Linux-Advocacy Digest #278, Volume #34 Mon, 7 May 01 02:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Tom Wilson")
Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT (Chad Everett)
Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT (Chad Everett)
Re: the Boom, Boom department (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: Windows makes good coasters ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 05:15:20 GMT
"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> JS PL wrote:
> >
> > "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Said "JS PL" <hi everybody!> in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 5 May
> > > >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >> Said JS PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 4 May 2001
12:34:15 -0400;
> > > >> [...]
> > > >> >I don't care what the problem is. I prefer an OS that works well
> > without
> > > >all
> > > >> >the hours of configuration.
> > > >>
> > > >> I prefer an OS that works consistently without all the hours of
> > > >> reconfiguration.
> > > >
> > > >So do I, that's probably why I mainly use WINNT. And I assume it's
why
> > you
> > > >ONLY use Win95. Because only a complete ass would use an OS that they
> > > >*don't* prefer.
> > >
> > > No, NT is just as bad. Worse, in some ways.
> >
> > Sure it is, that's why everyone is running one or the other, and 3/1000
are
> > running Linux.
>
> MOst people are running Windows becasue of Microsoft' predatory
> anti-competitive behavior.
Or write for it because its' still very profitable to do so.
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 05:15:32 GMT
"JS PL" <hi everybody!> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > JS PL wrote:
> > >
> > > "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > Said "JS PL" <hi everybody!> in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 5 May
> > > > >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > >> Said JS PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 4 May 2001
> 12:34:15 -0400;
> > > > >> [...]
> > > > >> >I don't care what the problem is. I prefer an OS that works well
> > > without
> > > > >all
> > > > >> >the hours of configuration.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I prefer an OS that works consistently without all the hours of
> > > > >> reconfiguration.
> > > > >
> > > > >So do I, that's probably why I mainly use WINNT. And I assume it's
> why
> > > you
> > > > >ONLY use Win95. Because only a complete ass would use an OS that
they
> > > > >*don't* prefer.
> > > >
> > > > No, NT is just as bad. Worse, in some ways.
> > >
> > > Sure it is, that's why everyone is running one or the other, and
3/1000
> are
> > > running Linux.
> >
> > MOst people are running Windows becasue of Microsoft' predatory
> > anti-competitive behavior.
>
> Sure they are. You keep chanting that to yourself, while the rest of the
> world get their work done better, faster and easier on the Microsoft
> platform.
Unintentional humor is the best kind ,no? <g>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 6 May 2001 23:53:18 -0500
On Sun, 06 May 2001 13:25:57 GMT, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Paul Dossett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:9d1bcp$2pi$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >
>> > "JVercherIII" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:ADVI6.297$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > > Civility people! I use both Linux and Windows, and both have their
>> places
>> > > (IMHO). I make a living right now writing VB programs so I'm kind of
>> > living
>> > > off the Microsoft gravy train. That being said, they do some things
>> which
>> > > are very unpleasing. My main complaint with Microsoft is that they
>> stifle
>> > > innovation. They never have come up with an original idea.
>> >
>> > Bullshit, and a big one.
>> >
>> > To name a few of the top of my head:
>> > COM
>> > COM+
>> > MTS
>> > IE (No other browser can come even close, Mozilla can't render yahoo.com
>> > properly, and crash when you try to send a bug report)
>>
>> IE, you say? Here's IE's copyright info:
>>
>> Based on NCSA Mosaic. NCSA Mosaic(TM); was developed at the National Center
>> for Supercomputing Applications at the University of Illinois at
>> Urbana-Champaign.
>> Distributed under a licensing agreement with Spyglass, Inc.
>> Contains security software licensed from RSA Data Security Inc.
>> Portions of this software are based in part on the work of the Independent
>> JPEG Group.
>> Contains SOCKS client software licensed from Hummingbird Communications Ltd.
>> Contains ASN.1 software licensed from Open Systems Solutions, Inc.
>> Multimedia software components, including Indeo(R); video, Indeo(R) audio,
>> and Web Design Effects are provided by Intel Corp.
>> Unix version contains software licensed from Mainsoft Corporation. Copyright
>> (c) 1998-1999 Mainsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Mainsoft is a
>> trademark of Mainsoft Corporation.
>> Warning: This computer program is protected by copyright law and
>> international treaties. Unauthorized reproduction or distribution of this
>> program, or any portion of it, may result in severe civil and criminal
>> penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible under the
>> law.
>>
>> Notice the word MICROSOFT anywhere in there? The program was written by
>> another company, based on work by yet ANOTHER group - Microsoft has only
>> added bells and whistles (and numerous security holes).
>
>Oh yeah, IE is just a big conglomeration of other software. Microsoft
>didn't write one single line of code, write?
>
>Oh yeah, and IE doesn't have ANY additional functionality over Mosaic.
>
>Riigggghhhttt....
>
Hey Myers. We're talking about original ideas, not added functionality and
writing your own code.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 6 May 2001 23:56:11 -0500
On Mon, 7 May 2001 01:48:02 +0200, Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Jonas Due Vesterheden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:KmiJ6.10919$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> "donc" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev i en meddelelse
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > Oh sure. And everybody knows that NCSA Mosaic was inspired by IE. Why,
>> > if it weren't for Microsoft's innovation there wouldn't even an
>> > internet today. But perhaps their biggest contributions have been in
>> > the areas of reliability and openess.
>
>> Are you saying that Microsoft created the internet or am I
>misunderstanding?
>> If not, can you please explain?
>
>A> live a space between your responses and your qouting.
>B> he's being sarcatic.
>C> IE is *much* more than Mosaic.
>
...but not an original idea.
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: the Boom, Boom department
Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 12:32:56 -0700
Darren Wyn Rees wrote:
>
> It is disappointing looking at the games installed with
> most of the current Linux distributions.
>
> Many of the games look, feel, and sound like some of the rubbish
> that was available ... err... over fifteen years ago for the
> old Sinclair Spectrum.
>
> Some of the material is so appalling, it reminds me of ZX81 games.
>
> Why ship silly old stocking-filler games with Linux ? Why not
> concentrate on creating a quality OS, instead of throwing in
> everything and the kitchen sink with a distribution ?
>
> I bought Loki's Civ for Linux over a year ago, and I've never bought
> a Linux game since it was so utterly awful.
>
> Linux just doesn't do anything for me in the boom, boom department.
First of all, what is the "boom, boom department?". Second of all, I
agree to a certain extent on the stupidity some distro's have of
including thousands of apps/games that are just re-interations of the
same thing. I've finally hung up my SuSE parade gear, and I have moved
back to Corel Linux, yes, I know, people will go, "it is not as flexible
as <distro>", however, for my purposes, it works fine a dandy, I also
have found I have less problems using Corel software (surprise,
surprise), such as Wordperfect and Corel Draw, the added benefit is that
it is debian based which gives me access to 1000's of useful, and no-so
useful files.
As for the comment regarding Linux games from Loki, I take issue with
that, I have used both Simcity 3000 and Civilisation Call to Power, and
they are right on par with their Windows counterpart.
Conclusion from previous poster: A whining Wintrol with a hypothetical
senario based on an issue he has with Windows
Matthew Gardiner
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.linux,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows makes good coasters
Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 05:33:59 GMT
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:5aoJ6.8767$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:YLmJ6.127$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> <snip>
>
> > > In any case, every Windoze user I've talked to that burns CDs tells
> > > me about how often they've coastered a CD. I've never coastered one
> > > under Linux, so I have no intention of wasting my time booting to
> > > Windoze 2000 to burn CDs. Windoze, even of the NT/2000 ilk, has too
> > > high a peak interrupt latency to be worth risking a $0.50 CD-R.
> > > You never know when Windoze will pop in and garbage collect,
> > > and not respond to the CD interrupt in time. Windoze latency is
> > > like 10 msec typical even in the most advanced desktop versions.
> > > Linux latency, on the other hand, is measured in microseconds.
> >
> > At 10x burning speed under Linux the fifo's utilization seldom drops
below
> > 98% regardless of the load (System in question is 768MB, 30 GB 7200 RPM
> > UDMA, PIII 866). The same system running Windows will often drop as low
as
> > 58% with no other tasks running and will, about 40% of the time, produce
a
> > frisbee. However, I don't know if this is attributable to Adaptec's
burning
> > software (Not so good, IMHO), or to the OS (Equally not-so-good).
>
> This is BS.
Nope, not at all. Both of my CD Burners exhibit the same behavior under
Windows and the same increase in reliability under Linux, using cdrecord
(fed image info directly from mkisofs)
>
> I have a PII-400 with 256MB RAM and I can play Unreal Tournament while
burning
> a CD.
THAT...is BS.
> Except when I had a problem with my IDE channel, I've never seen EZ CD
Creator's
> buffer drop below 95% on any system I've used it on, including the old
dual-
> P200 I used to have. And I always am doing something while burning CDs.
>
> I usually take care not to do anything TOO intensive like compiling code
or
> copying the entire contents of a hard disk from one to another, and I've
> never had a problem.
My 166 box can dd an entire CD image, send another previously ripped cd
image over to the PIII box via fast ethernet and burn a cd with my old 2x
Phillips CDR drive simultaneously without a hiccup.(All of this controled
via a dial-up PPP connection as I'm seldom at home anymore) Under Windows,
I so much as try to access a floppy drive while burning and the thing goes
haywire 40% of the time.
>
> Granted, EZ CD isn't a prize, but it's not that bad. And likewise, Windows
> isn't either (Windows 2000 at least).
EZ CD is pure, unadulterated garbage as is DirectCD.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 05:36:17 GMT
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 6 May 2001 15:32:49
>On Sat, 05 May 2001 03:26:40 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
>>And what is then is "the API itself", but a description of the API?
>
>Thatīs like saying a paperback of "The Great Gatsby" is a description
>of "The Great Gatsby". It makes no sense.
I don't see why. It seems to me that a copy of "The Great Gatsby" would
be a rather ideal and precise description of "The Great Gatsby". Now
ask yourself "is it a description of the intellectual property?"
>>>An API can not be "wrong" because there is no platonic object
>>>to compare it to, if you catch my drift.
>>
>>I am overjoyed to see you are approaching the point where you can
>>understand me. Thank you for that effort.
>>
>>My entire point, Roberto, is that there ARE NO platonic objects. You
>>see? An API cannot be 'wrong' because it is an abstraction which is
>>inviolate in your mind. You are making it a platonic object, by the
>>way, and in being unable to compare it to itself without finding
>>identity and unity, you consider 'the API' cannot be wrong. Does that
>>make sense?
>
>Nothing can be wrong if you can only compare it to itself.
Yes, that was my point. Therefore, your concept of "the API" is flawed
and useless, because it can only be compared to itself. It is either
the program or the library; there is no API.
"There is no spoon." The API can morph its form as easily as the spoon
in the movie. Its existence is just as much fiction, then.
>>>An API can not be "wrong" like a rock can not be "wrong".
>>
>>If someone throws a chunk of concrete into a pile under study by
>>geologists, they will most surely say that rock is "wrong", don't you
>>think? Rocks are physical things; APIs are just platonic objects.
>
>No, I donīt think they would say the rock is "wrong".
>APIs exist materially. They can not be platonic objects.
No, APIs don't exist materially, that is my point. They are "a contract
for services", a metaphoric (metaphysic, i.e. platonic) objects only.
What exist materially (we will say) are libraries and programs, and the
necessity to determine if one is derivative of the intellectual property
of the other.
>>>An API can be inadequate, though, and it can not fulfill its purpose.
>>>
>>>An implementation of the API can be wrong, because its "platonic object"
>>>is the API.
>>
>>There are no platonic objects in this universe, Roberto, and this is the
>>only universe that exists.
>
>That is why I used quotes. The API is an object that describes what
>the implementation should be. The use of "platonic object" was an
>analogy.
No, you got it backwards. The API is not an object; objects don't
"describe things" unless they are platonic objects, i.e., abstractions.
[...]
>An implementation of an API is something that performs the functions
>and shows the behaviour required by the API.
Documentation of an API fulfills this definition, as far as I am
concerned, since the behavior of a correct implementation cannot be
different from a correct logical analysis of how it should behave.
--
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: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 05:36:19 GMT
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 6 May 2001 15:40:09
>On Sat, 05 May 2001 03:26:43 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 4 May 2001 14:24:23
>>>On Fri, 04 May 2001 04:16:44 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
>>>What can I say, if you say a tautology is not true, you are by
>>>definition wrong.
>>
>>That doesn't mean there's no difference between a statement that is true
>>and a statement that is unfalsifiable.
>
>Being unfalsifiable and being true can be two faces of the same
>statement. The above statement is true. The rest I donīt care.
That statement is false; all unfalsifiable statements are, by
definition, untrue. This was proven by the philosopher of science Karl
Popper several decades ago.
>> At least to a reasonable man,
>>like me. Whether you are likewise a reasonable man might well resolve
>>to that point, however. Is everything you believe true to be considered
>>unfalsifiable, Roberto?
>
>The above is not something I believe to be true. It is something I
>know to be true, because itīs trivially derived from the required
>features of something to be called an implementation of the API.
To claim there is a distinction between what you believe and what you
know is an unfalsifiable claim of omniscience. If anything you believe
to be true is unfalsifiable, you would be more well advised in a very
practical sense to consider them to be in error. A statement must be
falsifiable to have any claim to truth.
>>>>>Working
>>>>>is part of being an implementation of the API.
>>>>
>>>>But somehow it is not a part of being a program? Why is that?
>>>
>>>Because not all programs are implementations of an API.
>>
>>The issue is the implementation of the API, not the program. So
>>programs that don't use libraries don't have to work, in order to be
>>programs?
>
>A bunch of code that doesnīt work is not a program. It is a copyrighted
>work, and it can be licensed. It can be a part of a program, and it
>can be the basis from which programs are derived.
Who would ever license code which does not work? You're presuming that
the "bunch of code" does not need modification (making it a derivative
or a separate copyrighted work, not the original "bunch of code" at all)
in order to become part of a program. This is, again, the point of the
matter: in theory this might be possible, but to try to defend it as a
practical reality is to presume perfection of all programmers.
>>>>>If it doesn't work as the API requires, it is at best a partial
>>>>>implementation.
>>>>
>>>>Would that cast doubt on the existence of the API, or merely its
>>>>metaphysical integrity?
>>>
>>>The API can't exist or not exist. If it doesn't exist, it is not an API
>>>and it is not a car.
>>
>>Did you mean "can exist or not exist"?
>
>No. I meant exactly what I wrote.
So all APIs exist? If an API "can't exist or not exist", and it is
possible ("if it doesn't") for it not to exist, then no APIs exist, or
all APIs exist. Apparently, we've got a fractured abstraction here.
Either APIs *can* "exist or not exist", or they do not exist. You know
my vote is for the latter; they are abstractions that are handy for
referring to complex relationships between various mathematical codes,
but they don't ever exist as concrete things.
>> If so, what signifies this
>>'existence' in a concrete sense? Does an API simply 'exist' as soon as
>>someone says it does?
>
>Almost. Iīd say as soon as someone creates it.
It is apparent to me that you enjoy otherwise useless epistemological
babbling. So I will accommodate you.
If an API 'exists' as soon as someone 'creates' it, then there can be no
APIs, since none have ever been created, but only described. You can't
"use" an API, you can only "use" a library (or stub) corresponding to
(described with) the API. The API remains an abstraction, entirely.
This presumes that you actually meant something when you said "creates",
of course, and I believe you did not. You meant to simply beg the
question, "is an API created as soon as someone says it does", and
entirely identical philosophical question to the first one. And so, in
trying to pointedly and apparently successfully to avoid answering the
question, we are left only with the fact that you are ignorant, and
happy with that state of affairs.
>> It seems likely, since it is an abstraction, not
>>a thing.
>
>An API is a thing. Yet it is a thing that can be created. Like a book.
A book is a physical object. Is a book describing an API an API, or a
book? If it is both, then the API is a description, a characteristic of
a book, not an object like a book.
>>Is not being a car sufficient?
>
>No, it is necessary, but not sufficient. Of the things that are not
>cars, some are APIs. Of the things that donīt exist, there is no
>way to know if any is an API.
Your kindergarten level epistemology is cute, but very simplistic.
Can't you go any faster?
>> Then it would always exist,
>>wouldn't it, since an API is never a car?
>
>No.
Why not? Things that are not cars exist, don't they? If none of the
things that don't exist are APIs (you were incorrect in saying "there is
no way to know if any [non-existent] thing is an API; no non-existent
thing "is" anything), then all APIs must exist, right?
--
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: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 05:36:21 GMT
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 6 May 2001 15:42:50
[...]
>Perhaps you missed the subtle barb?
No, I ignored the intentional insult, as I do all insults.
>You said "the most max can have
>is a mistaken concept". Now assuming that correct concepts are not
>less than mistaken ones, how does that leave you?
Why would you make an incorrect assumption for no reason? The fact of
the matter, already built into the rhetoric (though it is necessary to
feign ignorance, of course, to attempt the childish insult) is that what
is "more than" mistaken is being "wrong". Thus, correct concepts are
indeed less than mistaken ones, which leaves me with mostly correct
concepts, some mistaken ones, and no "wrong" ones.
[...]
>>And I asked what about the concepts in your mind, and you found yourself
>>trapped. Now you're getting the spanking you deserve.
>
>Nonsense. I am subject by the concepts in my mind, and I agreed to
>that already. I think you are confused.
No, you said that you were subject to some of them, but not others, and
I pointed out this is a logically incomprehensible position. Now,
you're starting to realize why I call it a "spanking"; it is repetitive,
and it stings more the longer it goes on.
>>>That's where this whole subthread started. Check it out through the
>>>references.
>>
>>Why? I read the whole thing the first time through. Believe me, your
>>comments don't get any more reasonable on second, third, or fourth
>>reading. I know; I've tried.
>
>Lack of reading skills, maybe.
Doubtful; lack of writing skills is more obviously the explanation.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 05:36:23 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 06 May 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 05 May 2001
>> >> You still seem to be under the impression you can annoy me with
>personal
>> >> insults. Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha.
>> >
>> >You consider "reasonable" a personal insult? Wow. :/
>>
>> For the other sixth graders besides Daniel who didn't get the joke: I
>> consider comparison with Aaron Kulkis an insult, and Daniel knew this,
>> which is why he is pretending that he didn't mean it as an insult.
>
>Actually, no, I didn't know it. I apologize for saying that.
No apologies for back-pedaling with dishonest intent will be accepted,
I'm afraid.
>I guess I crossed the line that time. I'll try not to do it again.
No you won't, and I will not be foolish enough to believe you will try.
This is the problem with being dishonest; like the boy who cried wolf,
the troll cannot suddenly convince anyone he is a reasonable person.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 05:36:24 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 06 May 2001
>"Roy Culley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <FsXI6.5997$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >> No, they have monopoly power and they abuse it.
>> >
>> > Calling them "monopoly powers" does not make
>> > them any less magical.
>>
>> First you say 'Microsoft does not have the strange supernatural powers
>> you attribute to them' and then 'Calling them "monopoly powers" does
>> not make them any less magical'? You are very confused indeed.
>
>I still don't think they have these magic powers, no matter
>what they are called.
I guess we're supposed to think you have a reading comprehension
problem, trollboy?
>> They are a monopoly. The findings of fact show this. They are not
>> fighting the FoF (they can't because they screwed their case so
>> badly) but the remedy.
>
>The Finding of Fact is a joke. If it stands, it will show
>how screwed up the American legal system is.
Better lay your claims to unfalsifiability early on. It's easier to
just pretend you're right all the time than to bother being reasonable,
ever, huh?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 05:36:26 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 06 May 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 05 May 2001
>> >> No, they have monopoly power and they abuse it.
>> >
>> >Calling them "monopoly powers" does not make
>> >them any less magical.
>>
>> A century of law says you're wrong.
>
>The Sherman Act has been around this long
>because it is a wonderful tool to use on those
>companies that do not make their compaign
>contributions on time. Like Microsoft.
Pathetically stupid of you to think that, Daniel. You haven't really
bothered to research the matter at all, have you?
>The law is not the ultimate arbiter or
>truth, and you wouldn't try to use it as
>such if you don't know how weak your
>argument is.
The law is the arbiter of what is legal. I do not need to be ignorant
of why what the law forbids is wrong in order to apply the law, nor does
uncertainty in whether what the law forbids is wrong prevent the
application, ethically and correctly, of law.
It isn't as if there are no clear and obvious, simple and direct
explanations for why the Sherman Act and other anti-trust laws are
precisely the opposite of the way you characterize them; it is just that
you are ignoring all the evidence to begin with, making something up in
your head, and then pretending you are "right", as if YOU are the
"ultimate arbiter of truth". That's arrogance, naivete, immaturity, and
egotistical delusion all rolled into one. Otherwise known as
"trolling".
>[snip]
>> >> Yup... not capable.
>> >
>> >Yeah. You'd think I'd learn, but I never do.
>>
>> Yes, you do. You're still pretending otherwise, obstinate as any other
>> teenager, but sooner or later you'll grow up.
>
>I'm actually 28. Still think I'll gruw up? :D
Yes. You shouldn't just give up on yourself like that. A lot of boys
don't intellectually mature these days until they're well into their
thirties. I think it is a side-effect of the 'information age', and a
method, similar to the way the brain itself doesn't stop growing until
years after birth, for increasing the rational diversity of the species.
Unfortunately, it means there are a lot of irrational young men who have
no concept of ethics running around.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
