Linux-Advocacy Digest #428, Volume #28 Tue, 15 Aug 00 20:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Roberto Alsina)
Re: OS advertising in the movies... (was Re: Microsoft MCSE)
Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux
Re: Email spamming to the readers of these NG's
Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux
Re: Big Brother and the Holding Company (tinman)
Re: OS advertising in the movies... (was Re: Microsoft MCSE) (Stephen S. Edwards II)
Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux (Roberto Alsina)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 21:00:18 -0300
"Colin R. Day" escribi�:
>
> Roberto Alsina wrote:
>
> > "Colin R. Day" escribi�:
>
> > I don't think so. To be responsible for what we value, we would
> > have to be able to discern the correctness of our values. For
> > instance, if I knew that doing A is wrong, yet I valued A, I
> > would have an internally inconsistent value system.
> >
>
> We have to make attempt to discern the correctness of our values.
> And what is wrong with acting contrary to one's values?
It's unethical?
> > On a internally inconsistent value system, anything goes, so
> > my position regarding ethics will still call it unethical, since
> > both doing A and not doing it would be against my values.
> >
>
> But why should one worry about being ethical by such a standard?
You have to have SOME standard.
> Also, what if one's values are themselves inconsistent?
Then you are in trouble.
> > > > > > If you define what actions are ethical in a different way, then we are
> > > > > > talking about different things, and of course we will disagree.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > But what you mean by ethics would make it trivial.
> > > >
> > > > Ok. How do YOU define ethics? If your definition is better, I will
> > > > be happy to adopt it.
> > >
> > > Ethics is the study of how we should choose values and pursue them.
> > > To restrict ethics to the pursuit of values, but not the choice of values
> > > trivializes ethics, because one can justify any action as long as
> > > the actor is pursuing what he values.
> >
> > What do we use to choose values, if not preexisting values? The choice
> > of values is then trivially reduced to the pursuit of values.
>
> Cognition.
How does cognition lead to the decision that eating the dead is not
right?
> > > > So, you accept you are ethically equivalent to a cannibal, or not?
> > >
> > > No, I don't accept it. And what justification would you have for
> > > saying that I am so equivalent to a cannibal?
> >
> > I say you both are equivalent because you both act (in principle)
> > according to your ethics. Now, you say you are ethically superior
> > to a cannibal. Why?
>
> Because I don't accept your alleged "ethics" in the first place.
Cool, stop arguing then. We are talking about different things.
> > > > Depends on what you are comparing with. Better than Norway? In many
> > > > ways. Think about it. If Greece didn't have a warm climate, and
> > > > slavery, what are the chances of finding a numerous group of
> > > > adult healthy men wandering around olive groves discussing nature
> > > > for days and years?
> > >
> > > Sorry, most other ancient civilizations were also in warm climates, so
> > > again you fail to explain how the Greeks did what they did.
> >
> > Again, necessary != sufficient.
>
> Again, no explanation.
WHAT? Ok, here's a longer version: you brought the greek's lack of
inquisition as a cause for greek philosophy, and somehow tried to
blame renaissance western europeans for not trying to be greek
philosophers. I merely mentioned that there are many necessary
and not sufficient reasons for greek philosophy, including slavery
and nice weather. Thus, by your argument, they may have needed to
drop the inquisition and adopt slavery, while moving to the south.
> > > > Ok. Now, you said "if they must blind themselves". You assume that the
> > > > inquisitors knew first that the acts of the inquisition would be wrong,
> > > > and then blinded themselves. That would indeed be evil. That is also
> > > > probably something that didn't happen.
> > > >
> > > > If that had happened, I would agree it was unethical, because they
> > > > would KNOW they were doing something bad. We kinda agree here, really.
> > >
> > > How could they have avoided knowing it?
> >
> > Because of bad education, and the reigning morality of the age.
>
> And who ran the educational system? None other than the Catholic
> Church itself.
And the persons who were members of the church's educational system
were in the exact same situation. Oops.
> > > > Torture was not considered bad. Why restrict something not bad?
> > >
> > > Why didn't they consider it bad?
> >
> > Because at the time the perceived benefits of torture appeared
> > as bigger than its drawbacks.
>
> And why did they "perceive" it that way?
Education and the reigning morality of the age, again.
> > > And their failure to consider
> > > it bad detracts from their alleged moral leadership.
> >
> > Compared to who?
>
> Galileo, Giordano Bruno, John Hus, Joan of Arc, etc.
If you asked Joan of Arc, whether the moral leadership
belonged to the church, I'm pretty sure she would say yes.
After all, she heard saint's voices in her head.
> > > > Hindsight is 20/20, I guess.
> > >
> > > If they Church couldn't know that censorship was wrong, then it
> > > had no business trying to govern.
> >
> > The Church didn't quite govern, did they?.
>
> The Church governed the Papal States (then much of central Italy),
> and influenced other governments.
Yup.
> > > > How does astronomical data prove you will not go to hell?
> > > > Or you meant brainwashing for something else?
> > >
> > > It provides sufficient evidence for rejecting Ptolemaic
> > > (as well as Biblical) astronomy. And what evidence
> > > did the Church provide of Hell in the first place?
> >
> > The (at the time undisputed) historical account of the
> > acts of god's son?
>
> Accepting alleged supernatural events is bad history.
They had the testimonies of eye witnesses, as far as they
knew.
> And why didn't they dispute it?
Why should they? Consider that the scientific method had
not been invented yet.
> > The (then considered) historical
> > account of god's words expressed through his prophets?
>
> Credulity is not a substitute for history.
History in the modern sense had not quite been invented yet.
> > Pretty much the same proof we have now of the existence
> > of Sumeria, in a way (yes, less scientifically assured).
> >
>
> But I don't recall anyone being threatened with death or
> torture for disbelieving claims about Sumerian culture.
> And what historical evidence can there be for the
> supernatural
Sorry, does your statement end there?
> > > > > What's the complexity? Millions of people were killed for very
> > > > > little reason.
> > > >
> > > > Oh, the shallowness.
> > >
> > > So what is the complexity?
> >
> > Ok, consider the case of a 16 year old in 1944, sent to the
> > eastern front. By his actions, he was:
> >
> > a) defending nazism
> > b) helping genocide
> > c) defending his homeland against communism
>
> Gee, maybe if Hitler hadn't backstabbed Stalin, that
> would not have been necessary. The Soviet Union
> was hardly a threat to the Weimar Republic. Also,
> what basic distinction is there between nazism and
> communism?
Well, perhaps... the nazism's lack of state centralized
ownership of everything?
> Also, how does being a concentration-camp guard
> protect the homeland?
What concentration camp guard? "a 16 year old in 1944,
sent to the eastern front" ain't no camp guard!
> > d) protecting his own life
>
> Oh, yeah, we know how well those prisoners were armed.
What prisoners?
> > e) protecting his family
>
> From whom?
Communist invaders?
> > f) giving time for the western front to advance, thus
> > saving a piece of western europe for democracy
>
> Oh, yeah, the Soviets were really slowed down by the
> death camps.
What death camps? Could you please read what I write???
> Actually, the entire apparatus of mass extermination was
> a negative for the German military, as it required resources
> that could have been directed against the Soviets.
Yes, that's why I didn't use a camp guard in the example.
Please read more carefully.
> > and maybe a hundred other things. How can you say that was
> > not a complex situation?
>
> Well, mainly because none of that has much to do with the
> death camps, does it?
Uh?
> > > > > You said that the Church prosecuted Galileo to defend the faith, and I
> > > > > pointed out that one of the reasons for the Crusades was to defend
> > > > > holy places, and that the latter was far more destructive than the former.
> > > >
> > > > Ok. So, what point are you trying to make?
> > >
> > > You attempted to justify the Church's actions as a defense of faith,
> >
> > Yikes, no. I just said they honestly believed it was a defense of the
> > faith. It surely was no defense of my faith.
>
> But is right to defend such faith in the first place? Sincerity is
> not a means of cognition.
Can you assign blame on someone who didn't knew better? Should car
accident drivers be considered armed murderers?
[snip cannons-in-renaissance subthread]
> > > > Ok, then. So your "Oh great, let's take people with no rational basis
> > > > for their beliefs and give them weapons and political power." was
> > > > kinda strange.
> > >
> > > But they only have the weapons, not the power. As many people
> > > have such weapons, the power does not devolve to any small
> > > group of them.
> >
> > But it devolves to any large group of them. So, it becomes
> > "Oh great, let's take people with no rational basis
> > for their POPULAR beliefs and give them weapons and political
> > power".
>
> But that large group would have to be a majority if arms are
> evenly distributed, in which case it would just vote for what
> it wanted.
Not necessarily. They could just be more militant. Or younger.
Or more fanatic, willing to do suicide bombings. Or less
respectful of the law. They could just be a larger minority.
Not always the side that imposes itself by force is a majority.
> > > > > > Well, that's where we part.
> > > > >
> > > > > Then people may do whatever they want, as long as they
> > > > > value the results of such action?
> > > >
> > > > Quoting you "judge and prepare to be judged"?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Hey, you were the one saying that
> >
> > No, Ayn Rand was ;-)
>
> Oops, didn't finish that. Should people include the likely responses
> of others in the choosing of their values?
I don't know. On one hand, it would be a case of herd mentality, on
the other it could be simple civism. It depends.
> Having the word "that" as both a demonstrative and a relative pronoun
> can be confusing, sorry.
No problem.
> > [snip]
> > > > > And when Galileo tried to convince people that his astronomical
> > > > > theories were better?
> > > >
> > > > Well, he failed in the short term, I'd say. However, notice that
> > > > I was writing about convincing on the superiority of a morality,
> > > > not of a astronomical theory.
> > >
> > > So it's moral to be wrong? Hmm.
> >
> > It doesn't seem to be necessarily immoral to me.
>
> But if one isn't bound by awareness of facts (not omniscience), then
> what is one bound by?
It depends.
> > > > That would be promoting something evil in their eyes. You can
> > > > not tolerate the proponents of something ungodly :-P (in
> > > > inquisitional terms, mind you).
> > >
> > > Then their eyes are wrong.
> >
> > Oh, well. I see we are never going to get anywhere in this
> > discussion. You don't share my position, that's ok, but
> > could you please at least acknowledge that when I say something
> > as I expect, say, renaissance people to believe it, I don't
> > ned you to tell me "they were wrong" every time? I know that
> > for you and I they were.
>
> Can you speak of someone being wrong, not for you or me, but
> just objectively wrong?
Occasionally. If someone says that (-1)^n converges to 0 as
n tends to infinity, I can say he is wrong.
If someone tells me that god exists (or not), I can't.
> Also, is the claim that the use of torture was right for the
> Inquisition itself objective, or are people free to believe it
> or not as they feel like?
It's somewhat of a guess, since we have no inquisitors to ask.
Some may have reasons to believe it's a wrong guess, yes.
> > > > > You're not supposed to ignore centuries of censorship and torture.
> > > >
> > > > I am not ignoring that. Why do you say I am?
> > > >
> > >
> > > True, you aren't ignoring it, you're defending it.
> >
> > You have real trouble accepting someone can consider a position
> > wrong and yet accept it as obvious considering the situation.
>
> Those particular positions, and the Church's willingness to kill
> for them, yes, I will not accept as obvious. I'm more accepting of
> Ptolemy's errors as he was making some effort at cognition, as
> well as not killing people over disagreement.
Blah. The copernican model, as explained by Copernicus and Galileo
(not to mention Bruno, who was just a mystic) was just as wrong,
regarding astronomical observations, as the ptolemaic model was.
As for the church's position, ok, you can believe if you want,
that the church consisted of millions of evil monks bent on
acting against their own belief of what was good. I just see it
as unnecesarily contrived.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: <[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: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 16:45:14 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
> Absolutely. I've watched my share of that as well. Although as far as
> I'm concerned nothing beats the original Robotech series (and it's
> sequel series), and I've been told that those 'aren't real anime'.
Captain Harlock?
Starblazers (Starship Yamato)?
> > >You'd be suprised how many people watch 'stupid' shows that have quite
a
> > >bit of intelligence. Dan Simmons (one of my favorite authors, and
> > >extremely intelligent) watches Mystery Science Theater 3000, and I
don't
> > >think anyone would claim that is hi-brow entertainment :-).
> >
> > No, but it had some wonderful moments. :-) My fave bad movie is
> > Prince In Space. I guess it was that absolutely awful laugh.... :-)
>
> Oh gawd, that movie truly sucked. But it was beautiful MST3K fodder.
Bad movies?
Horrors of the Red Planet.
Ice Pirates.
Plan 9 from Outer Space.
An SciFi from Italy dubbed into English I can't remember that name, and
there was no continuity so I never did learn the plot. They confused being
weightless and being airless. For the special effect of being weightless
they turned the cammera upside down but the were still able to walk and when
they dropped something it fell up. Every one had a uniform space suit
except for the glammour puss, her space suit was skin tight and low cut
almost to the navel both front and back, when they suited up for a space
walk she was still exposing her.... um .... torso and showing off her ... um
... assets. Glad that was on T.V. so I didn't have to pay to see it.
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 15:40:30 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Nathaniel Jay Lee escribi�:
> >
> No, you should not shut up. You should say more constructive things,
> or even better, do things.
Do you know for a fact, that Nathaniel has not done things to improve Linux?
On the obverse of that, I don't know for a fact that you have done things to
improve Linux.
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Email spamming to the readers of these NG's
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 15:09:13 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
One of the biggest that still "gets me" is the episode near the beginning of
the series of DS9 when Sisko talked about being a helpless observer when his
father died. In several episode after that, there were references and
allusions to Sisko's late father. A couple of seasons afterwards there he
is the elder Sisko alive and well and a regular guest star thereafter.
Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Catch the two major YATIs in that episode in reguards with the Trek
> > timeline? Hint, They both were errors in relations to two other Trek
> > productions.
>
> If you ever want to see some interesting (and rather anal) facts about
> trek shows... try reading the "Nitpickers guide.." books. I've got the
> TNG books. That guy has compiled a ton or errors. The sad part is I
> noticed most of them myself when watching the show. :/
>
> --
> Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc.
> "My chauffer was injured by a falling gargoyle while standing outside in
> Chinese footprints. We rang the bell, a woman screamed, a mouse ran by
> us,
> through the door. As you can plainly see, I miss nothing."
> Monsieur Perrier (James Coco) Murder By Death
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 15:49:36 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Would that then mean that there is a 'geek' version of Linux and a
> 'dork' version of Linux?:-)
>
> I kind of like that idea.
How about spliting Linux into two sepperate OS entirely those who can handle
Linux as it is and like it can use the smartux OS (pronounced: smart tux)
and the others that can't hack smartux would have the dumbux OS (pronounced:
dumb ox).
------------------------------
From: tinman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Big Brother and the Holding Company
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 19:56:28 -0400
In article <8nbqhg$7hk$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Mike Byrns"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Joe Ragosta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Chris Wenham
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > >>>>> "Arthur" == Arthur Frain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >
> > > >> W2K DC is supposed to far better - would you both not hope?
> > >
> > > > But according to Bill Gates everybody that buys W2K because it's
> > > > more reliable is stupid:
> > >
> > > With all due respect for the devil, I think Bill was making an
> > > observation. "Less bugs" does not sell as well as "More features"
> > > does.
> >
> > Actually, he went further. In the same interview, he claimed that
> > Windows does not have bugs.
>
> Post the article to backup your claim. I doubt it says anything of the
> sort.
>
>
>From the URL cited earlier in the thread
(<http://www.cantrip.org/nobugs.html>):
FOCUS:
But there are bugs an any version which people would really like to have
fixed.
Gates:
No! There are no significant bugs in our released software that any
significant number of users want fixed.
FOCUS:
Oh, my God. I always get mad at my computer if MS Word swallows the page
numbers of a document which I printed a couple of times with page
numbers. If I complain to anybody they say "Well, upgrade from version
5.11 to 6.0".
Gates:
No! If you really think there's a bug you should report a bug. Maybe
you're not using it properly. Have you ever considered that?
--
______
tinman
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stephen S. Edwards II)
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: 15 Aug 2000 23:59:24 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tim Smith) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>On 13 Aug 2000 05:06:46 GMT, Stephen S. Edwards II
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>"This is a UNIX system... I know this!"
>>
>>Oh Gawd. That has to have been the _STUPIDEST_ line in a movie
>>I ever heard. I cannot begin to tell you how I was pining to
>
>Why is it a stupid line? It was a Unix system.
The line was stupid, because it munged the aesthetics
of the dialogue. Had she said "I think I can do something
with this!", or something similar, the dialogue would
have been more acceptable. Actually, it's more likely
that she would have just sat down and started using it,
in a situation as dire as theirs.
Basically, the line was a very poorly-contrived
and cheesy plug, IMHO.
After all, aren't movies supposed to suspend our
disbelief, in order to provide escape?
I think that it's equally stupid that every single
government agency in the movies is using iMacs for
accessing their satellite telemetry, and what not.
In short, Hollywood screenwriters need to get more
clues, if they wish to make movies that are going
to suspend our belief, and therefore entertain us.
--
.-----.
|[_] | Stephen S. Edwards II | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount/
| = :| -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
| -| "Even though you can't see the details, you can sense them.
| | And that is what makes great computer graphics."
|_..._| -- Robert Abel of Abel Image Research
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 21:11:07 -0300
[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribi�:
>
> Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Nathaniel Jay Lee escribi�:
> > >
> > No, you should not shut up. You should say more constructive things,
> > or even better, do things.
>
> Do you know for a fact, that Nathaniel has not done things to improve Linux?
No, I don't. Of course it's easy, just say "oh, I did this", and I will
shut
up about it.
> On the obverse of that, I don't know for a fact that you have done things to
> improve Linux.
Well, I, on the other hand, know :-)
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
