Linux-Advocacy Digest #683, Volume #28 Sun, 27 Aug 00 15:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Joe
Ragosta)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Joe Ragosta)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) ("Aaron R.
Kulkis")
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Joe
Ragosta)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Joe Ragosta)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 18:51:15 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Arthur Frain wrote:
> > >
> > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> > >
> > > > Personally, I'm not a Catholic, never have been, and have
> > > > fundamental
> > > > disagreements with their religious dogma.
> > >
> > > > However, given a choice, I would send my kids to a Catholic school
> > > > before sending them to a public school.
> > >
> > > Then why did you choose Purdue over a perfectly good
> > > nearby Catholic school like Notre Dame?
> >
> > 1. I'm talking about K-12 education.
>
> We're talking about education, period. If public schools can do a good
> job at the college level, what is the reason you think they couldn't do
> well elsewhere?
While I agree that public schools can do OK at any level (and they do,
at least some of the time), there are some significant differences
between K-12 and college that might make the situation different.
The biggest one is that people have to be there in K-12 whether they
want to or not. No one's making them go to college.
>
> > 2. I attended school 20 years ago. I'm talking about *NOW*.
>
> So what? The principles are the same, aren't they? If 20 years ago the
> public schools were good, then presumably we can make them good again,
> right?
Unless there's been a fundamental change in the psychological makeup of
people in the past 20 years. But that doesn't seem likely.
--
Regards,
Joe Ragosta
http://home.earthlink.net/~jragosta/complmac.htm
------------------------------
From: Joe Ragosta <[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: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 18:56:16 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > You are allowed to increase
> > your profits. If that increases your market share, as well, then fine.
> > You are not allowed to take efforts to increase your market share
> > directly ('monopolization', section 2 of the Sherman Act) nor to take
> > efforts to decrease someone else's market share directly ('restraint of
> > trade', section 1 of the Sherman Act).
>
> In that case, shouldn't advertising be illegal? The primary goal of
> advertising is to increase market share.
T. Max is about as poorly informed about business issues as anyone I've
ever seen.
--
Regards,
Joe Ragosta
http://home.earthlink.net/~jragosta/complmac.htm
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 14:51:27 -0400
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > Those who are the working poor are either
> >
> > a) too stupid to save money (they blow it on shit they can't afford)
> > and/or
>
> This seems all too common, unfortunately...
>
> > b) too lazy to find a better paying job.
>
> This is fairly common, however many bothered not to get an education
> (despite the billions of dollars in social funding for poor or
> minority education grants and scholarships) and don't see the necessity,
> yet they complain that they can't make more money and they're stuck
> flipping burgers.
It's simple: FUCK THEM!
They had their chance to avail themselves to an
education...AND THEY ****CHOSE**** not to partake.
You know those spoofs on the "motivation" posters (the one with the
advertising-like photographs in a wide black border with pithy little
slogans underneath.
I like this "anti-motivation" posters better:
Failure: Has it ever occured to you that the purpose of your life is
to serve as an example of others of what NOT to do?
In the case of life-long burger flippers, this is literally true.
>
> Thanks to Clinton and the social democrats of yesteryear for making
> welfare more profitable than minimum wage and for continuting to
> increase minimum wage and encourage the division of social classes
> and making it lucrative for poor, uneducated Americans to stay poor
> and uneducated rather than educating themselves and becoming rich.
>
> Socialist Democrats say they're for the poor, minorities and lower-
> middle class workers/blue-collar, but their policies speak a
> different tune.
>
> -Chad
--
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: Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 18:58:54 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ZnU wrote:
> >
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mike Marion
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Perry Pip wrote:
> > >
> > > > And you want my taxes to pay for vouchers for that shit? No way.
> > >
> > > As someone who started out in public schools, then switched to
> > > private school, I can say without a doubt that the education I got at
> > > the private school was _much_ better then I could've gotten in the
> > > public system. My parents sacrificed a lot for my sister and I (and
> > > we both let them know that we appreciate what they did) to go to
> > > private school. I have plenty of friends that went to public school
> > > that wish they could've also gone to private school and talk about
> > > how bad they were/are.
> >
> > It depends where you live. In rich suburbs, the public schools are of
> > very high quality. They're properly funded. In inner cities, they're
> > woefully underfunded, and they're horrible.
> >
> > > BTW, I think the proper system would be to give a tax credit for
> > > someone that sends their kids to private schools.. which wouldn't
> > > cost you anything in taxes.
> >
> > The solution is to properly fund inner city schools, not drain even more
> > money away from them.
>
> The city of Detroit spends $11,000 per pupil...almost TRIPLE what
> many private schools spend.
>
> And yet, the Detroit Public Schools are among the worst in the country.
>
The small private school my kids used to go to cost $3,300 per student.
I believe the tuition was about half the expense (an endowment paid the
rest). So, for $6,600 per student, we got class sizes of no more than 20
students, quite adequate facilities, and an education that put the kids
(on average) at about the 75th percentile, based on SAT scores.
It's not about money.
--
Regards,
Joe R.
------------------------------
From: Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 19:04:30 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >wrote:
> >> Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> >wrote:
> [...]
> >> >> Not really. It is impossible to have a monopoly which does not
> >> >> abuse
> >> >> its position, by definition.
> >> >
> >> >Wrong. Show me your definition.
> >>
> >> "The threshold question in this analysis is whether the defendant's
> >> conduct is "exclusionary" - that is, whether it has restricted
> >> significantly, or threatens to restrict significantly, the ability of
> >> other firms to compete in the relevant market on the merits of what
> >> they
> >> offer customers. "
> >>
> >> That's a decent head start on a *description*. I don't argue by
> >> *definition*.
> >
> >That's your problem. You don't sit down and think about what things mean
> >before you start posting.
>
> My only problem is you don't even bother thinking about what things mean
> before you start replying. I've already "thought about" what these
> things mean for several years, and yet you think that knee-jerk
> recitations of 'popular wisdom' and dictionary definitions are going to
> somehow poke holes in my argument.
No. I think it's necessary to know what you're talking about before
posting.
You apparently don't feel bound by that.
>
> >You have some kind of emotional reaction against profitable companies
> >and wealthy people and start spewing hatred and venom without
> >understanding what you're talking about.
>
> You obviously have some sort of emotional reaction against people
> expressing their opinion on anti-trust law.
When people like you keep expressing inconsistent, self-contradictory,
foolish comments based on your opinion, even in the face of extensive
factual evidence, yes I do have a problem with it.
You see, opinions do not supercede facts.
>
> >Since you don't have any definitions, you can spin the argument however
> >you want and contradict yourself left and right and think you can get
> >away with it.
>
> See, you are not even reading what you're responding to. I said I don't
> argue "by" definitions, not that I don't use definitions. Stop trying
> to bait me and proving yourself a troll, Joe. It isn't my fault that
> you think a dictionary definition is enough to end an argument; I'm not
> the one that taught you this overly simplified 'popular wisdom'
> understanding of the law.
You're the one who said you don't use definitions and are willing to
change them to suit your whims.
>
> [...]
> >> >What if I were an ultimately benevolent person who really didn't need
> >> >money and I ruled a monopoly with an iron fist. I set prices as low
> >> >as
> >> >they'd be with enormous competition. How would that be abuse of my
> >> >position?
> >>
> >> What fucking if what?
> >
> >Few of your arguments make any sense, but this one is below average --
> >even for you.
>
> LOL. I guess you don't bother reading what you wrote, either.
Mine is normal English. Yours is just more of your usual babbling.
>
> >> >I didn't say it's likely. But you keep coming up with premises that
> >> >make
> >> >certain assumptions, then use them to prove the same assumptions.
> >> >It's
> >> >called "circular logic".
> >>
> >> Point out the assumption, don't give me straw men based on asinine
> >> thought experiments where someone is an ultimate benevolent person.
> >
> >You make the assumption that what you call a permanent monopoly is
> >always harmful. Then, you use that to prove that permanent monopolies
> >are bad.
>
> I had a feeling you'd just pick out any of my *conclusions* and insist
> that it is an assumption. I make no such assumption, Joe. Try
> practicing your reading comprehension skills, and then start over from
> where you started posting "there can be no monopolies in a free market".
OK. Then where's the factual evidence to back up your position. You
don't have any. You merely assume that it's true.
--
Regards,
Joe R.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 15:07:07 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Pat McCann in alt.destroy.microsoft;
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Said Pat McCann in alt.destroy.microsoft;
>> [...]
>> >That's what I said; it isn't a program. It's a partial program. Like
>> >the HISWORD partial program I just downloaded. It doesn't run unless
>> >I have certain libraries installed. Do you want to call HISWORD a ruse
>> >or a bit of trivial packaging?
>>
>> I want you to recognize that the whole discussion about libraries,
>> programs, and intellectual property is something that can only be
>> answered one way: is that a program or isn't it. If it is, its a
>> program, not a partial program. If it isn't, it isn't a program,
>> partial or otherwise, because you may as well call the library a partial
>> program.
>
>I'd be glad to call a library a partial program because that's what it
>is. Usually multiple partial programs.
>
>BTW, please proof-read your posts. I had to read that several times to
>make sense of it. First, discussions don't have or need answers.
>Second, Your answer was another question, but without a question mark.
>The first few readings of that answer/question I was trying to figure
>out what words had been left out or typoed. Then you come up with this
>beauty that "if it's a program it's a program, if it isn't it isn't".
>You're practicing typing again. Please have mercy.
It is that kind of issue, and there were no typos in that paragraph. It
might have benefitted from a few more commas, but then it would have
"looked" no better than it "read". I realize it is a complicated
statement, and I appreciate the effort you took to parse it. I'll try
to keep in mind that the first run-through isn't necessarily as
presentable as I'd like it to be, as I can't even honestly suggest that
I *don't* routinely mangle English syntax. But on re-reading my words,
I wouldn't have changed this text very much at all. I'd probably use a
question mark after the first sentence, but otherwise I'm quite happy
with it, sorry.
[...]
>I don't know what's fishy, but then I doubt it matters to me. Here you
>say "if its [sic] software, its [sic] copyrightable", but in your
>paragraph I was complaining about you said something about it not being
>copyrightable if it wasn't useful as-is (without supporting libraries)
>to the user. You too often try to have things "both ways".
No, I merely recognize the ambiguity of language, and the inherent
amphiboly which by nature accompanies any use of the term.
You might as well argue whether its software, as argue whether its
copyrightable. Saying that software is copyrightable, as you did, is
merely begging the question.
[...]
>> >Like I said: fine, if you're willing to live with the implications. You
>> >didn't say that you were or not.
>>
>> I can live with what I think the implications are,[...]
>
>I told you what implications I was worried about. You didn't bother
>commenting on them.
I don't think you did. I think you indicated what those implications
might derive from, that HISWORD is a partial program, but you didn't
indicate what the real impact of the practical cases might be, which is
what I consider "the implications".
>I'm quite sure you will continue to use "program"
>as you've always used it and continue to leave me wondering what you
>mean. I don't expect you to know what I'm talking about just now, but
>I'm not going to bother explaining it again.
No need, I believe I understand it perfectly. The problem is the law is
as dumb-founded by the definition as I am. I'm not sure precisely where
the original text is in law or precedent, but it would stand to reason
that "program" is defined in a perfunctory and limited way in several
places, and determining prima facia what would or would not fit all such
definitions accurately, consistently, and practically, is something of
an exercise in debate. I certainly don't seek to avoid that debate, in
principle, though I'd rather not get bogged down with it now, as I don't
consider it central to the issue. In truth, any definition of what a
program is in any universal sense would be little more than a hasty
generalization.
[...]
>> I never did. I'm not sure what the implication is, according to your
>> thinking. This is the "the entire work" thing, and that would make
>> HISWORD+libraries a compilation, in a way. This is a separate type of
>> IP, somewhat independent of the underlying program and library, which
>> might still be derivative of each other.
>
>This is the kind of thing I wanted to discuss, but I can see it's going
>to be too too much effort (or impossible) to do it in a careful manner
>in which we do more than go around in circles.
You'll pardon me, but I'm merely pointing out where the conceptual edges
of our field of discussion lie. Feel free to continue presenting your
argument, if you can manage to avoid the logical fallacies which might
trip you up as I point them out. If this is too much effort, perhaps I
might suggest it is because your argument is not persuasive. I
certainly am not trying to run anyone around in circles; I'm merely
pointing out the danger that any discussion which seeks to examine the
contradiction inherent in software as both functional and literary work
is faced with.
Honestly, you've been a great sport so far, and very incisive in your
comments. Please stop insisting that I'm somehow arguing inconclusively
or unfairly.
>> >If the HISWORD code
>> >by itself is the program, will you not call HISWORD+libraries the
>> >program? What WILL you call that? We need to agree on terms to avoid
>> >confusion.
>>
>> A compilation.
>
>You mean "the compilation"? As in "the xclock compilation"? I guess
>that word is better than many, but it would be easily confused with
>the same term's more general meaning as given by USC 17/101.
No, I mean "a compilation" as in "Section 103".
� 103. Subject matter of copyright: Compilations and derivative works
(a) The subject matter of copyright as specified by section 102
includes compilations and derivative works, but protection for a work
employing preexisting material in which copyright subsists does not
extend to any part of the work in which such material has been used
unlawfully.
(b) The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to
the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished
from the preexisting material employed in the work, and does not imply
any exclusive right in the preexisting material. The copyright in such
work is independent of, and does not affect or enlarge the scope,
duration, ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright protection in the
preexisting material.
>> >> No, that isn't a problem, you see. :-) "Application" is a whole other
>> >> level of abstraction, as it were, and I refuse to get into it.
>> >
>> >Why should I see now? You haven't said anything to even try to enlighten
>> >me. Maybe we need another level of abstraction, but since you refuse....
>>
>> I don't refuse, so much as wish to avoid spurious levels of abstraction.
>> If you could describe one which is necessary and sufficient, as well as
>> being accurate, consistent, and practical, I'd be happy to go along with
>> it. We don't need another level of abstraction, and are not at liberty
>> to apply one if we wish to consider this a discussion of copyright law.
>
>You "don't refuse", but we "are not at liberty"? OK. So there's no need
>for me to describe another level of abstraction since we can't apply it.
Yes, indeed. That is precisely the thought which I'd hoped would be
distilled from my statement. Sorry if it seemed I was over-complicating
the issue in my response, but I didn't think you'd understand me,
actually, if I'd used words more like your phrasing of the conjecture.
>> Well, yes. I guess you're right. Since all software on a modern
>> computer system can be considered in some way dependant in construction
>> on much other software, if a reasonable line of derivation exists to a
>> public domain API (if there is such a thing, which I guess we're getting
>> to), software on that line are public domain in their literal code.
>
>If you have studied copyright law as much as you seemed to have and then
>can make a statement like the above, then that is the last straw as far
>as I am concerned. It is just too much work trying to get us to where
>we can communicate within the same conceptual framework. Lee might find
>it entertaining; I don't.
You've done much better at it than Lee did, and I sincerely hope you'll
reconsider and continue your arguments. I have never *formally* studied
"copyright law"; I've merely studied the text of the statutes and some
highlights of the precedent. I never meant to suggest more.
>I think my time will be better spent doing other things. I plan to
>eventually (in months) finish putting together something worthy of
>posting and putting up on the web for potential free software licensors.
Cool. Don't let me distract you, if you'd rather be doing something
else. If I had a life, I probably wouldn't post much, either.
>> Thank you. I suggest that we call the program a program, and call the
>> program plus libraries a compilation, and mutually recognize that the
>> compilation and its literal and functional aspects are irrelevant for
>> considering the intellectual property characteristics of the program
>> itself.
>
>Thank you for finally addressing the point head on, but I can't accept
>that mutual recognition stuff since I'm quite sure that you don't mean
>what I read. (It's counter to much of what you've been arguing.) And
>if the "compilation" is a compilation in the copyright law sense, then
>I don't believe it either.
Well, see, the only reason you see that statement as addressing the
point any more "head on" than any other time I've said something, is
because we know share enough of a conceptual framework for you to
understand it enough to deal with it, at least. I don't feel insulted
or insulting when I point out that if it takes you several times reading
several different statements I've made on these topics in order to
understand what I'm trying to say, then it is all the more useful that I
continue trying to say it. Your observation that you still find
inaccuracies (internal inconsistencies) within my words only encourages
me to continue trying. Perhaps your revised reading of the word
"compilation" might help you understand "that mutual recognition stuff".
>It's a shame we've (or I've) wasted so much of our time on this over
>the last week, but it's time to cut our losses and move on. No hard
>feelings, I hope.
Only if you continue insisting that we've (or I've) wasted the time
we've spent discussing these things; the only loss would be if you
stopped posting.
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
--
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: "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: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 15:03:05 -0400
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [...]
> >> >No. You just give money away without doing anything about the real
> >> >problem.
> >>
> >> What real problem would that be, Joe?
> >
> >Lots of things. Lack of discipline. Lack of expectations. Lack of parent
> >involvement. And so on.
>
> And how do you personally expect to tackle these 'problems' without
> paying someone to deal with them?
HINT FUCKING HINT: ***NONE**** of those things cost money, Max.
--
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.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
