Linux-Advocacy Digest #351, Volume #29 Thu, 28 Sep 00 19:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Windows+Linux+MacOS = BeOS
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
Re: Windows+Linux+MacOS = BeOS
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Michael
Marion)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Nathaniel Jay
Lee)
Re: Windows+Linux+MacOS = BeOS (Michael Marion)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: Is Linux some kind of a joke? ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: Windows+Linux+MacOS = BeOS (Michael Marion)
Re: How low can they go...? (Jonathan Revusky)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (Michael Marion)
What're Linus's computer/laptop specs? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Windows+Linux+MacOS = BeOS
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 21:16:50 -0000
On Thu, 28 Sep 2000 20:11:34 GMT, Ingemar Lundin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Daniel Berger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev i meddelandet
>news:8r05ul$ie6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Ok, so I'm trolling a bit, but I'm not flaming any of these OS's. I
>> can say that I've tried all four of these (well, not much MacOS, but
>> the rest) and have found BeOS the best of all worlds (for home use).
>
>yeah you beos guys makes the linux geeks look like ms lovers ;(
>
>>
>> Like the command line? Beos has a Bash shell.
>>
>> Like the GUI? Beos has its own GUI, as well as Windows, Mac, Amiga and
>> Gnome look and feel options.
>
>beos gui ? yeah well... ripped like hell from windows , mac and nextstep
>
>>
>> SMP support? Yup - automatic. No configuration hassles.
>>
>> Can you say 64 bit OS? Ok, so *some* flavors of Unix are there, too.
>
>"som" unix:es (like sun solaris) has been there for close to a decade now ;)
>>
>> Can you say pervasive multi-threading? I thought you could.
>
>anything new? besides from that i mean?
>
>>
>> OpenGL support? Yup, and its gonna get *much* better real soon. Early
>> results already look *very* promising.
IOW, vaporware.
"real soon now"
>>
>> Stability? Your odds of crashing Beos are even less than crashing a
>> unix box. I've even *tried* to crash it and failed. Protected
>> namespace. Go figure. Don't even get me started on Windows.
>>
>
>beos chrash PRETTY frequently as anyone knows that tested it for a sustained
>amount of time
>
>> Think Linux is just as stable? Then try this: start linux -- turn off
>> PC without init 0. Possibly repeat one or two more times. Watch linux
>> crash.
>>
>> Shutting off the PC without an init 0 won't happen in your house? Then
>> you must not have power failures or small children.
>>
>
>meaning WHAT?
Among other things, he's talking out his ass.
Most operating systems have little problem being incorrectly
shut down. Even on non-journaled file systems most OSes don't
make it a habit to be writing to critical parts of the disk
all the time.
You can shutdown Redhat 4.x via the powerswitch on a regular
basis to no ill effect (except really long reboots). When my
machine was still shared with a WinDOS user, I did just this
actually.
What he's describing only sounds obvious if the only other OS
you've used is Windows 9x.
Nevermind the fact that Linuxen are now shipping with journaled
file systems as well as 64bit (on IA32) ones.
>
>
>> Apps? Oh, all right. BeOS doesn't have a ton of Photoshop-like apps,
>> but there is lots of freeware and shareware already. But then if we
>> based an OS's quality based on apps available, Windows would win hands
>> down. Are you *really* sure about that?
I have a shelf and a half of commercial appls (mostly games)
for my AltOS. What about yours? There exists a usable
threshold. Also, only being able to point to a single example
in any class of applications is a bad thing, even if you
happen to think that one example is the cat's meow.
>
>beos has'nt any apps beside those following base install and you know that!
That's a bit extreme but not too far from the truth. It's certainly
closer to the truth than if you had made that claim against MacOS
or Linux. Dunno about OS/2 though.
[deletia]
>> Ease of use? Totally subjective. You can always go back to DOS 6.22
>> or a command-line only unix if you really want to. I still have my
>> Wordstar disks, just in case.
>>
>
>yeah its easy to use, but apart from that?
...one could just get a cheap iMac if one
is primarily concerned with "easy".
Driver support certainly wouldn't be a concern and you would
have more apps available (some even available in retail stores)
not to mention a decent number of 1st tier PC game ports.
[deletia]
--
Claret is the liquor for boys; port for men; but he who aspires to be a hero
... must drink brandy.
-- Samuel Johnson
He was part of my dream, of course -- but then I was part of his dream too.
-- Lewis Carroll
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 21:21:55 GMT
Roberto Alsina wrote:
> Within the price range of a pentium PC is a large step from 'no matter how
> costly'. How do you expect to be taken seriously if you keep saying things you
> don't mean?
When people stop deliberately misinterpreting them.
By "cost" I referred to computer cycles. And from context, it was obvious
that I believe there are PLENTY of computer cycles to spare in an average
workstation.
> See? That is better. Putting a microkernel in the mix doesn't change the UNIX
> APIs much, since the UNIX APIs are mostly kernel-independent.
Putting a microkernel into the mix adds the microkernel API to everything
else. The elegance or lack thereof of the microkernel API (ie, what the
advocates of microkernels focus on) is completely besides the point since
it's only the elegance of the aggregate of all APIs that matters. IOW,
microkernels are stupid from top to bottom and are an evolutionary step
in the wrong direction.
> The road to debate passes through a point where you have to start arguing
> against the other guy's position, instead of a position you invent and assign
> to him.
Which usually happens because there is a little convention that people
follow which says that you clarify your position if someone gets it wrong.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Windows+Linux+MacOS = BeOS
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 21:22:25 -0000
On Thu, 28 Sep 2000 17:18:50 -0300, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>El jue, 28 sep 2000, Daniel Berger escribió:
>
>>Think Linux is just as stable? Then try this: start linux -- turn off
>>PC without init 0. Possibly repeat one or two more times. Watch linux
>>crash.
>
>Not a problem here. Of course I am using ReiserFS.
>
>>Shutting off the PC without an init 0 won't happen in your house? Then
>>you must not have power failures or small children.
>
>Or a 5 minute UPS and a decent desk.
Or just not bothering.
The notion of a power-hit being necessarily dangerous to
system software is a side effect of WinDOS dominance.
[deletia]
--
Only kings, presidents, editors, and people with tapeworms have the right
to use the editorial "we".
-- Mark Twain
That must be wonderful: I don't understand it at all.
-- Moliere
------------------------------
From: Michael Marion <[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: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 21:48:26 GMT
"Joseph T. Malloy" wrote:
> > I really hope this temper of yours doesn't cause you a brain vascular
> accident.
> > You would find that whatever you saved for retirement will be gone much
> faster
> > than you believe possible.
>
> You might be surprised to find that there are retirement "calculators" out
> there that let you take into account inflation. TIAA-CREFF and Fidelity's
Actually I think, and I might be wrong, that's not what he was saying. I
think he was trying to say that if his temper causes a medical condition (the
"brain vascular accident") that it would suck his savings dry in no time.
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc. -
http://www.miguelito.org
SCCS, the source motel! Programs check in and never check out! - Ken
Thompson
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 21:50:04 -0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spoke thusly:
>Chris Sherlock wrote:
>
>> OK, I don't want to take this personally, but you are making it a little
>> hard for me not to. Take a look at where you are posting! You are
>> stating that "Linuxers don't know what the fuck they're talking about
>> and are just being arseholes." I personally think that I have been very
>> reasonable and encouraging of you and your plans, but if you're going to
>> spout crap like this then you're on your own buddy!
>
>If I say that Americans are fat, stupid, ignorant assholes then that does
>not mean that I think this of *ALL* Americans. I know quite a few who
>don't fit the profile. I even know of quite a few that I admire. But if you
>compare them to people in other nations then Americans are all that.
>(Yes, I know I'm being offensive but it's the simplest way to make my
>point.)
>
Hey! I'm offended that you would imply some of us aren't
fat, stupid, ignorant assholes! If not for that, there
would be no pride in being an American.
Oh yeah, and you forgot the really important part of being
an American, "LAZINESS"! I like to consider myself a
perfectionist of laziness. I and one of my friends are
the only people I know that will spend an hour arranging
things just right so that we can sit in our recliners and
still reach the fridge for pop, the storage cabinet for
chips, and have an ethernet connection for our laptop
while watching TV. You ain't lived till you've perfected
laziness. Now that's something I'm proud of!
As for the stupidity, I think the obvious stupidity I show
in waking up to go to a job I hate is enough to vouch for
that.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: Michael Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows+Linux+MacOS = BeOS
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 22:05:38 GMT
Daniel Berger wrote:
> SMP support? Yup - automatic. No configuration hassles.
This differs from Linux/NT/Solaris/HP-UX/etc how?
> Can you say 64 bit OS? Ok, so *some* flavors of Unix are there, too.
SOME? Let's see: Linux (on alpha, sparc and I think Pa-risc), Solaris,
Tru64/Dec, HP-UX, and I think AIX and IRIX... not much else out there.
> OpenGL support? Yup, and its gonna get *much* better real soon. Early
> results already look *very* promising.
No OpenGL for me yet.
> Stability? Your odds of crashing Beos are even less than crashing a
> unix box. I've even *tried* to crash it and failed. Protected
> namespace. Go figure. Don't even get me started on Windows.
Hmm.. I've locked up and even crashed my BeOS 5 install a few times. Plus the
complete lack of a driver for my Geforce card makes it's video slower then
anything else, but like you say, that's a driver issue.
> Think Linux is just as stable? Then try this: start linux -- turn off
> PC without init 0. Possibly repeat one or two more times. Watch linux
> crash.
Always recovers for me.
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc. -
http://www.miguelito.org
"Because right now, developing software for Microsoft is like brushing the
teeth of a Great White Shark with a piece of raw steak." - Robert G. Brown,
Linux Today; Nov 13th, 1998
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[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
Date: 28 Sep 2000 22:09:07 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: True. Yes, the average american household is in debt...but, it's
: for the purpose of paying of real estate.
Most people in our line of work could afford to pay cash for a house
if they would live within their means. So could most others in the
middle class. When they choose not to, I conclude that they too are
acting unwisely, and to their own detriment, in their use/abuse of
debt.
Doesn't hurt me a bit - in fact since I work for a bank, it helps me -
but with just a bit more frugality and careful planning, most
middle-class people could easily spend most of their working lives
benefiting from, instead of being hurt by, compound interest.
: This is different than, say, going into hock to play the horses
: for another week.
I agree that they are different, but only in degree, not in kind.
Note: for people who genuinely could not afford a home without going
into debt, and can realistically expect to increase their earning
potential over time so that the mortgage becomes a dwindling portion
of their income and expenses, I don't object to their taking out
mortgages, as long as it is for a home they can genuinely afford, and
not one that will keep them in debt for the rest of their lives.
But for most people, loans for cars and computers and TVs and other
depreciating consumer items are just plain stupid. These should be
financed via savings, not debt.
Joe
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Is Linux some kind of a joke?
Date: 28 Sep 2000 22:11:32 GMT
Keith Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
.......
:>Sep 28 08:51:22 localhost troll-be-gone[1396]:redirected 1 message to /dev/null
:>Sep 28 08:51:22 localhost troll-be-gone[1396]:updating
:> /home/sandrews/News/Score
:>Sep 28 08:51:22 localhost troll-be-gone[1396]:[*]
:>Sep 28 08:51:22 localhost troll-be-gone[1396]:Score -9999
:>Sep 28 08:51:22 localhost troll-be-gone[1396]:From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
:>
:>[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]$
:>
: My god. This is BEYOND geek.
: You have WAY too much time on your hands.
But pretty damn funny I must say. :)
Joe
------------------------------
From: Michael Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows+Linux+MacOS = BeOS
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 22:11:49 GMT
"." wrote:
> Solaris has not been fully 64 bit for a decade. You dont know what youre
> talking about.
True, 2.6 was 32bit, but had 64bit file/memory access available if a program
was compiled with the right flags (man largefile).
2.7/7 was the first fully 64bit version.
> What else exactly runs *everything* in thread families? Besides realtime
> OSen I mean.
NT does IIRC.
Solaris sort of does, as each process is tied to a kernel thread.
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc. -
http://www.miguelito.org
Clark [talking to Cousin Eddie] "Can I refill your eggnog for you? Get you
something to eat? Drive you out to the middle of nowhere and leave you for
dead?" -- Nat'l Lampoon's Christmas Vacation
------------------------------
From: Jonathan Revusky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 00:21:55 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"James A. Robertson" wrote:
>
> JS/PL wrote:
> >
> > "James Stutts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > > One thing: why do have the people on Usenet post under a handle? Not
> > > willing to stand
> > > behind your statements?
> >
> > In that case, if "standing behind your statement" is your reasoning. Why do
> > you ONLY post under a real sounding name. Prove who you are with each post
> > if you are under the illusion that it you to stand behind your statement.
> > Why not post your name as well as a scan of an official ID , personal
> > references, social security number, work number, photos, credit
> > report...etc... Or are you not willing to stand behind your statements?
>
> In general, I agree with the poster (Mr. Stutts). In practice, I'm not
> so sure. After watching how much harrassment a bozo like pvdl is
> willing to dish out to people he doesn't like, I can certainly
> understand the desire for anonymity
Hi James,
We were in a discussion and you never saw fit to reply to some of my
points.
I asked you specifically whether you thought that libellous speech was
protected by the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Also, James, I took care to respond meticulously to all of your debating
points, and in response, I got a bunch of pathetic whining from you
about a what a bad guy I am.
In other words, you made no attempt to refute my counter-arguments. As
far as I could tell, by all rules of debate, you were conceding my
points. In other words, it seemed to me that by your response -- or lack
thereof -- that you were in fact conceding that that anonymous libellous
speech was not protected by the Constitution or Bill of Rights.
But I am still unclear on your position because, when I asked you to
clarify your position on various occasions, you never did.
Please. What is your position? Does the free speech guaranteed by the
Bill of Rights include a right to write libellous statements
anonymously?
Jonathan Revusky
>
> --
> James A. Robertson
> Technical Product Manager (Smalltalk), Cincom
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> <Talk Small and Carry a Big Class Library>
------------------------------
From: Michael Marion <[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
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 22:38:53 GMT
"Joseph T. Adams" wrote:
> But for most people, loans for cars and computers and TVs and other
> depreciating consumer items are just plain stupid. These should be
> financed via savings, not debt.
While I agree that doing it via savings is better, it's not always possible.
e.g. You have a new job and need a car to get there. You don't currently own
a car. You don't have enough money to buy one now, but will earn enough in a
year or so. The public transportation in your area sucks (in San Diego it can
take 2 hours to get somewhere via bus that takes 20 minutes in a car). It
would be wiser to get a car on a loan, with the lowest interest rate possible,
and pay it off as fast as you can so that you can, then to spend a year or
more enduring a lot of inconvenience to save what works out to small amount of
money.
I'm paying off my car at about 2x the rate per month, in fact I think my next
payment is due next April or something.. but I keep paying each month. In
fact, I have enough cash to pay it off now, and will likely do so. However,
at the time I got the car, I could not afford to pay for it all, and my car at
the time was falling apart.
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc. -
http://www.miguelito.org
Statler -- Well, how do you like the film?
Waldorf -- I've seen detergents that leave a better film than this.
-- From _The Muppet Movie_ (1979) [Note: those are the grumpy old guys]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: What're Linus's computer/laptop specs?
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 22:29:43 GMT
Just wondering what he (or you, if you're reading) is (are) working on
(working on)... We're having a discussion in class.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 22:42:59 GMT
Roberto Alsina wrote:
> El jue, 28 sep 2000, Richard escribió:
> >I was thinking of psychohistory, which in many cases has a lot more
> >explanatory power than sociology.
>
> You take your Asimov too seriously.
Run a search for it. Unlike gataflorismo, you'll actually find useful
references to it on the net.
> b) Decision making: the stock market makes decisions in the same sense any
> corporation does.
It depends what you mean by the stock market. If you separate out the
stocks from "the stock market" then the stock market is psychopathic.
If you don't make this separation then it's hard to conceive of the
stock market acting *on* something. Purely internal information pro-
cessing (eg, the information processing your cells perform) doesn't
count.
> >Psychopathy tends to imply antihuman behaviour.
> >The converse is not correct.
>
> Is there any large group of human beings with a common goal you don't see as
> psychopathic?
Nations are neurotic most of the time and periodically enter psychotic phases.
They are not psychopathic. Psychopathic grougs of humans would be the exception
if we didn't have corporations.
Cooperatives are noticeably NOT psychopathic. They score extremely low on the
Psychopathy Checklist-Revised; comparable to a normal human.
> That if permanent contact was an important cause of psychopathy, it would be
> simple to show cases where it occured.
"When, for a time, we created a program at Oak
Ridge which had only psychopathic patients in it, there
was constant intense interaction. But it was all heat and
no light. It's tough for people with a well developed
conscience -- trusting, empathic, affectionate people to
survive emotionally in such a setting even with powerful
protections built into the system. Entropy seems to lie
in the direction of the emotionally hardened,
suspicious, and uncaring."
-- E.T.Barker
Individual humans' /perception/ of corporations isn't of full
psychopaths but only of partial psychopaths.
> >No. I just don't like beings with no empathy (ie, psychopaths).
>
> Corporations are not beings, so you don't need to dislike them.
On the one hand I have psychopathic corporations and on the other
I have cooperatives, and you're telling me that I don't need to
dislike corporations for being psychopaths?!
> >A corporation's workforce (while it is working) forms part of its body,
> >and humans have information-processing and decision-making abilities.
>
> You are again antropomorphizing the corporation. "the driver (while he is
> driving) forms part of the body of the car, and humans have
> information-processing and decision-making abilities".
>
> So, by your logic, cars could be psychopaths.
Wrong. Cars still exist without drivers; people see cars without
drivers all the time. Corporations without employees do not exist
in the usual sense (the legal sense is not the usual sense).
After all, haven't you ever heard someone say the "most valuable
ASSET of our corporation is our employees"?
A corporation is not a set of papers in some vault; if it were
then one could say that a human being is a single strand of DNA.
Nor is it a set of empty buildings and equipment anymore than
a human being is just a dessicated corpse.
A corporation is a STRUCTURE of humans just like a human body
is a structure of cells. In both cases, the basic unit of the
structure is entirely replaceable as long as you do it a few
at a time. Taking out all the humans from a corporation is
analogous to taking out all the cells from your body. Just
where the fuck would /you/ be if someone did that to you?
Would you believe a killer who said that they had never killed
anyone because they'd just disposed of a bunch of cells, that
human beings are mere abstractions that don't exist at all?
And to further the analogy, I will point out that corporations
think corporate thoughts and that corporate thoughts need not
be traceable to a single human's mind, and sometimes they are
not traceable to *any* human (they can be the decisions of
computer software doing stock market analysis).
> >> >Don't dismiss all abstractions as anthropomorphization.
> >>
> >> Don't assing the capability to the object, but to the men operating it.
> >
> >Just how the hell do you define "corporation" anyways?
>
> "a body formed and authorized by law to act as a single person although
^^^^^^
Define.
> constituted by one or more persons and legally endowed with various rights
> and duties including the capacity of succession" is good enough for me.
>
> >> >LOL! Conscience?? How the hell could they be psychopaths if they
> >> >had any conscience?
> >>
> >> Perhaps self-awareness is a better term.
> >
> >Define it.
>
> Conscience of its own existence. Of course it assumes that the corporation is
> capable of rational thought, which it is not.
Generally, consciousness != conscience. You mean consciousness.
Define consciousness.
Define thought.
Define rational.
>From the definitions, prove that corporations are not capable of
rational thought. And yes, you *do* have the burden of proof.
> Ok, I take them back, then. You define what a "being" is and I'll play by your
> definition.
For the purpose of this discussion;
Being is an entity with will.
Entity is an object or structure.
Structure is undefined.
Object is undefined.
Will is a stream of decision-making.
Stream is a temporally ordered sequence.
Decision-making is the application of a value system to data in order
to arrive at a choice.
Choice is undefined.
Data is undefined.
Value is undefined.
Application is undefined.
> Cool then. Corporations have no decision-making abilities. The people working
> in the corporation do.
Incorrect.
Let's go back to the human body to clarify things.
Individual cells are capable of decision-making. Their decisions are very
boring, consisting mostly of "stretch in this direction", "contract in that
direction", and "put out this chemical" but they're still decisions. Some
of these cell-level decisions aggregate together and transcend the level
of individual cells to become systemic activity and then human activity.
Humans working in corporations do not make all of the decisions in a
corporation (which can't even be said of cells in human bodies!!) and
most of their decisions (eg, I'll jerk off at work today) never transcend
the level of the individual human, most of those that do (I'll give this
report to Jack) never transcend to the level of the organization. Only a
very few decisions reach the level of Corporate Decision and this has
NOTHING to do with the humans in the corporation but with the POSITIONS
of the humans in the corporation. A CEO does not derive his corporate
decision-making ability from the fact that he is a human being (which is
a good thing since CEOs aren't human beings) but from their POSITIONS
within the corporate structure. Corporate decision-making arises solely
from the fact of the existence of a corporation.
EXACTLY like human bodies.
The channels of corporate decision-making are very clear, very well-
defined and very explicit. It's possible to *clearly* distinguish
between a corporate decision made by a human and a merely human
decision. If you could do the same thing with a hurricane then you
could also say that hurricanes are beings; but since you can't, the
only way that you can say a hurricane is a being is if you squint
a lot.
> But so does the driver of a car. That is why I said that
> corporations have no more decision making capability than a car.
Your example is a trivial sort of structure. It would be like
saying that a colony of bacteria forms a body. <-- This isn't
a disproof of the fact that human bodies and corporations exist
and perform human and corporate decision-making.
Note that even in the case of a car, it is possible to show
how the car+driver unit behaves completely differently from
a human being alone. In particular, cars tend to stay on roads
and stop at parkings spots. This is a /constraint/ on drivers
that the car imposes.
It is especially important to note in your example that you
called the human being a DRIVER because it shows that the
human being in your example is not an independent being with
its decision-making independent of the car's.
Saying "the driver of the red jeep" is equivalent to "the
brain of Jack's body." The only reason it's not bizarre to
people is because people use this phrasing a lot in relation
to cars but never in relation to human bodies. And this is
so because human brains do not pop out of their bodies and
just start crawling around.
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 22:52:20 GMT
Roberto Alsina wrote:
> El jue, 28 sep 2000, Richard escribió:
> >How can a perfect psychopath develop an emotional attachment?
>
> It was an example. I see you carefully avoided the other two.
That's because corporations *can* develop traumas and phobias.
A corporation founded by a right-wing extremist will usually
remain right-wing (to its own detriment) long after its founder
is dust in his grave. Corporations have a definite formation
period when their character and mental makeup is especially
plastic. This is a rough definition of "childhood".
> No, I am not saying that, exactly. However, corporations, being inanimate
> objects, indeed lack emotions, among many other things.
Corporations are animate.
> Only rational beings are capable of empathy. A company's lack of empathy
> doesn't turn it into a psychopath, just like my car's lack of emotions doesn't
> make it a son of a bitch.
Empathy is not dependent on rationality.
And you are wrong that corporations can't have empathy. They
most certainly can (cooperatives do), they just choose not to,
and they choose so in the exact same sense that human psycho-
paths choose not to have empathy.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
