Linux-Advocacy Digest #452, Volume #28 Thu, 17 Aug 00 11:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Is the GDI-in-kernel-mode thing really so bad?... (was Re: Anonymous Wintrolls
and Authentic Linvocates) ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Email spamming to the readers of these NG's (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: I'm out of here. Best wishes to all of you! (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was:
Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh (Andrew J. Brehm)
Re: Is the GDI-in-kernel-mode thing really so bad?... (was Re: ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("JS/PL")
Re: OS advertising in the movies... (was Re: Microsoft MCSE) (aflinsch)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Is the GDI-in-kernel-mode thing really so bad?... (was Re: Anonymous
Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates)
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 00:24:06 +1000
"Donal K. Fellows" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8ngq7e$e86$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <8ng0ul$l8p$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aaron R. Kulkis) wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> [worthless stuff elided]
> > Hmmm...
> >
> > - Every argument he makes never has any facts in it.
> > - Has a smug and condesceding attitude.
> > - He has a very long and annoying .signature.
> >
> > I dunno about you Christopher, but I've run out of
> > reasons to keep this guy viewable any longer.
> >
> > *PLOINK!*
>
> I ditched him for his stupid .sig ages ago. Most people round here
> seem to be guilty from time to time of fact-free argument and bad
> attitude, but very few hand out a (long) page full of canned diatribe
> with every post...
As did I. Anyone with a .sig that big claiming to be a Unix engineer
clearly has serious problems with reality.
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 00:32:06 +1000
"rj friedman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Wed, 16 Aug 2000 15:53:28 Chris Wenham
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> � > Face reality sonny boy. It is not a case of the whole world
> � > being wrong and you being right. Stick your head in the sand
> � > and pretend all you want - but deep in your heart you have
> � > to face the fact that you are 100% full of shit.
>
>
> � And why are you so full of coprolalia?
>
> Full of what?
Needless profanity. It seems to be an OS/2 advocate characteristic.
> � Just debate the facts, man...
>
> What facts are there to debate. The United States of America
> has spoken - MS has been proven guilty. The European Union,
> China, Japan, and India have all opened investigations of
> their own.
>
> Sonny boy - for whatever ulterior motives he is coming
> from/with - can try to say that he doesn't like the law so
No "ulterior motives" whatsoever. Keep on thinking it if you like, however,
it's keeping me very entertained.
> therefore MS isn't guilty of anything. But half the world
> has told him that he is full of shit. And all his pro-MS
America is "half the world" now ?
> posturing aside, deep down in his heart he KNOWS he is full
> of shit.
Cool, I always love being analysed by wanna-be psychiatrists.
> � Jeez. If he's wrong then it ought to be
> � easy.
>
> IF??? Please tell me that you are not going to pretend that
> MS WASN'T found guilty.
*sigh*
You still don't get it.
In any case, I don't ever recall having said they weren't.
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 00:33:34 +1000
"JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Joseph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
> > Then let me be clear - your opinion has NO weight. why? You don't like
> the
> > laws and you ignore the principles on which we establish facts and
truth.
> > Fine. Okay.
>
> It is this very questioning of authority which founded the United States,
> and it is his very attitude which makes him a (more) solid American.
I'm an Australian ;). Fortunately we also have a long history of Problems
With Authority.
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[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: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 09:30:04 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >
> > > 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.
>
> I think you are talking about the episode where Jake Sisko saved Benjamin
> Sisko by taking his own life decades in the future. But then that never
> happened because Jake dying in the future Benjamin is never lost in the
> first place so that future will never be.
>
> I was talking about Benjamin's father / Jake's grand father
Yeah, I remember that episode too, but I wasn't talking about that one.
There was an episode where Sisko did something to 'save' his father and
got in trouble with the Time Patrol (or Board or whatever they called
themselves).
>
> > I kind of liked the way DS9 mixed things up with time travel and
> > different dimensions and Sisko's dream sequences and stuff. But the
> > trouble was that if you missed the wrong episode you had no idea what
> > the hell was going on.
>
> Comminications from the prophets in the form of other people, the visions of
> Benny in the 60's, visitng the mirror universe, time travel, holo suite
> fantasies, Orb visions, etc.
> Interesting timeline!
>
> One thing I am glad, they never got as bad as Voyager. Voyager should be
> subtitled "one series too many".
Voyager was good if you didn't think of it as a Star Trek spin-off. But
when you tried to fit it into the Star Trek universe (as they did for
the first episode and some of the later ones) it just felt awkward, like
a new pair of pants that are too loose and you have to keep pulling them
up all the time. :-).
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I'm out of here. Best wishes to all of you!
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 09:39:33 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Due to a recent surge (ok, I got 2 projects in the last 48 hours, but
> they are huge and will keep me busy till after the new year). I know
> some of you are saddened by this as I suspect everyone needs a little
> entertainment once in a while. Before I go, let me go on record as
> saying I wish Linux well in the future. I appreciate, and sincerely
> wish all of the folks doing the developing all the best in the future.
> I truly believe that Linux will, someday, maybe someday soon, be the
> operating system of choice for everyone. When Linux can perform all of
> my DAW requirements (and even Win2k doesn't come close) I will switch
> in a NY minute (10 seconds for those non-native New Yorkers).
Let's see, four thousand posts (maybe exagerating) against Linux and one
for, yeah, I'd buy that.
>
> Also I do not, nor have I ever worked for Microsoft nor have I gotten
> paid to post in this or any other group. Like I said, pure
> entertainment for me.
If this is entertainment, you really, REALLY need to get some help with
your mental problems.
>
> In closing:
>
> I wish all of the fine people in COLA well, both Linvocates and
> Winvocates and hope to see all of us running a better OS in the future
> than we are running now.
>
> Until then, I'll see you on Napster where my id is:
>
> moldy_oldie and if you like jazz I have about 1000 tunes up for grabs,
> at least until the feds close Napster down. Give me a yell
>
> Sincerely and apologetically,
> Claire
>
> P.S. And the joke is............... I REALLY AM FEMALE!!!!! Always
> have been, always will be. I have been happily married for 15 years
> with 3 kids.
You're happily married? God I feel sorry for your husband. He probably
comes home every night to a different personality and a different 'mood'
within that personality. Tell me something, how does he feel about your
multiple personalities and overall childish behavior?
Well, I suppose he never sees it. After all, you wouldn't want anyone
you actually 'know' to see this side of you (or these sides of you).
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
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: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 11:28:35 -0300
"T. Max Devlin" escribi�:
>
> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >"T. Max Devlin" escribi�:
> >
> >[snip, I'm tired]
> >> [...]
> >> >What do we use to choose values, if not preexisting values? The choice
> >> >of values is then trivially reduced to the pursuit of values.
> >>
> >> So either there is an absolute moral canon, or we have no free will. Is
> >> this what you are saying?
> >
> >No, it is not. And I have no clue as to how you jump from what I wrote
> >to what you wrote. And honestly I'm too tired to care.
>
> If we use pre-existing values to choose values, where did the
> pre-existing values come from?
Education, mostly.
--
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: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 11:50:10 -0300
"Colin R. Day" escribi�:
>
> Roberto Alsina wrote:
>
> > > > 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?
>
> But then why is it good to be ethical? Should people be ethical?
I believe so.
> > > > 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.
> >
>
> But what if it's a different (and conflicting) standard?
Then I will accept you have that standard and not bother arguing
unless you try to convince me my standard is somehow evil.
> > > Also, what if one's values are themselves inconsistent?
> >
> > Then you are in trouble.
> >
>
> > > > > 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?
>
> Did I claim that cannibalism was wrong? I only remember claiming
> not to be a cannibal.
I said you were (ethically or morally, can't recall) equivalent to a
cannibal, and you said you weren't. Are you saying you are inferior?
> > > > > 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.
>
> They needed to drop the Inquisition, but the Renaissance did not
> need slavery, nor did it need to move north. The achievement of
> some degree of liberty was one of the causes of the Renaissance.
The renaissance, despite achievements in arts, was pretty much
a very bad time to live.
> The Church gets some credit as a patron of the fine arts and
> architecture, but the spending led to protests in Germany
> under Luther.
Cheap germans ;-)
> > > > 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.
>
> No oops, just more blame.
So everyone was evil.
> > > > > 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.
>
> Or more precisely, the lack of such.
Which one, education or morality?
> > > > > 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.
>
> She also was burned at the stake.
Yup.
> It only took the Church some 500 years to make her a saint.
She is not a saint, AFAIK, although she was declared a "holy
woman" in 1457, only 26 years after her death.
(first reference I could find on a quick search:
http://dc.smu.edu/ijas/pinzino.html )
> > > > 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.
>
> Actually, Galileo had made contributions,
Galileo's methods were nothing we would recognize as scientific.
For one thing, he was not an experimentalist, except for some
small things.
> and Roger Bacon before him. Hey, even Aristotle had some tips
> in that direction.
Sure, everyone had some remote clues. But the scientific method
was not invented.
> > > > 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.
>
> Thucydides might disagree.
Of course. He was doing history in HIS modern sense. He was
modern ;-) I meant, of course, in OUR modern sense.
> > > > 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?
>
> Yes. What evidence can there be for the supernatural?
> (It's a question, not a statement.)
Then it lacked the "?". Of course there can be evidence
for the supernatural. Unless I'm failing at the meaning of the
word evidence, evidence as accepted in a court of law, for example,
is of several kinds: circunstancial, testimonial, and auto-optic.
All three could exist for the supernatural.
> > > > 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?
>
> Ownership, yes. But the Nazis controlled the economy
> almost as much.
Ok. But it's a difference.
> > > 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???
> >
>
> We started this off discussing the Holocaust, not World War II.
> You said that the ethics of the Holocaust (not WWII) were complex,
> and that is what I challenged.
WWII is a thing that affects the holocaust. Everyone fighting on WWII
had effects in the holocaust, and thus have a ethical link to it.
I am just providing an example where you can appreciate the complexity.
Of course other examples are way more trivial.
> > > 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.
> >
>
> But we were discussing the holocaust, not WWII as a whole.
We are discussing the ETHICS of the holocaust. This is just
an example. Now, if you wanted to change my example to suit
better what YOU want to say, go ahead, but do it clearly.
> > > > 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?
>
> Read the previous posts.
Please read, it has to do with the death camps. If noone fought the
eastern front, death camps would have been closed what, 2 years earlier?
How can it has not much to do with the death camps?
> > > > > 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?
>
> If they are accidents waiting to happen, yes. There is such a thing
> (in American law at least) as criminal negligence.
And criminal negligence is not armed murder, AFAIK.
> > > > 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.
> But without a second amendment, who gets to bear arms?
> Just government officials?
Hopefully, the delegates of a democratically elected power.
That way, you would have the weapons backing the will of the
majority as you wanted anyway.
> > > > > 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.
>
> On what?
You asked "is it moral to be wrong?" and later modified it as
(paraphrasing) "is it moral to be wrong when you can see facts that show
you are wrong?".
Well, it depends on what those facts are. If the nazis were winning WWII
in 1940, and we knew for a fact that they would win even if the US
joined
the allieds, would it be moral for the US to join the other side?
[snip]
> > > 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.
>
> Perhaps, but the rack is not a means of peer review.
And Galileo was not tortured, AFAIK.
> > 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.
> >
>
> Some of the clergy appreciated Galileo's early scientific efforts,
> so they must have been at least partially aware of the value of
> inquiry.
Inquiry, believe it or not, is one of the main requirements for a
teologist, so they better have!
--
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: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 11:53:37 -0300
"T. Max Devlin" escribi�:
>
> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >"T. Max Devlin" escribi�:
> >[snip]
> >
> >> I had said
> >> >Well, let's apply the standard you expect of others, for a change.
> >> >Explain me! Tell me! What? You don't explain the way I like?
> >> >Fool!
> >>
> >> What the hell are you talking about?
> >
> >Well, that is the general attitude you have. Remember chmod?
> >You ask people to explain, and when you fail to understand,
> >you insult. Well, moron, explain again! better!
>
> No, I asked for an explanation of the permissions, not chmod, the
> command used to modify them.
I only use chmod as a reference to the discussion. It obviously
worked.
> I didn't fail to understand; I was not
> understood. I don't hesitate to take my share of responsibility for
> that (I have little; my request was misinterpreted), nor am I irate in
> assigning blame to others (it is a common conceptual glitch to confuse
> the process with the result, and I asked for an explanation of the
> result, not the process). But people got very defensive, I pointed out
> that people who don't already know the answer need to see the results,
> not just an explanation of the process, and finally one lone genius
> (besides myself) figured out that showing the visual representation of
> the bits was what was called for, while several others continued to
> simply repost "chmod +s" as if that was useful (or unknown) information.
If you believe "it shows an s here and a t there" are the major results
of
permissions, or even important results, you are beyond help.
The main result of applying the sticky bit, as it was told to you
many times, are that the executable image stays in swap, and the effect
on file creation and deletion. The ls output is not important at all.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
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
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andrew J. Brehm)
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 16:47:08 +0100
Not Me <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Aug 2000 14:06:32 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andrew J.
> Brehm) wrote:
>
> >D. Spider <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> >I do _not_ agree than an unalienable right can be forfeited.
> >> >
> >> >If rights must not be violated, they can also not be forfeited.
> >> >Otherwise the right is worth nothing.
> >>
> >> So you are an absolute pacifist?
> >>
> >
> >Not really.
> >
> >But I would not believe I had a right to kill somebody under any
> >circumstances.
> Even if someone is holding a gun to your head. ready to pull the
> trigger?
I am not usually an objectivist. But A is A and if I don't have a right
I do not have this right.
I simply do not have the right to kill anybody, regardless of what I
want to do or what I think is needed.
--
Fan of Woody Allen
PowerPC User
Supporter of Pepperoni Pizza
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Is the GDI-in-kernel-mode thing really so bad?... (was Re:
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 10:43:31 -0400
Christopher Smith wrote:
>
> "Donal K. Fellows" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8ngq7e$e86$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <8ng0ul$l8p$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aaron R. Kulkis) wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > [worthless stuff elided]
> > > Hmmm...
> > >
> > > - Every argument he makes never has any facts in it.
> > > - Has a smug and condesceding attitude.
> > > - He has a very long and annoying .signature.
> > >
> > > I dunno about you Christopher, but I've run out of
> > > reasons to keep this guy viewable any longer.
> > >
> > > *PLOINK!*
> >
> > I ditched him for his stupid .sig ages ago. Most people round here
> > seem to be guilty from time to time of fact-free argument and bad
> > attitude, but very few hand out a (long) page full of canned diatribe
> > with every post...
>
> As did I. Anyone with a .sig that big claiming to be a Unix engineer
> clearly has serious problems with reality.
No. I have a full understanding of the behavior of the individuals
listed in my .sig, and how to keep their behavior under control
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
J: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 10:40:16 -0400
Reply-To: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > The case before the courts was between the United States of
> > America and MS. The United States of America won - live with
> > it.
What did the United States "win"? Last time I checked - MS is still business
as usual. Live with that.
> Actually, MS is lucky. The Justice department rolled up 40 SEPERATE
> lawsuits into one suit. If they had been forced to go to trial in
> 40 seperate suits, they probably wouldn't even exist any more,
> and some states would have arrest warrants issued for racketeering.
What did the Justice department have to do with allowing Microsofts motion
to consolidate? Microsoft filed a motion...the judge granted it, because he
basically "had to" out of the knowledge that if he denied the motion it
would be immediately appealed and overturned due to rules of court and past
precedence.
------------------------------
From: aflinsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS advertising in the movies... (was Re: Microsoft MCSE)
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 11:01:28 -0500
Mike Marion wrote:
>
> Anyone that watches Futurama: Did you see the MST reference in the ep where
> Bender became an "Ultimate robot fighter?" In the theater they were talking,
> and it panned over to the shadow/silhouettes of Tom and Servo who told them,
> "Stop talking," "We're trying to watch the movie!"
I liked the one where they did an x-ray shot of Bender. Turns out he
is 6502 powered.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
