Linux-Advocacy Digest #564, Volume #28 Tue, 22 Aug 00 14:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (ZnU)
Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious.... ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Eric Bennett)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (Donovan Rebbechi)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: ZnU <[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: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 17:47:24 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ZnU wrote:
> >
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > ZnU wrote:
> > > >
> > > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "JS/PL"
> > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > "ZnU" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > The "losers" under a Bush administration will be just about
> > > > > > everyone. Bush's proposed tax cut eliminates all chance of
> > > > > > paying
> > > > > > off the national debt, yet it only gives $43/year back to the
> > > > > > average american family. Where does the rest go? You guessed
> > > > > > it:
> > > > > > the top 2% or so of the economic scale.
> > > > >
> > > > > The president doesn't create the budget, he only has the power to
> > > > > approve it in it's entirety or return it to congress, now who has
> > > > > really been creating the budget deficit for the past 20 years?
> > > > > And
> > > > > who in the past four has managed to turn it (the deficit) around?
> > > >
> > > > If the Republicans did all the work to balance the budget, why are
> > > > they
> > > > trying to damn hard to unbalance it?
> > >
> > > Are you, ZnU, smoking large amounts of crack before writing to
> > > USENET?
> >
> > Are you really denying this? In just the last few months the
> > Republicans
> > have tried to pass two tax cuts that would eliminate or significantly
> > reduce the surplus, and Bush wants to take things even farther.
>
> A surplus is merely another name for OVER-TAXATION.
^^^^^^^
You misspelled "deficit." All that interest ends up costing quite a bit
more in the long run.
--
This universe shipped by weight, not volume. Some expansion may have
occurred during shipment.
ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | <http://znu.dhs.org>
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious....
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 13:45:05 -0400
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Aaron R. Kulkis
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
> on Mon, 21 Aug 2000 19:07:18 -0400
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >Stephen Patterson wrote:
> >>
> >> BASIC = Beginners All Purpose Symbolic Instruction Code, a language
> >> for learning to program.
> >
> >Unfortunately, due to it's late 1950's precepts, you learn a lot
> >of habits which later need to be unlearned.
>
> I'm slightly curious as to what these habits are; I can guess
> some of them, though:
>
> - Global variable namespace. (YUCK!)
>
> - Non-declaration of variables before use. (Remember the old joke
> "God is real ... unless declared integer"? BASIC's sort of
> like that, except there's no IJKLMN convention, thank goodness.)
>
> - GOTO, which can be useful, but more often than not just
> ties program flows up in knots. [*] It can also bypass
> variable initializations without the BASIC interpreter
> even noticing, leading to some bizarre bugs.
>
> - IF ... THEN line# or IF ... GOTO line#.
>
> - Double meaning of '='. Admittedly, I'm not sure I like C/C++'s
> '==' (too easy to mistype and overlook in expressions), but at
> least the tokenizer doesn't have to know whether it's assigning a
> variable or within an expression. (Pascal uses ':=' for assignment,
> which might have been better, except that many dialects of BASIC
> use ':' as a statement delimiter.)
>
> - Objects? What objects? (VB works around this, admittedly, but
> I'm not entirely sure how well.)
>
> - No structures, unless VB slipped them in.
>
> - The original BASICs didn't have #include. I don't know if VB does.
>
> - Apple ][ Basic was actually very bright about tokenization.
> Sadly, all subsequent (interpreted) Basics that I know the internal
> format of got extremely stupid; at best, the final character of
> a word had the 8th bit set. For compiled Basics, of course,
> this is less of an issue. (At least Basic is slightly brighter
> than FORTRAN's "DO 10 I = 1.10", which is actually a variable
> assignment because of the '.' instead of the ',' -- a simple typo.)
>
> - MID$(S$, 5, 1) = "substr" is a slightly unusual construct, although
> C++ can do similar silliness by returning a reference.
>
> - Lots of PEEKs and POKEs in older Basic programs -- including writing
> directly to the display! Portability? What's that? :-)
>
> - REM, tick, or colon?
>
> - INKEY$ is bad for multitasking systems, as it encourages busywait loops.
>
> - Most BASIC environments contain an IDE. While this isn't too bad,
> older environments loaded a user's program into memory rather than read
> from a file during execution -- which means that if the IDE crashes,
> you're in trouble!
> (As an example of how it can be properly done, Visual C++ will save all
> files prior to invoking the compiler and linker; I suspect Visual
> Basic now does, too. Note that Borland C++ 4.51 did not.)
>
> - Formatting in PRINT statements was hit-or-miss...mostly miss.
> Some dialects did have PRINT USING, though.
>
> - The language was never really standardized, AFAIK. I have actually
> used the following dialects:
> HP 21xx basic (punched paper tape on an 8 kiloword ferrule-core machine!)
> Apple ][
> Apple ///
> IBM's built-in BASIC in the original PC
> GW-BASIC
> Amiga ABASIC
> Amiga/Microsoft AmigaBasic
>
> and know of the following:
> Chipmunk
> Visual Basic
> TRS-80
>
> and they're all very different. (The HP basic, for example, only had
> 26 string variables A$ - Z$, 286 numeric variables
> A-Z and A0-Z9, and 26 arrays. I don't remember whether arrays were
> multidimensional or not - I doubt it. And yes, it had line numbers.
> Apple ][ Basic only had 16-bit integers. Apple /// screwed up the
> tokenization AFAIK, but did support floating-point. Visual Basic doesn't
> (necessarily?) use line numbers. Amiga ABasic and Amiga/Microsoft
> AmigaBasic had lots of hooks for Amiga's shared libraries and graphics --
> good luck porting those!)
>
> <Voice="Duke Nukem">
>
> What a mess.
>
> </Voice> :-)
>
> [.sigsnip]
>
> [*] There are proper ways of using GOTO, mostly to get out of a
> deeply-nested inner loop. IMO, of course.
use while loops and an "early-exit" flag.
>
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
--
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: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[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: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 13:52:05 -0400
ZnU wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > ZnU wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, ZnU
> > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > > > The president doesn't create the budget, he only has the
> > > > > > > > power to approve it in it's entirety or return it to
> > > > > > > > congress, now who has really been creating the budget
> > > > > > > > deficit for the past 20 years? And who in the past four
> > > > > > > > has managed to turn it (the deficit) around?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If the Republicans did all the work to balance the budget,
> > > > > > > why are they trying to damn hard to unbalance it?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Are you, ZnU, smoking large amounts of crack before writing
> > > > > > to USENET?
> > > > >
> > > > > Are you really denying this? In just the last few months the
> > > > > Republicans have tried to pass two tax cuts that would
> > > > > eliminate or significantly reduce the surplus, and Bush wants
> > > > > to take things even farther.
> > > >
> > > > And I suppose the Democrats are just going to let that surplus
> > > > sit there reducing the debt, rather than spending it on bigger
> > > > government health care and *ahem* Gore's own $500 billion in
> > > > proposed tax cuts?
> > >
> > > Gore has promised to pay off the debt. Bush has not. Of course,
> > > it's rather difficult to attack Bush on the issues, since he almost
> > > never talks about them....
> >
> > Paying off the debt is already IN the budget, you moron.
> >
> > ALL treasury bills have a maturity date. To cannot retire the debt
> > any sooner than the maturity dates on the T-bills. To retire the
> > debt, all that needs to be done is to refrain from rolling over the
> > bonds as they mature.
>
> How will this be possible after the Republicans have starved the
> government giving their tax breaks?
Tax breaks stimulate commerce, idiot!
>
> > IDIOT!
>
> How can I argue with such persuasive logic?
Merely noting your species, that's all
>
> --
> This universe shipped by weight, not volume. Some expansion may have
> occurred during shipment.
>
> ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | <http://znu.dhs.org>
--
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: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[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: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 13:52:38 -0400
Eric Bennett wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > ZnU wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > ZnU wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "JS/PL"
> > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > "ZnU" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > The "losers" under a Bush administration will be just about
> > > > > > > everyone. Bush's proposed tax cut eliminates all chance of
> > > > > > > paying
> > > > > > > off the national debt, yet it only gives $43/year back to the
> > > > > > > average american family. Where does the rest go? You guessed
> > > > > > > it:
> > > > > > > the top 2% or so of the economic scale.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The president doesn't create the budget, he only has the power to
> > > > > > approve it in it's entirety or return it to congress, now who has
> > > > > > really been creating the budget deficit for the past 20 years?
> > > > > > And
> > > > > > who in the past four has managed to turn it (the deficit) around?
> > > > >
> > > > > If the Republicans did all the work to balance the budget, why are
> > > > > they
> > > > > trying to damn hard to unbalance it?
> > > >
> > > > Are you, ZnU, smoking large amounts of crack before writing to
> > > > USENET?
> > >
> > > Are you really denying this? In just the last few months the
> > > Republicans
> > > have tried to pass two tax cuts that would eliminate or significantly
> > > reduce the surplus, and Bush wants to take things even farther.
> >
> > A surplus is merely another name for OVER-TAXATION.
>
> Then is a deficit merely another name for under-taxation?
Or over-spending.
--
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: T. Max Devlin <[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: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 14:01:32 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Aaron R. Kulkis in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>A surplus is merely another name for OVER-TAXATION.
Not when you do accounting like a government does, it isn't. Its more
like "cash reserves", though the whole point is that it isn't cash, and
it isn't in reserve. Its a *projected* surplus. Now who would be
stupid enough to "give back" a *projected* surplus, before you've even
collected it? George W. Bush, it seems, and he's willing to put 'and
the government shouldn't have any money in reserve, either, so lets give
back the money we already collected' on top of it.
The question of the "balanced budget" is far more complex than any
ingenuous reading of the words as a phrase could allow. It is *not*
like any person, or even company, "balancing their budget". Likewise,
the term "deficit spending", which relates to the discussion. If the
government didn't practice "deficit spending", then there would be no
need to balance the budget. There would, indeed, be no way to unbalance
the budget, to my understanding. I'm not an economist, but it seems to
me that your declaration that "a surplus is over-taxation" is kind of
like saying that you owe the finance charges on your credit cards before
you even make any purchases.
A lot like treasury bonds, isn't it? So the money we're supposed to
give back is the interest we are then going to need to pay? Again, I'm
sure its not that simplistic, but that's the only thing, I think, we can
be sure of. That, and whether Reagan/Bush was the cause of the bad
economy of the 80s or the effect, and whether Clinton was the cause or
the effect of the business boom which continued that trend. In both
bust and boom, 80% of the increased income accrued to the richest 20% of
the populace. (There's no telling how many below the line got pushed
above the line by the remaining 20%, but it was fewer than those who got
pushed deeper down at the same time.)
I recall an interesting comment by Arthur C. Clarke concerning the
prospects of a flat tax. Through one of his characters, Clarke said
that a flat tax is a recipe for revolution. It may be tolerated for a
short time, but eventually it leads to the masses rebelling against the
inherent oppression of the luxurious few.
I'll bet you're a real big fan of the flat tax, aren't you, Aaron?
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: Eric Bennett <[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: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 14:00:42 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Eric Bennett wrote:
> >
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > ZnU wrote:
> > > >
> > > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > ZnU wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "JS/PL"
> > > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > "ZnU" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The "losers" under a Bush administration will be just about
> > > > > > > > everyone. Bush's proposed tax cut eliminates all chance of
> > > > > > > > paying
> > > > > > > > off the national debt, yet it only gives $43/year back to
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > average american family. Where does the rest go? You
> > > > > > > > guessed
> > > > > > > > it:
> > > > > > > > the top 2% or so of the economic scale.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The president doesn't create the budget, he only has the
> > > > > > > power to
> > > > > > > approve it in it's entirety or return it to congress, now who
> > > > > > > has
> > > > > > > really been creating the budget deficit for the past 20
> > > > > > > years?
> > > > > > > And
> > > > > > > who in the past four has managed to turn it (the deficit)
> > > > > > > around?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If the Republicans did all the work to balance the budget, why
> > > > > > are
> > > > > > they
> > > > > > trying to damn hard to unbalance it?
> > > > >
> > > > > Are you, ZnU, smoking large amounts of crack before writing to
> > > > > USENET?
> > > >
> > > > Are you really denying this? In just the last few months the
> > > > Republicans
> > > > have tried to pass two tax cuts that would eliminate or
> > > > significantly
> > > > reduce the surplus, and Bush wants to take things even farther.
> > >
> > > A surplus is merely another name for OVER-TAXATION.
> >
> > Then is a deficit merely another name for under-taxation?
>
> Or over-spending.
So a surplus could also be a name for under-spending?
--
Eric Bennett ( http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/ )
Cornell University / Chemistry & Chemical Biology
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Date: 22 Aug 2000 18:06:25 GMT
On Tue, 22 Aug 2000 09:49:45 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribi�:
>> >
>> > Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >
>> > > I'm game, but be specific, or go fuck yourself.
>> >
>> > Now what did I say the earn a reply with that tone from him?
>>
>> Y9ou said something like that I disrespected the linux user base, or
>> some such. Can't tell, because you sniped it.
>
>Why it that a problem? Can't you read back the thread?
To put it bluntly, cut the crap. You snipped it so that you could quote
him out of context and take a cheap shot, and now you are requiring him
to go back and read the thread to work out what the context was.
His message amounted to "put up or shut up". You did neither, and used it
as an opportunity to quote him out of context.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
