Linux-Advocacy Digest #271, Volume #28 Sun, 6 Aug 00 21:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was:
Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh (Loren Petrich)
Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was:
Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh (Loren Petrich)
Re: AARON KULKIS...USENET SPAMMER, LIAR, AND THUG (Loren Petrich)
Re: LOREN PETRICH...CLOSET-DICTATOR (Loren Petrich)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[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: Mon, 07 Aug 2000 00:35:10 GMT
"Leslie Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8m45v4$1q1i$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <NkFg5.13447$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Daniel Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> >One option is Microsoft Visual C++.
>
> And a large supply of unavailable trade secret information.
:D One hopes you won't need *that*.
> >Admittedly, that is only going to work if you want your
> >new Active Directory clone to run on Windows of
> >some sort. For NetWare, I don't know- but I assume
> >Novell can get compilers for their system.
> >
> >You also need MSDN, but that's available on the web.
>
> And it will lead you astray by suggesting that you
> can't actually interoperate but instead have to
> replace the client to match the server.
Now, now, just because you can't bring yourself
to implement something the MS does, doesn't
mean that Novell can't.
> >No need for the protocols; MSDN tells you how to do
> >it.
>
> Where does it tell you how to interoperate fully with
> the existing unmodified clients?
You get MS to bundle your drivers with their OS.
Or you get the OEMs to bundle them.
Or you sell the computer yourself.
Or just just install the fool thing. 'Taint rocket science.
[snip]
> >May I ask in particular what you feel the shortcoming of
> >the current Novell NetWare product is, in this role?
>
> I am only going by someone else's report that they
> cannot duplicate the functionality completely. I assume
> it is in the proprietary addition to the kerberos mechanism.
They certainly *can* duplicate that bit, I've told you how. You
don't *like* it, but it is what MS has done, and Novell
can do it too.
Indeed, what MS is doing with Active Directory was in
part an effort to *catch up* to what Novell was
already doing.
[snip]
> >But what protocol would you use to talk to the database
> >on that IBM 390? WIth Windows I would install the ODBC
> >driver for it, and would be blissfully ignorant of the protocol
> >it used.
>
> You can only remain ignorant of a protocol when it works.
Debugging protocols is just not something users are
ever going to do.
> If
> IBM provides the DB2 ODBC driver and it works correctly
> across the platforms that is find.
And they do, too.
> But when MS provides
> something claiming to be PPP, or HTML, or java byte-code
> and it doesn't work correctly across platforms, then
> you can't remain blissfully ignorant.
You underestimate my ability to be ignorant! :D
I think I understand what you are trying to say: *I*
may be ignorant, but *you* can't be; you don't have
a way to cope with MS's protocols.
[snip]
> >That's nice, but it demands you be able to change each
> >platform to the chosen standard. With plug-ins, you can do
> >this, but on some platforms it won't happen.
>
> That's the point of standards. Non-standard proprietary
> protocals exist to prevent interoperation,
You do keep saying this, don't you?
> so of course you won't be able to use them everywhere.
Indeed you can't. But you can't use any one protocol
everywhere.
[snip]
> >Doesn't work. LANs aren't just tiny bits of Internet.
> >They are used for different things.
>
> It doesn't matter at the ethernet packet layer and it
> doesn't matter at the next layer up either. IP is
> a fine transport for lan packets.
It's more configuration that was needed for
earlier LAN protocols. It's okay for large
networks with administrative staffs, but
for the little ones it's not a good technology.
> >Being able to do web pages, as on the Internet, doesn't
> >give you database access, for instance.
>
> The same LAN configuration can give you both - if you
> use IP in the first place. Or it can require you
> to do everything twice if you don't.
Now you are assuming your database can be
accessed over IP. Sometimes yes, sometimes no.
Depends on the database.
> >This is
> >why there are such things as "virtual private networks",
> >which layer over the Internet and make it do things like
> >LANs do (except, of course, not so local anymore)
>
> This is also much harder to do if you insist on multiple
> protocols in the encapsulated layer.
Interoperability is a technical challenge sometimes.
> With IP only it becomes
> a simple matter of address translations, and optional
> encryption.
Not very "private" if you don't do that bit. :D
[snip]
> >Not at all. They have to be convinced to use the extensions,
> >but the easiest way to do this is to make those extensions
> >useful.
>
> No that would be, ummm... useful, and then it wouldn't
> be necessary to tie the extensions to an existing protocol
> and pretend they are following standards.
That's true, it isn't necessary to do that.
But here's the clever part: But adhering to the open
standards *anyway*, you can get more people to switch!
> >Remember, most people do not consider "standards compliance"
> >as a goal they want to acheive. It's just not the point.
>
> Who doesn't?
The people who use computers to do, you know, work.
> It shouldn't have to be the point - something
> claiming to follow a standard should, so there should be
> no question about it.
And the things that do not so claim?
[snip]
> >No, even if they are usable it still works.
>
> Only if the product is actually better than any of the
> alternatives that can easily be substituted.
Yep.
> That is rarely the case,
I don't know about that.
> and it is really the need for proprietary
> extensions that were never documented as being non-standard
> in the first place that keep you locked in.
I don't think so. It's too easy to reverse engineer things
for that to be an effective lock-in.
No, it's the feature itself that is usually hard
to duplicate.
[snip]
> >While MS doesn't go out of their way to point out the
> >differences, it's certainly possible to discover them
> >if you care.
> >
> >Most don't.
>
> Everyone cares, but you are right that most don't discover
> the truth until it is too late.
No, really, most people do not care very much about
technopolitics. Most people aren't even aware
there *is* a open standards movement.
> >That's why this works.
>
> Yes, it is extremely deceptive.
I don't really agree.
[snip]
> >Darn straight. MS, after all, wants to document *their* tools,
> >not somebody else's.
>
> And again they want to claim standards compliance while
> deceiving users into non-compliance.
They want to claim standards compliance while *tempting*
their users into non-compliance, of course.
But they must *deliver* enough compliance for those
users to make the switch.
> >> And they still don't do a standards-compliant XSLT.
> >
> >What XSLT?
>
> The one in IIS (server-side) and IE5 (browser side).
The one *what*?
> They
> released before the standard was finalized so I'm willing
> to believe that their motives were not necessarily evil
> to start with.
Bet *that* tune will change soon. :D
> However the standard was set in November
> and we still don't see a compliant version from MS, so they
> obviously have no interest in conforming at this point.
Not unless someone else does. Until then, it's just
paper.
[snip]
> >Ah, there's the trick to it: MS's "extended" standards do work
> >like this: they degrade to the "open" version when necessary.
>
> If that were the case, j++ generated byte-code would run
> in a standard JVM, and all Frontpage-generated HTML would
> display in a standards-conforming browser.
No, the idea is that as long as you don't use MS's nifty
features, you get compatible stuff, but if you do you
get incompatible stuff.
Lets you make the transition at your own pace.
> But that isn't
> the case. The MS extensions are designed specifically
> to not allow interoperation with competing products.
That just isn't a good strategy.
> >You were yourself complaining about the effect: MS customers
> >see that it "doesn't work as well" when they connect to Unix
> >(or whatever) and want Windows Everywhere to correct. They
> >don't realize the extra features they are used to aren't part
> >of the Standard, and wouldn't care if they did know.
>
> That isn't the case either, because fully standards-conforming
> versions of things work just fine.
"Fine" in the sense of *good enough for you*, perhaps.
> What they don't realize,
> at least at first, is that they have been deliberately locked
> into using a single vendors products because even though it
> claimed standards conformance, it didn't deliver.
I think they do know this. Having relationships with
your vendors is quite the normal thing, after all.
[snip]
> >Ever tried to talk to a System/36?
> >
> >'Tis loads of fun.
>
> Do they still make those?
No, they don't. So what you do is run a System/36
emulator on as AS/400.
'Tis loads of fun, I tell you. :D
> If they do, I'd expect IBM to
> supply standards-compliant software or at least a programming
> environment capable of building your own.
That would be incredibly hard. Just try to find a System/36
systems programmer *at all* would be incredibly hard.
> If not, the issue isn't relevant.
I'm afraid the issue is very relevant. these systems are out
there and business depend on them. Telling them they
can't use them because its against the Open Way (tm)
isn't going to fly.
[snip]
> >> I was asking for examples of something that MS has
> >> done that can't be done by following cross-platform
> >> standards. Please give some examples of this 'progress' that
> >> can only be done at the expense of trapping the user into
> >> a single platform.
> >
> >Sure. OLE. Do *that* with some cross-platform standard.
>
> You mean release a dozen non-interoperating flavors in
> the span of a couple of years?
No, no, its easy to do that with standards. :D
I mean provide the funtionality that OLE does. Make
software from different vendors interoperate
like that.
> Cross-platform standards
> have no reason to make it difficult for competitors to
> follow. Or do you mean something obscure that only
> works on the local machine? Why bother when there is
> corba and rpc which don't care about the location of
> the target?
CORBA and RPC don't deliver what OLE does. It's
that mechanism, not policy thing. Sometimes you need
policy, and this is one of those times.
Refusing the cover program-to-program interoperability
on the same machine is a very serious limitation,
in my opinion.
And it seems to me to be an *institutional* limitation;
the existing standards bodies won't do it because it's
beyond their beaurocratic pervue.
Can the FSF make up the difference? We'll see. But
I recall that the FSF is not a Leslie-sactioned standards
body.
[snip]
> >Sure does- but you aren't really giving it a fair shake. It's not
> >that MS products won't work 'correctly' with non MS products;
> >it's that they get more features when they work with
> >other MS products.
>
> No, it is that they don't work correctly with standards-conforming
> competing products.
I've read it, Leslie.
I encourage others to do so. It gives you a peek into
the mind of Microsoft, and what they are doing now
makes more sense once you've read this.
[snip]
> >None that I know of, I'm afraid: I did not realise at first
> >that you meant *mailers*; still if it were useful it could
> >be done- Windows does have pipes.
>
> Virtually all do on unix, hence the simplicity of adding
> capabilities without having to change anything.
It's just not an acceptable user interface in this day
and age. Me, I think MS is on the right track with OLE
type stuff, if only the security issues can be overcome.
[sni[]
> >There are, of course, reasons why many people prefer Windows;
> >this is one of them.
>
> I think you got that backwards - changing any of the non-standard
> mailers on Windows requires a complete all-or-nothing cutover.
I don't know all the Windows mailers, of course, so I don't know
if this is true.
But that complete all-or-nothing cutover is vastly preferable
to rolling your own enclosure support.
[snip]
> >And you're going to be able to read a text file attachment
> >even though it has been encoded so that these translations
> >won't happen?
>
> Yes, unsurprisingly the standards bodies anticipated this
> well understood issue and the content-type of each attachment
> is noted for correct handling.
Hmm. So the enclosures are so marked they will
perform CRLF translation?
Well, if MS did it you'd call it feature creep. :D
So would I, actually, but I can't say its a bad thing.
[snp
> >> Of course it makes a difference. If you know the format
> >> you can write the program,
> >
> >This is not realistic for most people.
>
> Fortunately, only one person really has to do it.
On Windows, too.
[snip]
> >You'd be surprised how many people like to sell
> >that, actually. :D
>
> I'm not surprised at all. What surprises me is the number
> of people who continue to be willing to pay, now that
> it generally isn't necessary.
It is necessary. Real users can't afford to ignore the
parts of the industry that aren't standards complient
just because they are inconvinient; nor can they
limit themselves to such parts of the industry for
future purchases.
[snip]
> >> No, the correct way would be to use the version number
> >> of the specification that it completely supports.
> >
> >I think that having a generic term "HTML", no version number,
> >is useful and desirable.
>
> It would be useful and desirable if the generic term meant
> exact compliance to the current version of the standard.
> Otherwise it is mainly useful for deception.
I do not really agree. Less than entirely precise terminology
can be a great timesaver.
[snip]
> >I think you know why I do not believe this.
>
> No I don't.
I've explained it enough. I can't think of a way to
make it clear why I feel that ignoring non-standards-compliant
systems isn't a realistic interoperability option.
> I assume, since you always advocate
> anything that allows MS to gouge more money from
> their customers, that you have some sort of vested
> interest in Microsoft. But maybe you just don't have any
> experience in actually using better platforms.
Sadly, I do have experience with Unix and I *loathed*
it, which is why I get so upset when people tell me
that the Unix way to do things is the only right way.
Of course, I originally came from a Mac environment,
which may explain a few things. :D
[snip]
> >The only one I'm not sure of is MS-CHAP. Did that ever
> >get documented and implemented by others?
>
> Yes, the wide deployment made it necessary for others
> to become equally insecure. The differences from
> RFC 1994 CHAP are noted here:
>
http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/ios113ed/113t/113t_
3/mschap.htm#xtocid85670
> among other places. I think the extension was submitted
> as an rfc that may have been accepted by now, not that it
> matters any more since following standards obviously isn't
> important when Microsoft feels like changing something
> to make interoperation with competitors difficult or impossible.
So MS-CHAP *is* a standard now?
Then it's all right, isn't it?
I mean, it's all better now, right?
[snip]
> >Active Directory is a trademark of MS, I'm sure, and
> >the'll sue your butt of if you call *your* network
> >server that.
>
> Neat - yet another thing designed to take away the
> choices of their users.
Well, what else are lawyers for? :(
> >But there *are* other network directory servers
> >out there, ya know.
>
> None are supplying clients tied to a monopoly
> operating system.
I think I can take it as read than when you need
to throw in the word "monopoly" without
connecting it in any way to the task at hand,
that means you've no real argument.
[snip]
> >> Also? Why would anything ever limit this ability?
> >
> >You would- it's not *standard*.
>
> Huh? Following multiple standards is just fine and I have
> never said otherwise. In fact I gave a specific example of
> allowing email access through both POP and IMAP.
Yes, yes. I get confused sometimes. You're apparently for
standards *instead of* communication, rather than
standard protocols as a means of communications.
[snip]
> >> It is doing the standard ones correctly that is important,
> >> though, as opposed to propagating vendor-specific extensions.
> >
> >I don't agree. The standard ones are important if and only if
> >the computers you want to interoperate with are using
> >them.
>
> Yes, but extend that to the computers you want to interoperate
> with tomorrow.
I see no reason to assume they will be following your open
standard protocols.
> If you use non-standard protocols or worse,
> something that deceptively uses the name of a standard but
> in fact does not follow it, you will be locked into that
> particular vendor. You may have your reasons for wanting
> everyone to be locked into using MS products forever, but it is
> not in the user's interest.
Now, what I really want is for MS's features and extensions to
provoke *other* vendors into doing their own features and
extensions, with which Microsoft will have to catch up.
[snip]
> >> Which part of cross-platform don't you understand?
> >
> >The part where only "standard compliant" systems
> >count.
>
> So you really are locked into the MS/Intel platform?
Let's say I'm locking into that System/36 thing. Same
deal, really.
[snip]
> >Realistically, portability between platforms is *never*
> >easy, unless you consider different variants of the
> >same platform "different", like Windows 98 and NT.
>
> I consider different variants of unix to be different.
I don't. They are all Unix. Sure, some are more
reliable or faster than others, but that's true of various
"different" Windows.
> Considering that they have nothing in common but
> source compatibility (different vendors, different
> code bases, wildly different CPU types) I don't
> see how anyone can say they aren't different.
They are carefully constructed to be very similar.
Compatibiliy doncha know.
> Yet
> I have ported code across several versions spanning
> 15 years and a bunch of CPU types with no trouble
> at all.
I'm sure you have. Unix to Unix.
[snip]
> >You are saying it's wrong to put up a page that a standards
> >compliant browser cannot correct display.
>
> I am saying that claiming something is HTML when it in
> fact is not is deceptive and wrong.
While MS's HTML engine is imperfect, they aren't
the worst offender, I think. And demanding perfect
compliance is very severe.
> >This limits the internet to the commonly available
> >ASCII character set, or something like it.
>
> No it doesn't.
I'm afraid it does. Most complaint browsers can only
display ASCII.
> >"Fail-over substitute mapping" won't do; there *is* no
> >reasonable, general way to substitute Chinese
> >characters into the Roman alphabet short of translation
> >(and even that's sometimes kinda dubious)
>
> The way to specify the character set is included in
> the standard, so it is possible for a conforming browser
> to display it correctly. If you have some point regarding
> standards here, I fail to see it.
It's not the case that standards conforming browsers
will be able to display those pages.
*Nor should they be expected to*.
[snip]
> >So they *do* have to know the details of protocols, in order
> >to be considered "informed" by you.
>
> Yes, if a protocol is followed correctly you do not need to
> know the details. If you use or try to interoperate with MS
> products you end up having to know all sorts of ugly details.
That's beside the point. You are expecting a level
of knowedge that just isn't going to be there.
[snip]
> >Well, the world isn't going to conform to your desires on this
> >one; consumers will never be "informed" as you understand
> >it. They don't wanna be, and if its Microsoft that lets them
> >avoid it, then it's Microsoft they'll patronize.
>
> No, it is Microsoft's differences from the standards that
> make everyone have to know about them. There are lots
> of people who are deceived of course, but it is only
> a matter of time until they are exposed to the truth.
Now laying it all on Microsoft is ahistorical. Netscape
practically *invented* this. There are going to be
non-standards, or non-complaint products Microsoft
or not.
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[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: Mon, 07 Aug 2000 00:35:11 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sat, 29 Jul 2000 18:25:50 GMT, Daniel Johnson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> >Perhaps you would like to propose a new law, placing
> >some or all of these bodies in charge of computer technology,
> >and making it a crime to deviate from their standards?
>
> Just regulations for federal contractors would be sufficient.
Oh?
[snip]
> >> No, don't kid YOURSELF. The industry is already well
> >> established and definitive bodies can already be quite
> >> easily identified.
> >
> >Sure, but not everyone *wants* to follow the standards;
>
> These are typically greedy intrests who think that without
> their own little privately owned standards they can't manage.
>
> This should greatly concern anyone who claims to believe in
> the free market. Companies are essentially broadcasting to
> the world the fact that they just don't think that they could
> tolerate open competition.
Not at all. They are annoucing to the world that
the world had better look out, because they mean
to compete.
You may not *want* them to compete, and it may indeed
endanger that technology that you feel should be
universal.
But it's still competition.
> >you need to enforce the law to control Eeeeeeeevil people
> >like, er, me, who don't give a fig for standards.
>
> You're more than willing to essentially force everyone else
> to buy something they neither need nor want.
This is just the usual rhetoric.
[snip]
> >Well, there are those loonies who are in favor of some
> >measure of freedom. They probably wouldn't like
> >having the technical decisions of standards bodies
> >legally mandated either.
>
> Better a publically elected beaurocrat than a Robber
> Baron that only need to answer to shareholders and
> mebbe national attorneys general.
Some of us do not agree that the government
knows best. Some of us do not agree that
we are, as consumers, completely helpless.
> Besides, a despot is still a despot, even if the psuedo
> Federalist crowd don't see the particular sort of entity
> as the type that should concern us when it comes to abuse
> of power.
Calling Bill Gates a despot does not make it so. It is
mere invective.
[snip]
> >> and realize that a more genuine meritocracy
> >> would demonstrate Microsoft to be in the wrong or at
> >> the very least in a very small & self-serving minority.
> >
> >I'm not sure how a "meritocracy" would demonstrate
> >such a thing, even in theory.
>
> Lower marketshare would be the obvious first sign.
I don't think so. MS's product really is the best at what
it does, and its competitors seem to focus on irrelevant
measures of technical "excellence" that in the end,
matter little.
[snip]
> >Hmmm.
> >
> >So hows it incomplete, then?
>
> It was incomplete. Lack of memory management, lack of device
> services, lack of device drivers, lack of memory protection,
> lack of pnp, lack of any ease of use interface, a pisspoor
> non-ease of use interface.
It's got all that now. MS never gets it right on version 1,
but one of their great virtues is that they are persistant.
Perhaps it is that persistance which is being
rewarded. The took on the hard problem, and
would *not* give up until they had it licked.
> >> >What do you think should be in Windows that isn't?
> >
> >I think this question should be answered, don't you?
> >
> >I've quite curious, really.
>
> Today, WinDOS still suffers from lack of Configuration Reliability,
What's this mean? From your capitalization, I assume
you have something rather particular in mind.
> lack of a modern filesystem of any type,
You must mean Windows 98 by this. I
would agrue that VFAT 32's compatibility
with earlier DOS filesystems is a great
asset, and a very impressive technical feat
as well.
So what's missing?
> pisspoor shared library
> management
I do agree this could stand improvement.
Sill, I got the impression important
things were *missing*, not just not quite
perfect yet.
Windows 2000 has greatly improved this,
but Windows 98 has to catch up, I think.
> and insufficient security models.
Windows 98 has essentially no security. Is
this important for its market, in your view?
> NT itself doesn't handle concurrency well and is still very prone
> to being blocked (on the desktop) by some badly coded app.
This isn't incompleteness; this is your view that some
things don't work very well.
That is in itself an endless debate. Lets just
agree to disagree about it, shall we?
> Did Win9x ever get an abstract tape device driver?
Yes, I think it has one, but I'd have to look it up to make sure.
[snip]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich)
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was:
Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh
Date: 7 Aug 2000 00:51:48 GMT
In article <uvhj5.94688$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
neuralnoise <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Loren Petrich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:8mj69s$hv5
>> No, I support what I consider the lesser of two evils
>So you support evil? Why? Are you evil?
Because if I don't vote, the greater of the two evils might get elected.
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] And a fast train
My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich)
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was:
Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh
Date: 7 Aug 2000 00:52:50 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
MK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 6 Aug 2000 08:10:45 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich) wrote:
>> I personally think that anarchism is a utopian pipedream.
>You, personally, seem not to be able to put one coherent thought based
>on facts, so I don't think your opinion matters for anything.
How are Larry Ellison's dumpster-diving lessons coming along?
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] And a fast train
My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich)
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: 7 Aug 2000 00:58:23 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
MK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 3 Aug 2000 17:33:31 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich) wrote:
>> However, SS has been remarkably efficient at improving the
>>standard of living of the elderly.
>However, SS has negative return for most of people taking part in
>it.
Tell that to those who claim that SS is about to go broke. If it
has such poor returns, it would not be going broke.
>Some benefit. Buying stocks or even treasury bonds is much
>better investment.
Dream on. And Treasury bonds are issued by ... the government.
>Go ahead, Petrich, hell, I'll give you a million of future dollars, now you
>give me just half of million dollars in pokemon cards of stocks of
>GE and Coca-Cola or even treasury bonds.
???
>>They had once been one of the poorest
>>groups, now they are often upper-middle-class.
>According to contemporary standards, pretty everyone was very
>poor in the past, you dumbass, but the elderly were no significantly
>poorer than other groups. Esp. in extended/multi-generational families.
Source: Claudia Koonz's abundantly-researched book "The Way We
Never Were". However, MK's position seems to be that of some Communist
ideologue who says "read Marx, Engels, and Lenin".
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] And a fast train
My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich)
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,soc.singles,alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: LOREN PETRICH...CLOSET-DICTATOR
Date: 7 Aug 2000 01:00:35 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Michael S. Lorrey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Since our beloved armed forces only use less than 14% of federal
>revinues, we can take it out of the portion that keeps superannuated
>socialistic old farts on the dole and playing shuffleboard.
Including your elderly relatives, most likely.
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] And a fast train
My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
