Linux-Advocacy Digest #240, Volume #28 Sat, 5 Aug 00 03:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: AARON KULKIS...USENET SPAMMER, LIAR, AND THUG ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: AARON KULKIS...USENET SPAMMER, LIAR, AND THUG (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: "pure" Linux??
Re: Unix user 10yrs + says Linux is bollocks (David M. Cook)
Re: Why Lycos Selected Microsoft and Intel (Jen)
Re: AARON KULKIS...USENET SPAMMER, LIAR, AND THUG (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Why Lycos Selected Microsoft and Intel (Jen)
Re: "pure" Linux?? ("K@rma Killer")
Re: Linux or Windows 2000 ???? (Pete Goodwin)
Re: LINUX, OF COURSE!! (Pete Goodwin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles
Subject: Re: AARON KULKIS...USENET SPAMMER, LIAR, AND THUG
Date: Sat, 05 Aug 2000 00:44:46 -0400
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
> On Fri, 04 Aug 2000 19:33:39 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>
> >> As a PhD student in math, I'm hardly "high income" or "low intelligence".
> >>
> >> In other words, the above is just plain false.
> >
> >Read _The_Bell_Curve_ and get back to me.
>
> That's like Petrich saying "read Marx and get back to me". Cite all the
> propoganda you like.
I am directing you to ONE SPECIFIC BOOK.
As a PhD Candidate in math, you should have no difficulty
in comprehending the statistics. If you can find 30 minutes
per day to read it, you should complete the whole thing in
two weeks. Since you are on a limited income at the moment,
go to the library.
> >Yes, students tend to have a low income...because students
> >are STUDENTS, not full-time employees working in the field of
> >their chosen specialty.
>
> Part time employees working in fields in which they are highly qualified
> ( namely teaching ).
>
> >You claim that your current income is $7,500/year. If you chose
> >to drop out of your PhD program today, what do you think your
> >income would be?
>
> Admittedly several times higher than that
>
> >My bet is somewhere around $80,000 provided you aren't majoring
> >in Psychology (would you like fries with that?), History, or
> >Medicine.
>
> Math. BTW, it might surprise you to learn that medical research gets a lot
> of funding.
But 3/4 of a medical degree is almost worthless off campus.
Now, grants for medical research ARE authorized by the
Constitution, because that falls under public health, which
is a *general* welfare concern.
>
> >> >2. Intelligence is genetically linked. Correlation > 0.5 (where
> >> > a correlation of 1.0 is absolute correlation)
> >>
> >> (a) How do you measure "genetically linked",
> >
> >Measure the correlation between identical twins who have been
> >seperated since birth vs. correlation between identical twins
> >who have lived together from birth to adulthood
>
> I don't know where to begin with the problems here. First, how do you
> justify extrapolating from twins to the population ? Secondly, you're
> going to have a hard time finding test subjects.
They have come up with a couple thousand sets of identical twins
who were orphaned or put up for adoption as infants, and adopted
seperately.
>
> Thirdly, how do you know that the type of people who adopt the twin are
> independent of genetic factors?
I think it would be up to you to prove that the genetics of
the adoptive parents show some sort of correlation beyond
meeting the minimum thresholds to gain approval by whatever
organization (public or private) supervised the adoption
process.
>
> >> (c) What does "smart" mean anyway ? Your measure of "smart"
> >> could also be flawed.
> >
> >Don't be so stupid....it's unbecoming.
>
> No, it's not. The problem is that you only prove something about how
> people perform on your test. ( that's being optimistic and assuming
> that your test didn't have obvious flaws in the first place )
Talk of "other intelligences" and such is a bunch of egalitarian
nonsense to explain away low IQ scores by the obviously stupid.
This is why I told you to read _The_Bell_Curve_....so that your
head will be swept clean of all this nonsense.
>
> >And orphaned children of low-income adults tend to perform
> >at lower levels than orphaned children of high-income adults.
>
> But the fact that they're orphaned doesn't isolate genetics as
> an independent variable.
It's incumbent upon you to demonstrate evidence that this would
be true (outside of being the children being disproportionately
represented by parents whose lived their lives with high risk
for death). Especially when you eliminate a lot of variables
by studying only those infants who were orphaned as infants,
controlling for alcoholism and smoking among the genetic
parents, etc.
Again, read _The_Bell_Curve_ and you will realize that you're
talking about questions which were answered decades ago.
>
> >> >The less intelligent you are, the poorer you are.
> >> >The less intelligent you are, the less intelligent your kids will be.
> >>
> >> The relationship is nowhere near as deterministic as you naively believe.
> >
> >Occasional exceptions do not invalidate the rule. You know this,
>
> But occasional exceptions do invalidate the practice of prejudging
> someone on the merits of their parents.
Barring any other evidence, the smart money goes with whatver
information is available. The parent's IQ is a strong indicator
of the child's IQ, regardless of whether the child was raised
by the genetic parents, or adopted parents.
Again, if you read _The_Bell_Curve_, you wouldn't be entertaining
these old-fashioned hippy-dippy ideas.
>
> >> If it was as rigid as you seem to think, you most certainly wouldn't
> >> be earning 2-5 times as much as I am.
> >
> >Maybe I'm smarter than you.
> >he heh ehhe
>
> Insufficient. You need to make a case that you're 2-5 times as smart as me.
> If you were, we probably wouldn't be having this argument right now.
I'm beating your ass quite soundly.
>
> >Quit setting up straw-man arguments. It makes you look as
> >if you are losing.
>
> Oops. I should apologise if I have mislead anyone (-;
The smart man wouldn't do that inadvertently.
>
> --
> Donovan
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "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"
J: Loren's 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
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles
Subject: Re: AARON KULKIS...USENET SPAMMER, LIAR, AND THUG
Date: 5 Aug 2000 05:48:20 GMT
On Sat, 05 Aug 2000 00:44:46 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>> That's like Petrich saying "read Marx and get back to me". Cite all the
>> propoganda you like.
>
>I am directing you to ONE SPECIFIC BOOK.
OK, it's like being directed to a specific work of Marx.
>They have come up with a couple thousand sets of identical twins
>who were orphaned or put up for adoption as infants, and adopted
>seperately.
Oh, I see. So you are referring to just *one* study, and a fairly
controversial one at that.
>> Thirdly, how do you know that the type of people who adopt the twin are
>> independent of genetic factors?
>
>I think it would be up to you to prove that the genetics of
>the adoptive parents show some sort of correlation beyond
>meeting the minimum thresholds to gain approval by whatever
>organization (public or private) supervised the adoption
>process.
For a start, adopting parents tend to choose children from the same / similar
ethnic groups. "Ethnic group" is certainly a genetic factor ( and indeed,
a factor that correlates with a lot of other things ). That's all I
can think of right now ...
>Talk of "other intelligences" and such is a bunch of egalitarian
>nonsense to explain away low IQ scores by the obviously stupid.
Some of history's greatest scientists had fairly unimpressive IQ scores.
IQ is not the be all and end all.
>Again, read _The_Bell_Curve_ and you will realize that you're
>talking about questions which were answered decades ago.
I'll take a look at it. But it is a controversial book, and the "answers"
presenteod are certainly not universally accepted. Your claims to this
effect are either disingenious or dishonest.
>> But occasional exceptions do invalidate the practice of prejudging
>> someone on the merits of their parents.
>
>Barring any other evidence, the smart money goes with whatver
>information is available. The parent's IQ is a strong indicator
>of the child's IQ, regardless of whether the child was raised
>by the genetic parents, or adopted parents.
I see. So after all this whining about inheritence, you turn around and
show us your true colors. The fact that the children of poor families
will not receive a decent education under your system is not really a
problem, because most of those kids were all stupid anyway, right ?
>> Insufficient. You need to make a case that you're 2-5 times as smart as me.
>> If you were, we probably wouldn't be having this argument right now.
>
>I'm beating your ass quite soundly.
In your dreams.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: "pure" Linux??
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2000 22:57:46 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Alan Murrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:wGMi5.20484$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Greetings!
>
> I know there are many "flavours" of Linux out there (Red Hat, Mandrake,
> TurboLinux, etc.), each of which have their own benefits, drawbacks, etc.
> However, I was wondering if it is possible to take the kernel itself,
> without any "flavour" moifications, install it on a system, and then
> install different individual components, as you see fit, and thus have a
> "pure" Linux system installed on your system.
Yes, it is possible. You are describing the way I run Linux. I use
distribution CD that come included in books or magazines as stepping stones
a way to supplement my collection of source code.
> Where would one get all these individual components? What would be
> involved in such an undertaking??
The first step is to just get Linux installed on your harddrive. It does
not matter how, you can use a distribution either on CD or on-line as a
stepping stone. It does not matter if all you hardware is not perfectly
supported at this point of the game. It also does not matter which
distribution you start with, except stay away from Corel Linux. Also you
might also stay away from Mandrake since they seem to have modified the
kernel.
Install a minimal Linux which means only the basic programs you need to
create a working development environment. The first thing you should do is
configure and build a custom kernel for your Linux box, once the new kernel
is working it should support all the hardware that you have that is
compatible with Linux.
Then get the source code for the programs you need, configure them and
compile them. To get the source archives. you get them where ever you find
them, from any Linux CDs you have available from the on-line ftp archives of
the distributions, from large well established Linux ftp sites, from GNU's
ftp archives, from the developers primary archives, from trusted
websites--as I said where ever you find them. Build your own librarys of
these sources. Not hard to do, just keep them on-line or off-line rather
than just deleting them when you are through with them. A couple of sites
to start with ftp://sunsite.unc.edu ftp://prep.ai.mit.edu
Also be sure to get a copy of
ftp://sunsite.unc.edu/pub/Linux/docs/fsstnd/fhs-2.0.tar.gz and use it as a
guide for configuring the filesystem layout for your hosts when configuring
your programs.
Some where along the line here, when you feel confident enough, you will
remove the package manager, and other distribution specific tools.
If you need to install Linux on another host you can install the harddrive
of the host into you current host and build the root filesystem and maybe
even test it on your current host. Then transfer the harddrive it to the new
host. Or you could boot a rescue disk and transfer the root partition
across your network or restore it from off-line media.
=====
I run Linux, no bloody RedHat, Debian, Slackware, or Corel, just Linux.
My server have been up 216 days 15 hours 22 minutes
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David M. Cook)
Subject: Re: Unix user 10yrs + says Linux is bollocks
Date: 5 Aug 2000 06:02:36 GMT
On Sat, 05 Aug 2000 00:31:21 +0100, trem <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>This is my second PC that I can't get Linux to work on. This time cos
>I've got a UDMA66 controller. This doesn't trouble Mickeysoft. Win98
>is working fine, but I work with Unix so I need Unix at home.
Perhaps some other x86 unix supports UDMA66, I don't know. The current
Linux devel kernel does, and there are patches for the stable kernel.
Promise has a Red Hat bootdisk for their controller, but it's for a version
of Red Hat that is more than a year old.
Unless your willing to mess around with development kernels, or back-ported
patches, or out-of-date bootdisks, you'll have to make some concessions in
your hardware configurationn to run a unix at home. See
http://linuxdoc.org/HOWTO/mini/Ultra-DMA.html
Or you could buy an UltraSparc.
Dave Cook
------------------------------
From: Jen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why Lycos Selected Microsoft and Intel
Date: 5 Aug 2000 01:13:13 -0500
On Sat, 05 Aug 2000 04:16:02 GMT, R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Don't expect to find either of the above tests on the Microsoft
>site.
No, we won't expect to find them on anything but anti-M$ sites.
>Rex Ballard - I/T Architect, MIS Director
>Linux Advocate, Internet Pioneer
"Internet Pioneer"?? LOL. You and Al Gore, huh?
"including the Commercialization of the Internet, development of the
World Wide Web"
I didn't read your whole resume but could you please cite what you did
to commercialize (which should not be capitalized BTW) the Internet
and, in particular, development of the World Wide Web?
I've read several histories of the WWW and don't ever recall seeing
your name.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles
Subject: Re: AARON KULKIS...USENET SPAMMER, LIAR, AND THUG
Date: 5 Aug 2000 06:17:28 GMT
On Sat, 05 Aug 2000 00:24:31 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>2. Outside of rape, a woman doesn't get pregnant unless she
>specifically WANTS him to engage in that behavior. IN that
>regard, he is merely a servant to her desires.
>Oh yes, women claim they are "on the pill" when they are not,
>puncture condoms so that they will leak, and play all kinds of
>other games to get pregnant after telling the guy that they
>are being very careful to not get pregnant.
The above is so silly that I wont even dignify it with a response. I
just quoted it to give anyone who's bored enough to follow this thread
something to laugh about.
>Is any of this getting through to you?
I understand your point of view -- I just don't agree with it. Children
usually need to "impose" on others to survive. Based on your logic,
children have no "right" to survive.
>> The problem is that your policies would have their children punished.
>
>If they chose to terminate their genetic lineage, then that's
>just fine and dandy with me.
There you go again. Spoken like a true old money die hard. How can you
claim to chanpion "meritocracy" when your measure of "merit" is the
wealth of ones parents ? How can you pretend that your system has any
social mobility and then tell us that poor children, no matter how bright,
should just hurry up and die to make room for the aristocracy ?
>We have too many defectives as it is...
Wow ! You even have a derogatory term. You know, "defectives", "inferiors",
etc ... it's reminiscent of the terminology used by the NAZIs and
modern neo-NAZI kook groups. Has this book turned you into some kind of
IQ nazi ?
>The country provides everyone with the same opportunities,
You are speaking in the present tense, hence defending the current system.
Thanks for making my point.
Under your system, the country would not provide the same opportunities
to everyone. Your parents wealth would determine your success.
>including the opportunity to help your children, or harm
>your children.
What about if you are a child ?
> Killing your children is killing yourself.
>People whose brains are that screwed up...we don't need
>thier children around...it merely spreads the problem.
That is just retarded. You are saying quite unequivocally that children
should be punished for the stupidity of their parents, because the fact
that their parents are idiots means that they are too. Well thanks for
coming out of the closet and telling us that you're an old money man.
>We have a problem: irresponsible adults are dumping the
>responsibility of raising their children onto society as
>a whole...
So, as I keep saying, it's better to punish the adults than the children.
It's certainly considerably more fair that way.
>Neither of them work--they both expect that the taxpayers
>should pay for their existance, while doing nothing in
>return for the very same taxpayers who are the hands that
>feed them.
In the case of the freeloaders who inherit, their parents are paying their
bills ( even after they are dead ). Didn't you say earlier that parents
have the right to do that ? If they're freeloading off anyone, it's their
parents. But then, their parents aren't complaining.
>Here is what you need for education:
>1) Competent teachers. (this has been pretty much destroyed in
> the last couple of decades as communist agitators have
> thoroughly taken over the colleges of education across
> the country)
It's a funny thing, that. Because countries with a lot more "communist
agitators" don't have the same problems with incompetent teachers.
>The primary difference: The Catholic schools don't require
>their teachers to have gone through the indoctrination
>bullshit of an "Education Degree" that public schools require.
There are a lot of "primary differences" actually.
>Obviously, you're one of those people who can't see the forest
>because there are two many trees blocking the view.
Or maybe it's because there isn't anything to see. You're hallucinating.
[ bullshit conspiracy theories snipped ]
Again, there are countries with a lot more leftists and considerably
more leftist education policies that soundly whip the US's butt.
If America's education is rotting because of a few stealth commies, then
why is education considerably better in countries where the education
system is crawling with people who are openly communist/socialist/leftist ?
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: Jen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why Lycos Selected Microsoft and Intel
Date: 5 Aug 2000 01:22:02 -0500
"Windows 2000 appears to still have severe performance limitations,
and reliability may actually be getting worse."
You sir, are either blind or a flat-out liar.
------------------------------
From: "K@rma Killer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: "pure" Linux??
Date: Sat, 05 Aug 2000 06:43:51 GMT
Take a look at http://www.diylinux.com
It takes you through the steps of creating a linux system from scratch.
--
K@rma Killer
http://karmakiller.cjb.net
ICQ: 70102604
Watch out - Karma's Here!
"Alan Murrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:wGMi5.20484$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Greetings!
>
> I know there are many "flavours" of Linux out there (Red Hat, Mandrake,
> TurboLinux, etc.), each of which have their own benefits, drawbacks, etc.
> However, I was wondering if it is possible to take the kernel itself,
> without any "flavour" moifications, install it on a system, and then
> install different individual components, as you see fit, and thus have a
> "pure" Linux system installed on your system.
>
> Where would one get all these individual components? What would be
> involved in such an undertaking??
>
> Thanx, in advance, for your responses!
>
> --
> Alan Murrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ICQ: 1147392
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Comet/1777
>
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Linux or Windows 2000 ????
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Sat, 05 Aug 2000 06:53:34 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aaron Ginn) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>While I don't necessarily agree with 'orders of magnitude' statement,
>Linux certainly runs on more architectures than Windows does. You
>can't run Windows (insert version) on Alpha, PPC, Sparc, MIPS, or make
>use of any of the components on those platforms using Windows.
>Linux can, and that's certainly more impressive, and more important,
>than whether or not Linux can use every single soundcard on the x86
>platform.
>
>You certainly seem to have a PC bias, Pete. There are other
>alternatives you know.
Other _expensive_ alternatives. How much does it cost to buy an Alpha? Or a
Sparc or MIPS? PPC might be cheap enough.
I wasn't referring to architectures, I was referring to peripherals.
--
Pete Goodwin
---
Coming soon, Kylix, Delphi on Linux.
My success does not require the destruction of Microsoft.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: LINUX, OF COURSE!!
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Sat, 05 Aug 2000 06:55:17 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthew Gardiner) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>sonny, the detection of your hardware is dependent on the distribution
>you intend to install and what kernel is being installed. I have
>Caldera eDesktop and it detected my TNT2 Card and SB16 with out any
>problems. So what are you harping on about?
Linux Mandrake detected my SB16 but it failed to install or work. Linux
Mandrake detected my ESS Allegro but indicated there were no drivers. The
poster was saying ALL sound cards were supported - not true!
--
Pete Goodwin
---
Coming soon, Kylix, Delphi on Linux.
My success does not require the destruction of Microsoft.
------------------------------
** 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 (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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
******************************
