Linux-Advocacy Digest #379, Volume #33 Thu, 5 Apr 01 06:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Re: US Navy carrier to adopt Win2k infrastructure (GreyCloud)
Re: Communism, Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day. ("Alex
Chaihorsky")
Re: Why does Open Source exist, and what way is it developing? (Karel Jansens)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: US Navy carrier to adopt Win2k infrastructure
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 03:31:03 -0700
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Said GreyCloud in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 04 Apr 2001 02:40:18
> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> >>
> >> Said nuxx in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 3 Apr 2001 15:32:59 +0800;
> >> >"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >>
> >> >> The iPaq has two things over Palm, really. One is that it can play
> >> >> MP3's, the other is that it can speak wireless ethernet (by virtue of a
> >> >> PC Card slot). Color is a minor thing I think compared to those, and I
> >> >> don't think that Palm will let them keep the advantage forever.
> >> >
> >> >The third is that it has a Citrix ICA client available, rather important for
> >> >some people,
> >>
> >> <*sniff*> <*sniff*>
> >>
> >> What's that I smell? It smells like... <*sniff*>...
> >>
> >> A monopoly?
> >>
> >> >also very nice when combined with wireless ethernet. Why
> >> >wouldn't Citrix produce a client for the Palm OS if it's technically
> >> >feasible (screen resolution)? Makes no sense given their support for other
> >> >platforms (Win32, CE, Unix, Linux, Epoc, OS/2 etc) and also Palms strong
> >> >market position ... I'm a Palm user myself & this is the only thing it
> >> >lacks.
> >>
> >> Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha. Citrix is an MS sock puppet. There's no *way*
> >> they're going to even *touch* the Palm.
> >>
> >
> >Ok... I've got Citrix in Caldera Linux... what the hell do I do with it?
> >:-))
>
> If you don't already know, there's no reason to ask. :-)
>
I don't know... that's why I'm asking.
What is it?
> --
> T. Max Devlin
> *** The best way to convince another is
> to state your case moderately and
> accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
--
V
------------------------------
From: "Alex Chaihorsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles,alt.society.liberalism,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Communism, Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day.
Date: 05 Apr 2001 09:36:49 GMT
Reply-To: "Alex Chaihorsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I have only found this in Aaron's answer - I do not no why, but my server
does not show the Erbs part (Marx was naive). So, >>>> is my words and >> -
Erb's
So I answer here:
> >"Scott D. Erb" wrote:
> > Marx was naive. He believed that if you got rid of capitalism you could
have complete
> > liberty, the state would whither away, you would end exploitation. He
was motivated
> > by the industrial slums, and how horrid the workers were paid. He
wanted the workers
> > to rise up against that, and believed if they did they could
collectively control the
> > means of production and everyone would be better off.
> >
> > He was wrong. Dead wrong. Tragically wrong. But there is no way Marx
or Engels (and
> > I've read a lot of their private writings, including a lot of Engels
stuff in the
> > original German) would have ever supported the kind of brutal tactics of
a Stalin, Mao
> > or Pol Pot.
> >
OK, Erb, time to get the gloves off. You do not answer my arguments, as I
did yours. You write you stuff over my arguments. That betray you for who
you are - a man who does not argue honestly. As opposed to many a net
writer, I am giving you my true name and, if you send me private e-mail I
will supply you with my address, so you can sue me if you want.
Manifesto directly talks about the follwoing points (see below in from my
previous posing).
To call a man who called for liquidation of propert NAIVE?
How NAIVE is to separate children from parents?
How NAIVE is to enslave workers into armies?
How NAIVE is to make children of age 9 work for their enslavers?
How NAIVE is to PREDICT that this can only be done using a DICTATORSHIP?
There was NOTHING that Stalin, Lenin or Mao invented that was not in
Marx/Engels works (including BTW concentration camps that WERE INVENTED by
them (Engels) "We will have enourmous resistance to our reforms, so we will
need to have SPECIAL ISOLATED PLACES...." because they knew that no prison
will be able to hold all the "resistance". The only theoretical additions to
Marxism- were:
1. Communist revolution is possible not only in developed industrial
countries but also in agrarian ones (after it happened in Russia) (Lenin)
2. Socialism can be built in a single country (build, but not maintained)
(Stalin)
3. There is a possibility of coexistance of two systems (wrong, as was
proved by history)
Everything else is reworking, retelling, advancing, developing, recombining
of Marxism.
Now about poor Marx being not responsible for the mayhem his students
created.
Marx revisionists sung several songs:
1. Marx was misunderstood.
2. Marx was misinterpreted
3. Marx was wrong, but he meant well
4. Marx was who he was, but contemporary socialism has nothing to do with
him.
I just remind you that the Hitler's revisionists claimed:
1. Hitler was misunderstood
2. Hitler was misinterpreted
3. Hitler was wrong, but he meant well
4. Hitler was who he was, but the neo-Nazism is has nothing to do with
Hitler.
The only argument (weak) for the bastard not to be THE MONSTROUS figure in
the human history was the fact that by the end of his life he denounced all
his work and said "I am not a Marxist anymore".
>>>> Alex wrote:
> > > > 1. Complete liquidation of private property
> > > > 2. Liquidation of the family, introduction of "official, open mutual
> > > > ownership of wives"
> > > > 3. Children taken from families are brought up by community
(Hillary,
> > > > hello!)
> > > > 4. Industrial armies, not employer - employee, (and that is from the
guy who
> > > > LOVES proletariat!)
> > > > 5. Central credit by central banks with total banking monopoly for
the
> > > > State.
> > > > 6. Age when children start working - 9 years of age (Resolution of
Geneva
> > > > International Congress).
> > > >
> > > > If this is not the most monstrous document in the history of the
> > > > civilization, please, state which one is.
> > > >
> > > > This system was implemented four times almost totally - in Hitler's
> > > > concentration camps, Stalin's GULAG and Mao's re-educational
settlements and
> > > > Pol Pots' Cambodia camps.
> > > > Partially - USSR, Red China, Vietnam, North Korea.
> > > > Superficially - Poland, E. Germany, Hungary, Mongolia,
Czeckoslovakia
> > > >
> > > > Why would Marx be spiining other than out of excitment?
> > > > Typical (I hate this word) socialist attitude - they all have
aberrated
> > > > Marx. NO! THEY DIDN'T!
> > > > All socialists remain civilized untill they seize the power. Then
the
> > > > Marxist bestiary begins.
> > > > EVERY TIME.
> >
>>Erb again;
> > Marx was fantasizing about what he thought would lead to a utopia. He
was wrong. He
> > thought the state would whither away, it didn't. His goal was to end
alienation and
> > create perfect liberty, his ideas did not lead that direction. His
errors were
> > typical of 19th century social science (over-determination, bad
predictions), and
> > ultimately the errors in his theories helped lead to the kinds of horror
you
> > describe. But to demonize Marx personally because of that is simply
misguided, and of
> > course irrelevant.
> >
> > At the very least now Social Democrats and most leftists recognize that
the vision of
> > "scientific socialism" espoused by Lenin and the Communists was not only
wrong, but
First of all there were never any "Scientific socialism" only "Scientific
Communism" I know because I was the first guy in the history of Leningrad
University to get "F" for that at State Exam. I even got to the front page
of University paper for that. You had to be braindead not to get "C", but I
was so annoying to the "professors" that they gave me an "F" despite the
direct order not to do so from Dean.
How anyone who has a brain can say that the guy who created detailed theory
how to destroy human society, who gave concrete reccommendations how to
enslave working population, destroy families, establish WORKING ARMIES,
establishing dictatorships - this is FANTASIZING?
In that case the whole "MeinKampf" is fantasizing too, right?
Marx was just fantasizing in his 100+ volumes of detailed plans of the
destruction of the Western Civilization?
In that case, all you marxists and socialists are just idiots who spent
their lives studying an old dirty man thoughts, right?
The problem with you is inablity of honest debate. In one way its bad, in
another -good. Marxism is a religion. It is a religion of cowards who are
afraid to go to the world and take risks of their own. It is a religion of
the weak who are afraid to be pushed aside by the strong. It is a religion
of envy, dark, black envy of the talentless and the lazy alike.
But mostly the honorless cowards, who say - "I do not dare and will not let
you dare".
Congratulations, Erb, you have choosen the right crowd.
At first I thought that we can have a discussion. Then I thought that you
are just not that good informed (not a sin). Now I see that you are liek the
rest of them - a liar, a cheat and a snake. "Marx was fantasizing". About
100 million people are dead in Russia, Chine, etc. because of these
"fantasies" and you have an audacity to call it an ERROR?
Shame on you.
Alexander Chaihorsky
Reno, NV
------------------------------
From: Karel Jansens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why does Open Source exist, and what way is it developing?
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 11:39:12 +0000
mlw wrote:
>
> Karel Jansens wrote:
> >
> > mlw wrote:
> > >
> > > Karel Jansens wrote:
> > > >
> > > > mlw wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Karel Jansens wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Here is why I think Darwin's theory does not apply to software
> > > > > > development:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1. Biological evolution does _not_ look to the future (it cannot, for
> > > > > > there is noone to do the looking), but builds up on the past. - Software
> > > > > > development does nothing but look to the future (this has to be faster,
> > > > > > that could be coded more efficiently...).
> > > > >
> > > > > Evolution is the selection of the "best" survivor for the current
>environment.
> > > > > Assuming the environment is a steadily changing along a predictable pattern,
> > > > > then changes now, based on natural selection, better prepare the survivors
>for
> > > > > the future.
> > > > >
> > > > Nicely put, but wrong. "Predictable pattern" assumes an intelligence
> > > > surveying the environment, but, since evolution is not controlled by
> > > > intelligence, the changes in the environment are essentially random and
> > > > will always be so.
> > >
> > > A "predictable pattern" implies that an environment is slow to change, not
> > > necessarily controlled. The Earth's temperature is rising, not quickly, but
> > > slowly, in a predictable pattern.
> > >
> > > Apply heat to a solid body, it will slowly and predictably rise in temperature
> > > based on the amount of heat and the mass of the body. The Earth is like this.
> > > It is a very large mass which is very hard to change.
> > >
> > The rising of Earth's temperature is a phenomenon which takes millions
> > of years to even notice. Such changes are essentially imperceptible to
> > evolutionary mechanisms. In general, geology is either too slow
> > (tectonics) or too fast (volcano) for evolution to react to. Evolution
> > works on the climatological scale, and even then it can sometimes be
> > taken by surprise.
>
> That is not sound reasoning based on the evidence. An Ice age is a perfect
> example. How many species of plants can not handle sub-zero temperatures? In
> the on-set of an ice age, the plants and animals that can adapt will.
>
Yes, an ice age would be a perfect example of your point, _if_ an ice
age starts as a gradual and slow process. Unfortunately, there seems to
be growing evidence of the opposite: both the start and the end of ice
ages appear to be quite catastrophic events, changing a continent's
overall climate in the course of centuries, or even decades! There is no
way evolution can cope with that kind of timescale. What happens in such
cases is a series of large-scale extinctions, followed by the re-filling
of the emptied ecological niches due to fast radiation and adaptation of
the surviving species.
More graphically put:
When in a certain area the temperature suddenly drops to arctic levels,
most species in that area will disappear because, other than by sheer
luck, _no_ species in that area would have been adapted to low
temperatures (such a pre-adaptation would not only have been
unnecessary, in most cases it would have been a disadvantage in the
competition with species that were better adapted to the actual ambient
temperature). However, at the edges of the afflicted area, you might
find species that have borderline adaptations to more hostile
conditions. These species will now find ahead of them a vast, empty area
that is merely a bit colder than they are used to. With the absense of
an established population, it won't take them long to migrate into that
area and radiate into new variations and, eventually, new species.
> > > >
> > > > > This is, in fact, how evolution works. It is only when we have had drastic
> > > > > changes that we have seen many species extinct within a small period of time.
> > > > > Normally there is time for random traits to develop into recurring traits if
> > > > > they allow a specimen to be more successful and reproduce more so than one
> > > > > without.
> > > > >
> > > > It is now widely (or maybe not) assumed that evolution works in fact in
> > > > a sort of "burst mode", due to how the environment changes: long periods
> > > > of stability followed by short periods of drastic chaanges (of course,
> > > > "long" and "short" are to be understood in the geological meaning).
> > >
> > > Regardless of meaning, "bursts" happen in periods measured in thousands, if not
> > > millions of years. These bursts actually prove my point, an initial shock is
> > > applied to the ecosystem, there will be a slow change which happens over
> > > thousands of years, or even millions, and new creatures develop.
> > >
> > I dunno. THese days there seems to be a tendency to explain our climate
> > in terms of relatively long periods of nothing happening much,
> > interrupted by short preiods of "interesting times" (in the meaning of
> > the Chines proverb, that is). This would imply that evolution would
> > follow this pattern: a long period of nothing really happening (every
> > species has its niche, no need to change); then a short period of mass
> > extinctions (caused by sudden changes in the climate), followed by
> > "evolution in action" (species moving into emptied niches, competition
> > and adaptation galore). This would also imply that a new species has
> > only a relatively short period of time to "get its act together" or be
> > outcompeted by a better candidate; once the niches are filled, evolution
> > kinda takes a back seat and waits for the next calamity.
>
> Yes, and this is exactly what we see with the exception of "periods of time
> where nothing seems to happen." You see, as prey becomes better at avoiding the
> hunter, the hunter becomes better at getting the prey. There are many forces at
> work in evolution, competition, sexual attraction, changes in environment. Say
> one species is food for 2 or more species of predator. Unknowingly, the two
> predators are competing. Should one predator become too good, the second
> predator will need to adjust because a change in its food supply.
>
You're thinking in terms of hunter and prey, while you should be
thinking in terms of stable populations. There is no need for either
prey or hunter to keep improving once a dynamic equilibrium has been
established. On the contrary, the mechanisms you describe above
(continuously improving) would most likely destroy both populations.
> >
> > > Catastrophic events i.e. comets hitting the planet, wipe out species. After the
> > > initial event, the ecology slowly works back to an equilibrium, during which
> > > time evolution is hard at work.
> > >
> > It may very well be that every change in the climate has catastrophic
> > properties: our climate has a very high feedback buffer, which may be
> > the cause of this.
> > (disclaimer: I am not a climatologist. These opinions are not to be used
> > to determine what dot.com shares one should buy.)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2. Biological evolution is not guided (there is no master plan behind
> > > > > > it), it just happens. - Software development is _always_ guided (no
> > > > > > programmer sits behind his console just tapping blindly at the keys (*);
> > > > > > he wants to create something, and usually has a pretty good idea of what
> > > > > > it is going to be).
> > > > >
> > > > > This isn't really true either. A particular module of software, especially
>OSS,
> > > > > can be guided by one person, but there are usually many people working on
> > > > > software projects with their own views and feelings about what should be in
>it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Plus don't discount the users asking for features, randomly changing the
> > > > > application to be more than it was before.
> > > > >
> > > > > Just look at the Linux kernel, I'd say it "evolved" it grew new features, it
> > > > > has all but lost the Minux file system. It is a picture perfect example of
> > > > > software evolution.
> > > > >
> > > > Still, evolution is an automatic mechanism, software is designed. I
> > > > can't see how you are going to reason yourself out of that.
> > >
> > > Do you know anything about chaos? If you take two sets of programmers, give
> > > both sets the same design specifications, you will get two entirely different
> > > products. People are random.
> > >
> > IMHO, "chaos" is a term invented in the eighties to mask a lack of
> > knowledge in a certain field. (addition of smiley left to the discretion
> > of the reader)
>
> Ahh, so I think I understand the problem, chaos is not a lack of understanding,
> it is, in fact, a better understanding. Where once we thought that everything
> was knowable, we now accept this this is not true.
>
> It is impossible to predict the weather with 100% accuracy. Good old Albert did
> not like the idea of chaos, and his quote was "God does not roll dice." Well,
> he may be right, but certainly we are not gods.
I have no problem with God playing a good game of craps. On the
timescale He works in, probability is basically the same as certainty.
I have always tried to know as little as possible about chaos theory,
because IMHO it basically says that, no matter how many times you roll
the dice, you'll never be able to make even an educated guess about the
next outcome. In my book, that's the same as saying: "I don't know and I
don't care that I don't know."
> >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 3. Biological evolution is never interested in the best possible
> > > > > > solution, only in a solution that works sufficiently. - (I have to admit
> > > > > > I got stuck here, because this is eerily reminiscent of how Windows
> > > > > > "works") Software development should (see my previous remark) be
> > > > > > interested in the best possible solution, to avoid needless future
> > > > > > labour.
> > > > >
> > > > > I would go this far either. Biological evolution is based on competition for
> > > > > reproduction. Good features win, better features often do better. Biological
> > > > > evolution refines, over time, the species until they are very well adapted
>for
> > > > > their environment. You can't say a cockroach is not an almost perfect
>creature.
> > > > > Long after we humans die out, the near perfect cockroach will still be here.
> > > > >
> > > > If a cockroach were a perfect creature, it would not go "Splat!" if you
> > > > trod on it.
> > >
> > > Why do you think that? An immortal cockroach would not be perfect. Perhaps a
> > > cockroach's position in the world is exactly what it is, and it seems perfectly
> > > suited.
> > >
> > > The cockroach has been around for longer than anything else, it is only your
> > > view that something other than species survivability is important. That's all
> > > evolution cares about.
> > >
> > > It may be very perfect at being a food factory for other creatures. That
> > > doesn't make it any less of a success, just not something I would want for my
> > > life. It may be a happy and fulfilled cockroach which becomes dinner for a
> > > beautiful bird. Giving its life for such a noble creature, happy indeed, lucky
> > > cockroach!
> > >
> > Species do _not_ evolve with the sole purpose of becoming food for
> > others! The evolutionary goal for every species is to preserve its genes
> > for as long as possible. This goal can be met in two ways: either the
> > indiviual lives forever, or its siblings will.
>
> They may not "intend" too, but they often do.
OK, but why then did you say that a species might be "perfect at being a
food factory for other creatures". In terms of natural selection, such a
criterium is exactly the opposite of perfect.
> >
> > Solution No. 1 kinda clashes with entropy, but some trees seem to have
> > taken a stab at it. Solution No. 2 works for most species.
> >
> > Your misconception about evolution is that it somehow has a built-in
> > mechanism to produce ever-improving species. This is not so.
>
> Why isn't it? Evolution is at work as we speak. As we create better
> anti-biotics, we create better bacteria. The bacteria evolve to be better than
> the anti-biotic.
>
No they don't. It looks that way, but the only thing those bacteria do
is try to make a decent living in a hostile environment. That's all
there is to it; no teleology is involved.
> >
> > > > Evolution tends to pick the first solution that can solve a
> > > > particular problem. Rarely this is the best possible solution, because
> > > > if the _better_ solution works, there is no reason to keep investing to
> > > > come up with the _best_ solution.
> > >
> > > This isn't true either. Evolution often has many parallel solutions competing
> > > for survival. Many times, competing solutions can coexist. How many types of
> > > ants are there? How many types of birds? There are constant wars between birds,
> > > insects, etc. All fighting for survival. Maybe in a thousand years, we'll lose
> > > a species of ant.
> > >
> > The mere fact that different species of birds, ants, grass, whatever
> > exist, proves that evolution does not come up with perfect species.
> > Otherwise we would have only one kind of each.
>
> There are few, if any examples of "perfect" species, but there are many
> examples of very well evolved species. The cockroach, all hyperbole aside, is a
> very well evolved creature. It lives in harmony in its environment, it's
> instincts and practices are a near perfect formula for survival. Why does it
> need to change?
>
A cockroach is, like us humans, a generalist; i.e. a species that has as
few "extra options" as possible. This means it is adapted to a multitude
of environments, seriously increasing the survival potential of the
species. And while a generalist will always loose against a specialist
in the latter's favourite environment, it is better off in the end
because it can spread more widely geographically and survive more
drastic environmental changes than the specialist.
However, subject a generalist to a sufficient number of ecological
catastrophies and it will kick the bucket, just like the others. We
humans came pretty close a couple of times, the last time some 74,000
years ago when a megavulcano eruption reduced our numbers to probably
less than ten thousand.
> >
> > It is exactly because evolution does not produce perfection that
> > evolution exists.
> No one argues that creatures are not perfect, but the argument is that
> evolution pushes improvement, not just the first success to come along.
>
And that's the argument I cannot agree with. No mechanism in evolution
is inherently aimed at continuous improvement. It is an illusion created
by the fact that we are by definition situated at the endpoint of
evolution.
> >
> > > >
> > > > The idea of refinement over time would be correct, if the environment
> > > > would keep changing in the same direction (if the temperature would drop
> > > > constantly, we would see a constant refinement towards better-insulated
> > > > organisms). However, the environment canoot be bothered with pleasing
> > > > evolution, and it will do its own thing i.e. swing wildly into every
> > > > possible direction.
> > >
> > > You are forgetting competition between species, not just environmental factors.
> > > In changing environments, many species are competing for the resources. Hunter
> > > becomes hunted, others become food.
> > >
> > Again, the same thing. Take gazelles and cheetahs. They have evolved to
> > the point where gazelles are usually - but not always - quicker than a
> > cheetah, and v.v. The result is a stable ecology where stable
> > populations of each species exist. There is no continuous competition of
> > breeding faster variations of each, because that kind of competition
> > would destroy the ecological niche.
>
> Ahh, what about man? We are affecting the relationships with building and
> hunting. Soon there may be no cheetah nor gazelle, we are forcing their
> "evolutionary" hand. Who knows?
>
> Evolution is WAY too complication to tie the development of a species to a few
> limited relationships. There are way to many factors at work. Disease, climate,
> air quality, insects, competition, comets, atomic weapons, everything on the
> earth affects everything else.
>
> Chief Seattle "The world is a spiders web, everything affects every other
> thing, what man does to the web, he does to himself."
>
Please don't do a Gaia on me! <G>
But seriously, it is sort of fashionable in these latter days to
consider us humans as the biological equivalent of a comet impact: By
simply being born, each of us already wiped out several species. Don't
forget that the people claiming this kind of sh*t usually have a
political agenda and find it convenient to ride their way to power on
the guilt trip of gullible voters (There! That should guarantee me a
spot in the future concentration camps of the Green Movement.) The
planet itself can be a lot nastier than anything us humans can come up
with (and that includes large-scale nuking).
> >
> > The point is: neither species is perfect (a pack of human hunters will
> > whack off the gazelle population in no time, and inbetween meals take
> > care of the cheetahs as well), but they are good enough for the
> > ecological niche they inhabit.
>
> I'm not disagreeing with "perfect" nothing can be perfect for very long because
> everything is always changing. (Except for the damned cockroach.) The issue I
> take is the "good enough" attitude with can be proven by observation. Some
> species are simply amazing at how well they are adapted.
Weellll... the thing about "perfect", you see... the really really
important bit is that "perfect" lasts forever. Otherwise it wouldn't
have been perfect to begin with. Evolution practically guarantees you
that the species you encounter will always be adapted to the environment
they live in at that moment, but not necessarily to next week's
environment. Evolution is how living things keep up with the rest of the
planet (I should put this in my sig; it sounds cool <G>).
> >
> > > The environment does not change drastically all that often, and when it does it
> > > often kills off many species.
> > >
> > I agree completely. The difference is that I consider these drastical
> > climate changes to be the main motor of evolution.
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Now, if one insists on twisting Darwin's scientific theory into a
> > > > > > philosophical system (for which it was never meant BTW), one might come
> > > > > > up with a utopian construct (in the line of marxism) that said that
> > > > > > software _ought_to_ develop according to the laws of natural selection.
> > > > > > It'd be dead wrong, but one might fool a number of people for some
> > > > >
> > > > > Science and philosophy walk hand in hand. One can not realize that truths
>about
> > > > > physical universe and not internalize them. Philosophy is what bridges
> > > > > knowledge and understanding. A theory as profound as the origin of species
>must
> > > > > generate a philosophy. One may not agree with it, nor even intend it's
> > > > > creation, but it will exist.
> > > > >
> > > > It is very easy for me to realise the truths about the physical universe
> > > > and not internalize them. The biological environment essentially shows
> > > > me that the biggest bastard wins, yet I can choose to donate money to
> > > > charity.
> > >
> > > That isn't always true either. Smaller creatures, which can survive on less,
> > > can live longer on less than larger creatures during hard times. (Seems
> > > relevant these days.) Faster creatures can often outrun the larger ones. Slower
> > > creatures typically use less energy and can be in areas where larger/faster
> > > creatures can not exist due to a lack of food. Smarter creatures can outsmart
> > > larger or more powerful ones. There are lots of different combinations of
> > > features which aid success of a species.
> > >
> > > Evolution is not a simple theory, it is quite complex. The "survival of the
> > > fittest" is a fact. Understanding what is "fittest," is the hard part.
> > >
> > Can't argue much with that.
> >
> > Sidenote: This discussion seems to be veering wildly off-topic, even for
> > COLA. If noone else is interested in participating, would you object to
> > moving it to e-mail?
> I didn't know one "could" get off topic on COLA.
No problemo. I'm always a sucker for public attention anyway.
--
Regards,
Karel Jansens
==============================================================
"You're the weakest link. Goodb-No, wait! Stop! Noaaarrghh!!!"
==============================================================
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
