16:21:20 GMT
Said Stephen Cornell in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 15 Jun 2001 15:28:26
>"Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
>You may well have meant something different from what I understood,
>but this is what you actually wrote:
>
>> > > The fact is, if Europe hadn't dragged us into
>> > > their little conflict, they would have been
>> > > overrun. They were in quite poor shape once
>> > > we got into the game. From that point, we
>> > > called the shots, and kicked 3rd Reich ass.
>
>If you will assent to the following statements:
>
>(1) WWII was not a `little conflict' whose sole cause was incompetence
>and apathy on the part of `the Europeans'
>(2) The US was not dragged into WWII by Europe, but entered because of
>its own national interest and in response to aggression by Japan
>(3) The US was only one of several major factors in the Allies' victory
>
>then I will withdraw my accusation that you are clueless.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Win/userbase!
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 12:14:48 -0400
pip wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> > > The same as a simple "pattern matching" algo
> >
> > ** ALGORITHM **
> >
> > But you see... Heuristic methods ARE NOT ALGORITHMS.
>
> Suggest you look up the meaning of the word. Then get a text book AI.
>
I did. Back in the 1980's. It was immediately obvious that ALL
AI at that time, was a load of crap.
> I have.
The ONLY AI method that has a reasonably good chance of performing
well, and ONLY on specific tasks...is, Neural Networking...which is
NOT a heuristic method.
However, virus identification does not lend itself to an NN solution,
so...
--
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.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
