Linux-Advocacy Digest #442, Volume #28 Wed, 16 Aug 00 21:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
Re: OS advertising in the movies... (was Re: Microsoft MCSE) (Mike Marion)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 20:56:38 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Donovan Rebbechi in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>On Mon, 14 Aug 2000 18:24:48 -0400, T. Max Devlin wrote:
[...]
>>How so? You stated that ethics (which I define as morals in this
>>context, as 'ethics' must take the lab rat's perspective into account)
>>were entirely self-referential. If the advanced creatures' social
>>environment allowed them to use us as lab rats, then they would be
>>"ethical" in doing so. Have I missed something?
>
>OK, I thought you meant that I was defending their society. Yes, you're
>correct, I wouldn't consider individuals in that society much less ethical
>than I consider conformists in our society.
That's ludicrous. First, why are you suddenly switching, again, to
individuals? The use of sentient creatures as test subjects without
their consent is unethical, and would be so for all sentient creatures
(the only kind capable of having morals or recognizing ethics).
Therefore, the only individuals in that society which could be
considered ethical to begin with would be those that work to prevent
such actions.
You're over-doing this "conformist" stuff. You are missing the fact
that ethics is a "conformist" issue. An individual is free to make up
his own morality from whole cloth if he desires. Ethics, however, are
common ground with other individuals' morals.
[...]
>Sure, societies can refine and gently reform themselves. The problem is
>that they can only evaluate themselves within the limited context of
>their own morality. This doesn't make refinement impossible, but it
>greatly limits the ability of society to transform itself.
Again, you confuse individual choices with the observation of abstract
collections. Societies cannot "reform themselves", as societies have no
consciousness or 'free will'. Sentient individuals, as much as you may
have reason to suspect self-serving behavior, do, in fact, evaluate
themselves with a far broader context than their society's ethical
standards. If they didn't, we wouldn't have higher ethical standards
than we did hundreds of years ago. In fact, if the individual himself
weren't capable of evaluating himself and his actions through a broader
scope than his own morality, then nobody would ever change their
morality.
>One might also wonder how much of our moral "progress" can be attributed
>to economic success. Even in todays "civilised" world, barbarism can prevail
>when countries decline.
I don't think we've made much moral progress. Ethical progress doesn't
break down nearly so easily, though it breaks down *almost* as easily as
civil law does. However, even in today's most "economically successful"
world, barbarism is rampant when individuals relax their guard.
>>An almost comprehensive reduction of post-modernist delusion. There
>>isn't any value in it, but it can't easily be refuted. That's because
>>it is unfalsifiable, though, not because it is irrefutable.
>
>Not sure what you mean. A big problem for philosophers though is that
>you can only prove assertions about mathematics, and that's because
>the things you are proving don't say anything about the "real world".
That's silly. You can't "prove" assertions about mathematics any more
than anything else, if you're going to put the phrase "real world" in
quotes. The big problem for philosophers is that you can't provide
evidence of emotions, intent, or sentience; you can only provide
indications that they might exist. Given a sufficiently gullible
operator, we would all fail the Turing Test. The real problem with
philosophy is that many people seem incapable of grasping abstractions
to begin with, and the grand-daddy of all abstractions, "truth", is the
toughest of all.
[...]
>>Why not? Are you under the impression that there is an absolute
>>morality inherent in the universe, or that there is no such thing as
>>ethics?
>
>Morality is not absolute, but "rationality" is.
Says who?
[...]
>>Whatever. You seem to believe that since ideals have no physical
>>presence, they don't exist. Or that since there is no absolute
>>morality, we cannot derive ethics by reason.
>
>We can derive *anything* by way of reason if we are prepared to make
>certain assumptions or axioms. It boils down to what we are prepared
>to assume.
I am prepared to assume nothing, and yet can derive ethics without
absolute morality.
>But the fact that others share an opinion is not a derivation by way
>of reason, it's more like derivation by way of a herd mentality.
The fact that others derive the same thing by way of reason is the only
proof that we have that it is reason.
>>>The problem is not reality being "redefined" so much as it is reinterpreted.
>>
>>I do not interpret reality; I perceive it.
>
>And interpret it.
Which is why you are confused and I am not. Why do you think you
"interpret" reality? Is there a translation program available?
>>mumbo-jumbo. Yes, we are all stuck inside our heads. No, that doesn't
>>mean the entire universe might be inside my head.
>
>Actually, it means precisely that, though I don't wish to debate this now.
>If you can prove that it's not the case, write a book. If someone else
>has done so, provide me with a reference, and I'll take a look.
I don't need to write a book to "prove" this, that is the point. The
fact that I can write a book, any book, to begin with, has already
proven the point. Solipsism is a dead end; yes, I could be the only
thing in existence, and all else could be a fantasy of mine. I could be
a butterfly dreaming I'm a man. My entire life may be the last four
seconds of activity in my oxygen-starved brain as I die in the womb.
All of that is beside the point, because it still leaves me with "how do
I act ethically?" within the context of this existence in which I share
space on a planet with billions of other people and no metaphysical
entities to provide guidance.
>>If you think it is only your own value system which must be referenced
>>for determining blame, then you should consider anarchy to be a workable
>>social system.
>
>Not at all. The fact that I believe my value system to be superior does not
>mean that I fail to recognise that it is impossible for everyone's value
>system to prevail simoultaneously. For a social system to be effective,
>it must have a consistent value system, and anarchy does not facilitate
>that.
Then why did you state that it is only your own value system which
determines whether something is ethical or not?
>> Each person would be free to pass judgement on others
>>according to his own value system, rather than the laws or any consensus
>>of what constitutes ethical behavior.
>
>Everyone is certainly free to pass judgement on others, and they do it
>all the time. There's no law against being judgemental.
No, that's a rhetorical way of saying "have an opinion". I'm talking
*pass judgement*.
>If you mean that everyone has the right to punish others for perceived
>crimes or wrongs, well see above -- the only fair system would be for
>a single value system to prevail. Obviously, I'd like that to be my
>own, but I'd rather have a slightly inferior value system enforced
>consistently than an ambiguous system where people are forced to avoid
>infringing with respect to conflicting doctrines ( even if one of those
>conflicting doctrines was indeed superior ).
So I guess that means you aren't insane, you just haven't thought all of
these things through completely. As long as you know your consideration
of what is ethical or moral is irrelevant to anyone but yourself, you
can go off in a corner and make stuff up until you're blue in the face.
I'm concerned with more practical matters, like making the "slightly
inferior value system" we call "laws" are sufficient for protecting me,
my friends and family, and all citizens (in that order, I'm afraid) from
harm or suppression of our rights.
>Of course, most of us are pragmatic enough to know that we can't have it
>all our own way, and we make compromises where we consider it in our best
>interests to do so. But that doesn't mean that we put other value systems
>above our own.
Yes, it does. You can wiggle around saying "since its in my best
interest to follow the compromise value system {laws}, I'm not putting
that value system above my own, because my own provides for doing what
is in my best interest", but that's simply an unfalsifiable position,
not a valid value system.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 20:56:40 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[...]
>> >I don't see how this model can be sucessful for most software
>> >if the intent is to make money.[...]
>>
>> Well, in short, its not. The intent is to develop software. While
>
>Then develop software as a hobby.
You've missed the point. The intent is to develop software so that a
profit can be made on it. That doesn't make the intent simply "to make
money". That's just shallow thinking.
>Most software in the world is developed by corporations. Corporations
>are in business to make money -- not to provide a community service.
Then they should be destroyed. Corporations exist to provide community
service. They are allowed to earn profit in order to encourage
investors to capitalize them. Corporations have no "right" to exist,
nor to make money, nor to be tolerated if their interests conflict with
the citizenry.
>You don't have to like it, but that's the way it is. If you wish, you
>can go buy a desert island somewhere and create your own country.
Sorry, the "that's the way it is" line only works when that is, indeed,
the way it is. As it stands, this "if you don't like it, screw you"
response is simply "that's the way I, and millions of others,
incorrectly perceive it to be." One of the reasons this is important to
recognize is that it is in large part due to the media messages
presented by those corporations which cause this conceptual glitch.
>> there are other ways to do things which allow for more profit, it is my
>> opinion that they are essentially profiteering. Most software that
>> people use has already been written, and, indeed, many people may feel
>> that they already own what they need. If "version churn" is only
>> beneficial to the developer and continues to provide increasingly less
>> value and increasingly more burden on the consumer, then it shouldn't be
>> considered a viable way to make money, IMHO.
>
>If the vendor provides a product that the consumer is willing to buy,
>it's a viable way to make money.
This is the same self-referential argument that MSdroids use to "prove"
that Microsoft is a good upstanding citizen with a terrific product.
I'm not interested in whether it is a "viable" way to make money. I'm
concerned with whether it is an ethical and acceptable way to allow
corporations, which cannot be jailed for theft or fraud, to make money.
>Now, if the vendor is guilty of planned obsolescence, that's a different
>story, but that doesn't seem to be what you're charging.
So because "planned obsolescence" is already recognized by the "popular
wisdom" as a bad thing, but churn is not, that's a different story? No,
its the same old story; businesses which want to rip off their
customers.
There are far too many people making ethics decisions based on a pro
forma set of rules, rather than ethics. Stop it.
[...]
>> I can't see why you would think that you have any reason, need, or
>> ability to dictate what somebody else's business model must or must not
>> be. Though I must agree that in *all* cases, (which makes it rather
>> independent of and irrelevant to this discussion) if the software
>> *needs* paid support for normal operation, there is something amiss.
>
>No one's dictating a business model except you.
This is untrue. I have never dictated a business model, and have tried
to avoid second-guessing honest businesses.
>Most people are content with the concept that companies make software in
>order to make money and that the company has an obligation to maximize
>its profit.
A *corporations* supposed 'obligation' to maximize profits is hearsay,
at best. The corporations like the idea, obviously. That would include
the amoral investors who capitalize the corporation (or should I say
"speculators who hope to sell the stock at a profit"). A corporation's
obligation is to provide services. If they make a profit, that's a good
thing. If they don't, that's OK, too. As long as they provide services
to the community, and can continue to remain capitalized.
>You're the one saying that there's something wrong with this and that
>companies should have an altruistic bent.
No, I'm not.
1) Stop confusing companies and corporations; they are not synonyms.
2) Abstract entities (either companies or corporations) are not capable
of having thoughts, desires, emotions, or reasons, and so cannot benefit
from "an altruistic bent".
3) Unless you have a hive-mind mentality, you should recognize that the
purpose of civilization is to support the individual, not the other way
around.
4) There is nothing altruistic in survival. Corporations should have to
serve the community in order to survive (they do, according to law, but
that's been watered down over the last two hundred years or so); no
altruistic 'purpose' is necessary in formulating business strategy.
4) If anything that John Locke said is valid, then the market must be
capable of making ethical choices. If a customer cannot (does not)
freely choose to pay a higher price because the lower priced product is
produced by an unethical company, then there is no free market. Only a
race for market share.
Of course, this describes the modern perception, I'm quite well aware of
this. Somewhere or other, people started tolerating unethical behavior
in pursuit of profit. That's an aberration, IMHO, and it prevents
society from being ethical, as well.
>If you want to make software using that business model, feel free. No
>one's stopping you. But likewise, other companies should be free to use
>the business model they choose -- including charging whatever the market
>will bear for their products.
So whoever is most dishonest and gets away with it is most "successful",
according to you, because they will make more profit? "What the market
will bear" is supposed to be a reflection of simple supply-and-demand,
not an excuse for profiteering.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 20:56:45 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Jay Maynard in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>On Tue, 15 Aug 2000 00:44:10 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>The question was what the FSF's position is, not whether it would stand
>>up in court. To be honest, I take that as a given, since they have no
>>purpose in presenting an opinion which is contradicted by law. They
>>don't make money on GNU software, after all.
>
>Horse exhaust.
>
>The FSF has a definite purpose in taking whatever positions they take: to
>advance the Holy Cause of GPVishly Free Software. Taking positions that
>would not necessarily be supported by a court can nevertheless advance their
>jihad, and, like any religious fanatics, they care what a court thinks only
>when they must, or when they can threaten people into doing things their
>way.
I didn't say they don't have an interest. Your hysterical
characterization of the Free Software movement is obviously biased and
relatively worthless, in the end. If they don't think they can back up
what they say in court, they have no reason, and no need, to say it.
The "jihad" against profiteering commercial software developers, like
any ethical conflict, might be seen as noble or fanatical, depending on
your perspective. But their opposition is generally just out to make a
profit, and they are not. This gives them a decisive edge in the
"honorable purpose" department, unless you're a hard-core Randite who
believes that seeking profit is the only noble purpose possible.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 20:56:43 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[...]
>> >One could just as easily argue that good copyright and trade secret
>> >protection is necessary for companies to put the money into good
>> >commercial software.
>>
>> I disagree. Are *you* arguing this? Because "one" might be able to
>> argue it, and consider it 'easy', but "one" is unlikely to make much
>> headway against more rational and reasoned arguments.
>
>Sure. I'll make that argument.
>
>There have been several inventions that my company has made that we were
>only willing to work on because of the potential for intellectual
>property protection.
In other words, your company won't make a product if it can make a
profit on it; it has to be able to profiteer (restrict access to it in
order to charge exorbitant profits) or it isn't worth the investment.
This is the standard mode of business today, and rather than being
responsible for the wonders of the modern world, it merely takes
advantage of it, and purports to take responsibility for it.
>It costs money to develop new products. In order to invest that money,
>one needs some confidence that you'll recover a profit from it.
>Intellectual property laws are sometimes necessary.
No, in order to invest money, one needs to be willing to take the risk
you will lose it. By twice referencing only "intellectual property
protection" or "laws", you've twice defused the whole argument, which is
that covering copyrighted materials with trade secret licensing is not
necessary to make a profit, and is only done to allow profiteering. You
don't even seem to understand the distinction between the trade secret
licensing (EULA) and copyright licensing (permission to copy). I
realize the distinction between profit and profiteering is even harder
to recognize, but it is no less distinct when it comes down to it.
[...]
>It's not about Microsoft. It's about intellectual property from every
>company in the world.
Its about proprietary trade secrets from every company that sells
commercial software. It has nothing whatsoever to do with intellectual
property. If you can't publish it and still earn a profit on it
(relying on copyright law and value-for-cost to prevent piracy), then it
isn't worth anything to begin with. Software is text, not machinery.
>It's about the Stac electronics. It's about Mattel. It's about General
>Motors. It's about duPont.
No, it isn't; these companies (except probably Stac, and any software
products the others may sell) do not sell trade secret licenses to
copyrighted information.
[...]
>> So long as it is not considered wrong to profiteer, it might certainly
>> be easy to point out the "value proposition" in profiteering. To me,
>> all three are generally equivalent; I use any of them only if I have to,
>> and find them all relatively abominable.
>
>Perhaps they are. But there are no freeware or shareware equivalents.
>That ought to tell you something.
So long as *your* expectations are that a business has no obligation to
act ethically , there is no way for ethical companies to compete. That
ought to tell you something about why there aren't many ethical
companies these days.
>What it says is that it costs a lot of money to produce a large product.
>Companies only invest that money if they have an expectation of return.
What it says is that it costs less money to rip people off by
profiteering on shoddy goods than it does to provide them with valuable
goods at a reasonable profit.
>> All three are greatly inferior to what the market should produce, open
>> source or not, if simply 'making money writing software', rather than
>> profiteering driving by lock-in and feature glomming and pre-loads
>> weren't the order of the day.
>
>I suppose you have some evidence to support this?
I suppose you have some objective evidence to refute it?
>For example, you can prove that automobiles produced by the former
>Soviet Union were higher quality than BMWs or Mercedes (or even Buicks)?
I haven't a clue why you think this straw man has any relationship to
our discussion.
>You're taking a position that runs contrary to every bit of business
>experience I've ever had and which also runs contrary to everything
>taught in every business course in this country.
Quite possibly. It is all the stronger because of that; business
courses don't teach business people that they have a responsibility to
act ethically.
>You probably should try to come up with some evidence to back your
>position. Handwaving won't cut it.
I think you mean arm-waving. The "most successful" company in the world
has no physical products, but pretends to. Billions of dollars spent on
*upgrades* to products that either weren't broke to begin with, or were
broke to begin with. Either way, the consumer often has no real need
(and generally little desire) to pay additional money so that what they
already bought would continue to function besides market manipulation
(vaporware promises and network effect). That isn't enough evidence
right there? I'd suggest you're not thinking hard enough.
It isn't hard to define the problem. The only hard part is figuring out
how to counter-act it.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 20:56:47 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
>>
>> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> [...]
>> >I just have no idea of what you are saying. Are you saying my answer was
>> >not an accurate answer to your question? How am I supposed to answer to
>> >"was he mistaken?" if not by "yes, he was"?
>>
>> It is lost in the mist of time, Roberto. I don't have time or patience
>> to backtrack to review your pedantic point.
>
>If you are not willing to answer the questions, don't reply to the
>posts.
I did answer the question. I just didn't give you the answer you wanted
to hear.
>If you don't want others to answer your questions, don't ask them.
>If the answer to your question id correct and useless, your question
>is badly formulated.
Yea, sure. Heh.
>> Suffice it to say that some
>> answers are technically correct, and still not simply useless, but
>> wrong, within the context of the discussion.
>
>Suffice to say that you are willing to say anything, as long as
>its insulting.
Yea, sure. Heh.
>Perhaps you are more stupid than I expected. I honestly believed you
>were just ignorant.
Stupid, ignorant, misinformed, misguided; I have the full range of human
failings. I don't deny it.
So why is it you are still unable to keep up with me in honest
discussion, and want to keep getting side-tracked into meta-discussions
where you malign my intent and work furiously to distract the
conversation by providing technically accurate but realistically useless
responses, and then arguing over whether they are accurate, rather than
whether they are cogent?
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 20:56:52 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Gary Hallock in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
>> Because it is more trouble than its worth at this moment, since my
>> machine has to have Windows for professional reasons. I have a Linux
>> box at work (an old Gateway laptop which I wanted to use as a server)
>> but that hasn't panned out due to non-technical issues. Mostly I just
>> use Solaris and some HP-UX on workstations.
>
>It is easy to install Linux as a second OS and dual boot. Or use Win4Lin or
>Vmare.
I have no interest at all in dual-boot scenarios, to be honest. I'll
probably do that sometime soon; I hear the newest distros are
consumer-ready. While I don't require a consumer-ready OS myself, I
don't have time to spend or resources to spare "playing" with an OS.
I'll tell you this, though. If you can get an Exchange server to
provide full services to a Linux client so I can keep the boys at
Corporate happy, I'll dump Windows & NT entirely, ASAP.
But your point of suggesting that I run Linux wasn't political, I don't
think. You were suggesting that it would ensure that I would know the
difference between a sticky bit and a setuid/setgid bit. Having used
Unix for years, and having become confused initially by a Unix
professional, I doubt that.
>> But you seem to have missed my point; I had no need to learn about
>> sticky bits in permissions. Which is why I didn't have them memorized.
>
>No, you missed my point. If you had Linux available, you would not have to
>look tons through of manuals or have things memorized.
I'd just have to reboot to check a man page. <G>
>In the case of the
>sticky bit just typing man chmod would have told you all you wanted to know
>about what the sticky bit and suid bit do Typing ls would have shown you
>what they "look" like. You see, I have never used the sticky bit myself and
>couldn't remember much about it. Bu it was fast and simple to find out
>since I have Linux running.
Here I figured that since so many others on this group were already
sitting at a *nix console of some type (the behavior is no different in
this regard on Linux, AFAIK) I figured it might be more convenient for
someone else to do it. If it was fast and simple, why didn't you just
cut and paste it into one of those messages rather than simply repeating
the chmod command line?
I suppose now you're going to go on about my wanting others to do my
work for me. But you're again failing to recall that I never indicated
this information was valuable to me personally. I just made a mistake
in discombobulating the bits, and got many responses saying "chmod +s",
but none saying "-rwsrwsrwt".
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS advertising in the movies... (was Re: Microsoft MCSE)
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 00:56:20 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > You must learn to use one of the web sites that can just suck time away
> from
> > you as you browse it's vast information: the IMDB.
> >
> > The Trivia (http://us.imdb.com/Trivia?0083866) for E.T. says...
>
> Thanks
No problem.
BTW, if anyone wonders after this last slew of replies regarding imdb.. yes, I
spend far too much time there. :)
I can't watch a movie anymore without looking at imdb for goofs and trivia.
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc.
"AOL: we make your life simpler provided you don't know what you're doing...
and we intend to keep it that way!" - Another sig from /.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
