Linux-Advocacy Digest #691, Volume #28 Sun, 27 Aug 00 20:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("[EMAIL PROTECTED]")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (C Lund)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (josco)
Re: Linux..a trip down memory lane.. ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Linux..a trip down memory lane.. (Glitch)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Donovan
Rebbechi)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Glitch)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 19:22:06 -0400
From: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [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?
T. Max Devlin wrote:
> >
> >Just as your telling him that you are going to kill him might well be
> >considered a threat.
>
> I never told anyone that I was going to kill anyone. Check your quotes.
> To save others the bother, I'll point out that said "I want to kill
> JS/PL."
>
> >He was justified in his action. If you feel that you've been harrassed,
> >feel free to take action.
>
> He was not justified in his actions, and whether or not I plan to take
> action, I've always been aware that I am free to do so. I've pointed
> out that if I do choose to do so, I won't be wasting time posting to
> Usenet about it. I'll go further to remind you (and readers) that you
> aren't a lawyer, and your assessment of whether anyone is justified in
> his actions is not only irrelevant but is dubious in terms of guiding
> wisdom.
Let me point out for you then, that in ALL states
of this country, your statement can be used as
grounds for (1) legal proceedings as "want" can be
construed as either (a) intent or (b) desire,
(2) a restraining order under the same grounds,
(3) a civil suit based on JS/PL's ability to
claim fear for her/his life or well being.
And in some states, it is grounds for criminal
charges and arrest.
Just figured I would let you know. Your defense
of your statement would tend to indicate either
that you are a very young person (child, thus
indicating the next), or a high level of
immaturity.
Just my 50 cents worth,
Dolly
====== 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: 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: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 19:20:16 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Aaron R. Kulkis in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>Chad Irby wrote:
[...]
>Even at a mere 100 feet, all sub disasters are "over in a couple of
>seconds".
>
>Once the boat is flooded, it doesn't matter how long it takes to sink
>to the bottom.
If only that were the case. The recent Russian sub disaster indicates
that sub disasters might also be eternal hours of "a nightmare which you
cannot comprehend" outside of movie-image fantasies of what it is like
to endure such incomprehensibly agonizing circumstances for a length of
time which is mind-boggling for those who still maintain our sanity. I
remember people noting the horror of the twenty seconds that some plane
crash victims were confronted with as they plunged to a fiery grave
after a recent airline disaster. My very soul quivers with empathy at
the mere thought of the unbelievably nightmarish existence which those
submariners were forced to "live through" before they died or took their
own lives.
--
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: 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: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 19:21:06 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[...]
>> That's my point. I may very well have done so, or been able to find
>> greater loopholes with which to lower my tax bill in some other way. I
>> don't even bother to try, as I don't get any kind of "warm and fuzzy"
>> feeling by trying to minimize my taxes.
>
>But you somehow believe that the system allows people who want to do so
>to escape their tax burden. In general, that's not true.
No, it is true in general, because it is true typically; citizens can
lower their tax burden using exemptions, deductions, and loopholes. I
did it to the tune of several hundred dollars myself, and feel no
remorse, because that is the tax code. I believe hiring an accountant
to work the numbers to decrease my apparent debt to society in directly
inverse proportion to my true debt to society an ethical affront, and a
sign that tax reform is sorely necessary. But if you approach tax
reform with the initial intent to simply lower the amount of taxes
people pay, in the hopes that this will decrease the expenditures in a
just and fair fashion, you are going to cause more trouble than you seek
to avoid. Indeed, if the Republicans could truly "rule" this country as
they desire, there would be a bloody revolution within an eye-blink of
historical time.
[...]
>Please explain which loopholes you're talking about that a clever
>accountant could have used to save you $4 K on your taxes.
I didn't say they could (and the 4K wasn't my taxes, but the deductions
from income which saved me taxes), I said that it was reasonable to
assume that they typically could. I make a decent amount of money, and
a "shrewd tax accountant" could have no doubt provided me with more than
a return on investment in his services, had I arranged my finances to
present the least profile to the tax code.
[...]
>Wait a second.
>
>You're the one who said that a clever accountant could have saved you
>$4,000 on your taxes. YOU made the claim. Please tell us exactly which
>loopholes you're referring to.
No, I didn't make any such claim, Joe. Try to improve those reading
skills, 'nkay?
[...]
--
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: 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 19:29:26 -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;
>> >
>> >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".
>
>It was a post or two before I introduced HISWORD. Feel free to assume
>the implications were of no merit. It no longer matters much.
>
>> 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 didn't care what a "program" is in universal generality or in law. I
>wanted two separate handy terms or phrases by which we could agree to
>use to refer to two very different things unambiguously. Nor did I care
>what "a compilation" was. The entire program with supporting libraries
>might or might not be a compilation but I wanted to be able to refer to
>"the something". "A compilation" would be ungrammatical; "The
>compilation" would be merely confusing, especially if "the compilation"
>is not "a compilation".
I don't think so, but as you are wonderfully good at pointing out, it
does not matter. A program is a program; there are no two separate
terms necessary to examine whether a program is entirely or only
putatively reliant on a library; the consumer would be uninterested in
judging, and therefore the market would be incapable of judging, and
therefore the profit of copyrighted materials is unrelated, and
therefore whether software promotes the sciences and useful arts has
nothing to do with whether something is a program or a partial program,
in the way you have been indicating.
>> Please stop insisting that I'm somehow arguing inconclusively or unfairly.
>
>Will do. In this thread, at least.
Thank you, more for the promise to double-check me in other threads than
in the promise to abstain from second-guessing me in this one.
>> 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.
>
>No, it was "head on" because it provided terms for "the program" and
>"the program plus libraries" (in your words). Unfortunately, "a program"
>and "a compilation", might be descriptive, but they are poor replacement
>terms, especially if later arugement shows the second one to not be a
>Section 101 compilation in some cases.
OK, ok. I have suddenly realized that I might be holding things up
here. Your initial presentation of the term 'partial program' was
problematic, but I may have given the concept too much weight in
understanding your argument. My apologies.
The point is, the program+library is the program, from the consumer
perspective, which, as I've indicated, is where software as copyright
derives from. I'd prefer you just use the term "the program", but that
might not be possible in the context of what you're trying to say.
So please forgive any mistakes on my part, and kindly restate the
conjecture you wished to use the term "partial program" in, in whatever
form you think most eloquently states the case.
>> 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.
>
>I hate that expression. (You might have noticed that some guy who tired
>of thinking about what he was discussing on g.m.d. brought his thread to
>a close today with "get a life".)
I don't subscribe to g.m.d, and have found that this comment rarely
actually closes a thread. :-)
I used to hate the expression, to. But that was when I had a life.
> You have a life and I dare guess it is
>more valuable to society than that of the jerks that would tell you to
>get one; it's certainly valuable to you, in any case. People have a
>great need to make others around them conform to their life choices
>because it lets them feel they have done the right thing if others do it
>too.
A very incisive comment, Pat.
>These same people get outraged if you suggest how their lives
>should be led. Don't be afraid to live your own life your own way
>unless you need that same confirmation. We all do to an extent; if that
>is the case or you don't like your life, then by all means take the bull
>by the corns and change your life today; not maybe tomorrow. End of sermon.
A nice one, it was. Feel free to post more, they seem to have more than
a touch of wisdom within them. But it is, in the end, rhetorical. As
is the sentiment "get a life". Consciousness for a handful of years,
that's "a life". And sure we all have one. Unless we're really Turing
Machines, incapable of determining that everyone else is because we are
one ourselves.
But anyway, my point is that you are right; those who say 'get a life'
are generally substituting morals and personal conviction for ethics and
reasoned argument. But that is, after all, beside the point. End of
meta.
--
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (C Lund)
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: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 01:34:19 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > You've never heard of the "working poor", have you? Look it up.
> Any body in the United States who "works hard" and has even the
> slightest clue about
> a) saving money vs. spending habits
> and
> b) the fluidity of the job market (i.e. you can always go get a
> NEW job if don't like what you're getting paid.).
> 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
> b) too lazy to find a better paying job.
Another republican living in an ivory tower.
When you work a full-time job and *still* can't afford to pay the rent,
you're among the working poor. Some even have *two* full-time jobs and are
barely capable of making ends meet. Not because of laziness. Not because
they have expencive habits or do drugs or buy crap they can't afford, but
simply because they don't get paid very much. When you have two full-time
jobs, you don't have the time to go looking for a better job. In fact,
those one or two jobs might be the only ones you could get. Not everybody
has a rich daddy who could pay for college. Not everybody qualifies for a
scholarship. And not everybody had a life situation that allowed them to
get a proper education. Life is tough on some people whetehr they deserve
it or not.
You need to get out more.
--
C Lund
http://www.notam.uio.no/~clund/
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 16:36:19 -0700
From: josco <[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 ...)
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> ZnU wrote:
> >
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Joe
> > Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, ZnU
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.
> > >
> > > You might want to check your facts.
> > >
> > > The funding level in some of those inner city schools isn't very
> > > different from suburban spending.
> >
> > In 1992 in New York state the richest (suburban, of course) school
> > district spent $38,572 per student vs. $5,423 for the poorest (inner
> > city).
> >
> > In Texas, it was $42,000 vs. $3,098.
> >
> > In Illinois, it was $16,700 vs. $2,276.
> >
> > > Money doesn't solve problems.
> >
> > No, but good teachers, good equipment and good facilities do, and money
> > pays for all of that.
>
> Evidently, this man has never been in the military.
>
> The majority of my military training, the classes have either been
> held outside (i.e. ***NO*** teaching facility), or some minimal
> resources structure. I once had a class on military digital
> telephone communications in a building that was literally falling
> apart. No heat, broken windows, roof was leaking like a seive,
> no electricity--the unit sponsoring the class had to bring in
> a generator on a trailer just so we could have electricity for the
> overhead projector (the facility was an old missile silo site south
> of Detroit...and the surface buildings had not been maintained
> in the slightest since the air force abandoned the site).
>
> And yet...despite tall of that....we learned the material.
>
> The problem with the public schools is *NOT* the quality of the
> facilities...no...the problem with the public schools is what
> material is being presented by the teachers...and what is not.
>
That's not a school. West Point is a Military School.
Tell us about your days at West Point.
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux..a trip down memory lane..
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 19:45:29 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Use Linux?
You betcha.
>
>
> Yea sure, and I would love to drive that 1975 Chrysler you have sitting in your
> garage.
No. It's Microsoft's offerings that are trying to catch up, at least in basic
functionality, as opposed to getting around NDA's.
>
>
> Linux is like a visit back in time... It takes operations that are simple under
> Windows, and turns them into a mess of reading, programming and general wasting
> of time.....It's all about applications and one quick look at freshmeat.net
> shows a collection of fragmented and useless applications only a true idiot
> could love.
>
OOH, and Microsoft Office is a good app? I'd rather use TeX.
>
> Try Netscape some time (Windows version will do) and see what you think...Oh
> yea, "several" browsers are in the works for Linux...Think they will ever see
> the light of day?
>
Netscape works OK for me.
>
> Doubtful....
>
> My advice?
>
I wouldn't touch your advice with a ten-foot pole.
>
> If you are interested, try Linux and see for yourself...
>
> http://www.cheapbytes.com
>
> You will soon become another dis-satisifed customer...
>
As I've been using it since 1/98, that claim is dubious.
>
> Linux is even worse than a piece of shit, it is more like a septic tank filled
> with fresh sewerage....
>
>
> Shit, what do you expect for $1.99?
>
If it's a cheapbytes Linux CD-ROM, quite a bit.
>
> Billy
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 20:01:13 -0400
From: Glitch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux..a trip down memory lane..
>
> Shit, what do you expect for $1.99?
>
> Billy
RH charges upwards of $180 I believe for a version of their distro.
Suse charges around $30 i believe.
Debian I'm not sure.
Slackware I'm not sure.
All of them are downloadable, execept for the higher end RH versions.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: 28 Aug 2000 00:02:37 GMT
On Sun, 27 Aug 2000 22:25:52 GMT, Mike Marion wrote:
>Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
>> Would you care to back up your bold claim with some statistics ?
>
>Just go to a site like cnn, do a search on social promotion and read some of
>the articles related to schools (you'll get hits on political stuff too).
I see. I'll make it clear now that I do not support this so-called
"social promotion", because it is a goal in direct opposition to that
of meritocracy.
However, I'll also reiterate that "social promotion"
tends to result in the incompetent attaining higher qualifications than
they would in the absence of such a system. But it doesn't mean that
competent kids suffer as a result, and it doesn't mean that these
incompetents come out any less skilled than they would otherwise ( it
merely means that they have higher degrees for the same skill level ).
This comment isn't directed at you in particular, it's a general
remark on this discussion.
When I did my year of high school in the US, they basically had everyone
work at their own pace, and the seniors would select from the
same group of courses as the sophmores. There was more or less
complete desegregation of year levels. Everyone basically worked through
the curriculum at their own pace. This struck me as a move in the right
direction, because students took courses based on their fitness for
that course, not on their age. However, I would be in favour of a move
to put in place certain course requirements for attaining different year
levels ( I believe they had some for graduation, but they were somewhat
weak )
Basically, I'm against the notion that students should complete one year
each calender year. Some students simply learn faster than others.
>Read what I wrote... I wasn't arguing that either system was better or worse
>at churning out students... I was simply noting that even though Japan's
>system seems to churn out better students, they do so at a high cost to those
>students lives through far too much pressure.
I appear to have misunderstood your original post. Sorry (-;
Cheers,
--
Donovan
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 20:11:49 -0400
From: Glitch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Courageous wrote:
>
> > >Evidently, you are unaware of the number of high school seniors (who
> > >*just* had a "government" class) who could not identify key phrases
> > >from the US Constitution. Some even believed that Leninist slogans
> > >were actually in the USC.
> >
> > Documentation please.
>
> Do you really require this? An important thing to recall when
> evaluating the human beings around you is that, indeed, half of
> them have I.Q.s under 100. Therefore, it should be no surprise
> at all when things like this happen.
>
> C//
You bring up a very good point. For those who don't believe this point
of view and also live in the states just watch Jay Walking on the
Tonight SHow (it is a segment they have on once in a while, but not
every show) and you will see just how dumb people are. It is sad but it
is hilarious the answers some people give to Jay's questions.
Kids are being passed to the next grade without really knowing
anything. Kids and adults alike go through school without being able to
read a single sentence. It is no surprise then they have no clue about
the US Constitution, or that it is also the name of an aircraft carrier
:) (correct me if I'm wrong on that last fact)
You don't need proof for this fact. If you dont' already know it from
just knowing how stupid people are around you then you live a very
sheltered life, however if you need proof then like I said, watch The
Tonight Show one night when they have the Jay Walking segment.
Brandon
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
