Linux-Advocacy Digest #455, Volume #29 Wed, 4 Oct 00 18:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Photoshop for Linux (Karen Rosin)
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)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Roberto
Alsina)
Re: SE is simply unstable!!! ("George")
Re: Linux and Free Internet? ("Mike")
Re: SE is simply unstable!!! ("George")
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?) (Roberto
Alsina)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
Re: Unix rules in Redmond (Michael Marion)
Re: Unix rules in Redmond (Michael Marion)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Roberto
Alsina)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Roberto
Alsina)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 00:24:14 +0200
From: Karen Rosin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Photoshop for Linux
"David M. Cook" wrote:
> On Sun, 01 Oct 2000 20:41:11 +0200, Bartek Kostrzewa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Why doesn't Adobe port Photoshop to Linux?
>
> Well, if they did sensible things, they wouldn't be Adobe, now would they.
>
> Dave Cook
They are to busy fighting with Macromedia...
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 21:32:42 GMT
Roberto Alsina wrote:
> El mi�, 04 oct 2000, Richard escribi�:
> >Wrong, moron. If anything, I'm saying that only people who build their own
> >homes know good design.
>
> I am pretty sure some good architects live in houses built by others.
I am pretty sure that most architects suck and that your standard of "good"
vis-a-vis architecture also sucks.
> >Wrong, imbecile. People who know pure OO languages well almost always know
> >crappy procedural languages like C++ and Java. You couldn't find an example
> >of the reverse if I gave you a century.
>
> Your logic skills are pathetic.
Why the astronomical density of your idiocy doesn't crush you into a black
hole is beyond me. Only cretins who can't ever work rigorously feel the
need to be pedantic at irrelevant times.
> There is no need, since you already gave me one. You see: if the person who
> knows pure OO languages always knows C++ and Java, then he is an example of a
> person who knows C++ and Java and knows pure OO languages.
>
> Now give me the century.
I have a vat of formaldehyde that will do nicely ....
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 21:43:15 GMT
Roberto Alsina wrote:
> El mi�, 04 oct 2000, Richard escribi�:
> >No, cretin. Psychopathy is a property of BEINGS, not humans. Aliens
> >could easily be psychopaths.
>
> Assuming they exist, the definition of human would probably extend to include
> them.
In that case, I demand that you formally and rigorously define 'human'
and explain why it includes or excludes 1) human psychopaths, 2) AI,
and 3( corporations.
And btw, you're a fucking cretin to not define human as homosapiens.
> >> >Consciousness is irrelevant. He *has* lost (some of) his rights
> >>
> >> Such as?
> >
> >The ability to piss when he wants to.
>
> Not in the corporation I work for.
And this is even remotely relevant because ..... ?
> >The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is not perfect and this can be judged
> >because human rights are *NOT* made in such declarations, they're only DECLARED.
>
> Sure. The UN, however, only declares rights they deem existing, one would
The UN is not an expert on moral philosophy!
> assume. So, they would disagree with you about there not being a right to
> religion.
I don't give a shit, and nobody who knows anything about morality gives
a shit either. And the mere statement of the theorem I gave would be
sufficient for anyone who knows anything about moral philosophy to be
able to construct the proof of it on their own.
> Again, not *all* their stock. You see, if a corporation announced a plan to buy
> back all the stock, the natural price point for stock would be exactly the
> fraction of the assets of the corporation (I'm guessing, but it sounds natural).
And of course, this is completely irrelevant since this situation never
needs to come to pass in order to go from corporation to cooperative;
what the original problem was and the only thing I gave a damn about.
A corporation can issue stock to its employees at the same time that it
is buying back stock from non-employees.
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 18:49:21 -0300
El mi�, 04 oct 2000, Richard escribi�:
>Roberto Alsina wrote:
>> El mi�, 04 oct 2000, Richard escribi�:
>> >Wrong, moron. If anything, I'm saying that only people who build their own
>> >homes know good design.
>>
>> I am pretty sure some good architects live in houses built by others.
>
>I am pretty sure that most architects suck and that your standard of "good"
>vis-a-vis architecture also sucks.
I am pretty sure you resorted to invective because you have no rational
argument.
>> >Wrong, imbecile. People who know pure OO languages well almost always know
>> >crappy procedural languages like C++ and Java. You couldn't find an example
>> >of the reverse if I gave you a century.
>>
>> Your logic skills are pathetic.
>
>Why the astronomical density of your idiocy doesn't crush you into a black
>hole is beyond me.
Amazing that I can be so idiotic, yet saw this glaring logical faux pas in
about a millisecond.
> feel the need to be pedantic at irrelevant times.
Unlike those who are pedantic at all times, and provide an example for what
they claim doesn't exist. But then again, I only know you in that category.
>> There is no need, since you already gave me one. You see: if the person who
>> knows pure OO languages always knows C++ and Java, then he is an example of a
>> person who knows C++ and Java and knows pure OO languages.
>>
>> Now give me the century.
>
>I have a vat of formaldehyde that will do nicely ....
Good. Take a dive.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
Reply-To: "George" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "George" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.windows98
Subject: Re: SE is simply unstable!!!
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 21:44:35 GMT
This new system came with SE installed.
--
George
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:rmLB5.3631$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Actually, I've found SE to be a lot more stable than FE (First edition).
I
> find that most faults related to Explorer tend to be either video driver
> related or DLL Hell related (did you upgrade over 98 FE? Try a clean
> install and it will probably be much more stable).
>
> "George" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:7vKB5.1554$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > At the moment it is 1024 x 768. I have had the problem at various
> > resolutions though.
> > Within the last few days, I have had sporadic problems with shut down.
> I'll
> > get a blue screen and have to kill power to shut down. There is only a
> flash
> > on [ctrl alt del.] No other response from anything.
> > I have all the current downloads from MS and Dell. One day the problem
> pops
> > up for no reason and the next day, it's gone.
> >
> > --
> > George
> >
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >
> > "Laurence Trister" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8r5jch$5hm$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Hi George
> > >
> > > It may be a strange question,but what is your screen resolution(when
IE5
> > > crashes)?
> > >
> > > Laurence
> > > "George" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:nIpB5.4060$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > I don't know about Linux, I have never tried it.
> > > > I'm a very small business and really don't need anything other than
> > > > something that will run my simple Quick Books business program, an
> Email
> > > > program, and a web browser. W98 did a fairly good job, but had
> problems.
> > > SE
> > > > crashes 5 times more than 98 did. When I use Netscape rather than
IE,
> I
> > > have
> > > > considerably less crashes unless I crank up an MS application such
as
> MS
> > > > Word .
> > > >
> > > > The bottom line is that SE is simply unstable. I don't care what
> anyone
> > > says
> > > > in it's defense. When you can't run a simple home based business
> program
> > > on
> > > > a OS without it constantly crashing, there is something wrong.
> > > >
> > > > When I first purchased my new Dell Inspiration 7500 series lap top,
> the
> > > only
> > > > software it had other than Norton AntiVirus, which I immediately
> removed
> > > > without even once using it, was MS software. Even before I installed
> > > > QuickBooks 6, the system locked up while I was using IE5.
> > > >
> > > > If Linux or someone else had an affordable OS for the general public
> and
> > > > "could market it," I'm sure that I'm not the only one who's business
> > they
> > > > would have.
> > > >
> > > > I agree totally that if an OS can't run well written software
> > > "particularly
> > > > it's own," it isn't a very good OS...
> > > > --
> > > > George
> > > >
> > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "Pete Goodwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> message
> > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Blacknight) wrote in
> > > > > <lq1B5.3924$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > > >
> > > > > >Yes you are correct. Windows 98 doesn't NEED TSR's any more but
> alot
> > of
> > > > > >computers have then loaded regardless.b Maybe the term I was
> looking
> > > for
> > > > > >was backgroup applications. Anyway the more programs you have
> running
> > > on
> > > > > >start up increases the probably of a crash. Anyway what I was
> getting
> > > at
> > > > > >is that people need to realize that the majority of time there is
a
> > > > > >crash it doesn't have anything to do with the OS.
> > > > >
> > > > > What you're saying then is that you shouldn't run too many
> > applications
> > > on
> > > > > Windows 98 SE in case they crash it? Isn't that the whole point of
> > using
> > > a
> > > > > computer?!?
> > > > >
> > > > > Our Linux Advocate friends here would say that Windows 98 SE can't
> be
> > a
> > > > > very good operating system if it can't hack it running a few
> > > applications
> > > > > in the background (something Linux does very well).
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Pete Goodwin
> > > > > ---
> > > > > Coming soon, Kylix, Delphi on Linux.
> > > > > My success does not require the destruction of Microsoft.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux and Free Internet?
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 16:44:41 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Nathaniel Jay Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.
>
> I'll add them to my 'list of bad Linux supporters' along with
> InterVideo.
>
> Intervideo was the company that was claiming to make a
> 'legal' DVD player for Linux (and the one that the MPAA
> was using to claim that DeCSS wasn't necissary for watching DVDs on
> 'other' operating systems). Nearly eight months after their initial
> announcement and they have burried the press release and have absolutely
> nothing but
> 'get WinDVD here' type of links on their site.
>
> I would bet by the end of the year they will say the same thing NetZero
> is saying now. Especially if the entire appeals process has run it's
> course in the DeCSS trial.
>
>
I'm unhappy that it didn't come out too. I'd like to be able to play DVDs
on my laptop while traveling.
Here is an article that MaximumLinux had a little while ago about
InterVideo's LinDVD.
Apparently they have it, and it works, but they don't want to develop
it.
http://www.maximumlinux.com/content/news/2000/09/15/11340
------------------------------
Reply-To: "George" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "George" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.windows98
Subject: Re: SE is simply unstable!!!
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 21:46:45 GMT
This gun won't shoot half the time anyway. I don't have to worry about
shooting myself in the foot.
3 times since I started this post, the system has switched me back to OE. It
does the same thing on my desk top system.
--
George
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Buster" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:a%LB5.55$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> George <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:7vKB5.1554$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> <whinning snipped>
>
>
> Win98SE has been very stable for me. Only problems I have had have been
> self inflicted. Hey when you shoot yourself in the foot,by all means blame
> the gun!! <wink>
>
> Buster
>
>
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 21:52:03 GMT
Roberto Alsina wrote:
> El mi�, 04 oct 2000, Richard escribi�:
> >human thoughts are ascribable to individual neurons. And you STILL don't
> >fucking get it!
>
> Maybve I don't get it because it's not true.
Nope, it's because you're an absolute moron.
> I could decide right now that we
> need 10 new computers to provide for another classroom. Or I could decide we
> don't. In both cases, it's a corporate decision (the corporation gets the
> classroom), and it is a decision *I* make, noone else.
Riiiiiiight. And you have no oversight on this? Nobody hired you? Nobody
checked that you were sane? Nobody ever reviewed your performance?
Internalizing other people's values does not make them yours.
> >You STILL think that "all thoughts must be traceable to
> >individual neurons or else thoughts can't possibly exist" <-- either that
> >or you believe that human thought is *magical*. IMBECILE!
>
> Or I think the analogy between humans in a corporation and neurons in the brain
> is flawed,
And yet you can't explain this magical invisible "flaw" in a rigorous
manner.
> as I have said a hundred times. Add this to the list of ways in
> which that analogy is flawed: decisions in corporations are traceable to
> individuals, thoughts in the brain are not traceable to neurons.
Wrong idiot; they're not traceable by *YOU* and you think that your
idiocy is an inherent trait of the universe, that it's not *your*
limitations, only the "universe's" limitations. Arrogrant cretin.
> >This isn't any kind of meaningful power on the scale of the corporation,
> >only enough to dominate people lower down in the corporate hierarchy.
> >Even the CEO does not have the power necessary to remake a corporation
> >for the better.
>
> According to you, he could turn the corporation into a cooperative.
No, shithead. I said that the *CORPORATION* could decide to turn
*ITSELF* into a cooperative. *YOU* are the one who identifies the
entire corporation with a single CEO (who obviously has no oversight,
right?).
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 18:52:23 -0300
El mi�, 04 oct 2000, Richard escribi�:
>Roberto Alsina wrote:
>>
>> El mi�, 04 oct 2000, Richard escribi�:
>> >> It is simple to explain Napoleon as a solar myth. Try it. Predictive power of
>> >
>> >Bullshit. Any such "explanation" will be utter nonsense.
>>
>> That's why explanatory power in itself is such a vaguely measurable thing.
>
>It is perfectly measurable. That humans tend to consistently fuck up the
>measurements is a purely HUMAN problem, completely outside the philosophy
>of science.
What metric would you use to measure "explanatory power"?
>> >Einstein wouldn't have given a damn.
>>
>> Einstein *did* give a damn. He was still alive, you know.
>
>Einstein didn't give a damn. He was never on the empirical side of things
>and he said as much. He was also an atheist.
Not really. You should read his humanistic book, whose name escapes me right
now. While not religious, he was spiritual.
>> > And neither would I since unlike most
>> >scientists I don't need predictions to be able to separate sense from nonsense.
>>
>> If the light had not curved, what would have happened to relativity?
>
>It would still be a beautiful theory.
And a wrong one. And shelved.
>> >immortal = does not age
>> >eternal = does not die
>>
>> Stop redefining english, please: "immortal: exempt from death", says Mr.
>> Webster.
>
>Stop using dictionary definitions, cretin.
Well, I tend to trust dictionary definitions when someone tells me I misuse a
word. Where should I look? I believed immortal to have a meaning. You claimed
it has a completely different one, one which I know doesn't fit the context
where I have seen the word used in the past. So, I look for a reference. If you
can provide a reference supporting your meaning and not mine, please provide.
> But then, you've yet to produce a rigorous definition.
And yet, you will surely say that "immortal = does not age" is a rigorous
definition of immortal, and that "immortal = does not die" is not, and further,
that your definition, which goes against all english usage in the last 300
years is the right one. How pedantic can you get?
>Immortal is not "exempt from death" since physical objects do not die and
>they are NOT immortal.
Some physical objects die. Cats, for instance. However, by your definition,
those objects that don't die may as well be immortals, since they also may not
age (iron doesn't age, does it?).
>> You have a very poor grasp at words, or change the definitions when they don't
>> fit you.
>
>I *define* words that have not been rigorously defined. You're too stupid
>to be able to do the same, or even recognize the need for it.
And you choose whatever definition you prefer, regardless of whether it has
even a passing resemblance to common usage. This "immortal" case is a shining
example. You decided that corporations are immortal. Thus, you define immortal
in such a way that corporations are immortal. You are unable to communicate.
>> >> I did. Now
>> >> you improved it. It still sucks.
>> >
>> >It matches MY conception of will just fine.
>>
>> Your conception of will sucks.
>
>Too fucking bad.
Indeed.
>> >You'll never see me patting chocolate ice cream on the back either. Doesn't
>> >mean that I don't like it, MORON!
>>
>> chocolate ice cream lacks backs, and you lack any taste in metaphor.
>
>I don't do metaphor. I do abstractions. Don't assume that everyone is
>as limited as you are.
If you were as limited as I am, you would be capable of metaphor. Since you
can't, in a way, you are more limited than I am.
>> >Cooperatives like children. Corporations actively dislike them.
>>
>> Cooperatives don't like children. Cooperatives don't have feelings.
>
>"like" is not a feeling, cretin!! Like is a derivation of PREFERENCE.
Cooperatives prefer children over what, exactly?
>> >> >They are so flawed, you're just going to great lengths to avoid passing
>> >> >a negative judgement on your friend Mr. Corporation.
>> >>
>> >> I really don't like corporations. I don't hold that against them, though.
>> >
>> >Same thing.
>>
>> What is the same thing as what?
>
>"not holding it against them" is the same thing as actively and deliberately
>avoiding passing a negative judgement.
No, it is not. You seem to lack understanding of judgement.
>> >No, I claim that YOU have no working definition. I have one but it's not my
>> >job to produce it and since you're an utter idiot, I would gain nothing from
>> >producing a working definition.
>>
>> Expressing value judgements based on a definition exclusive to you makes the
>> value jdgement exclusive to you. Therefore, the value judgement is subjective,
>> and undebatable. How convenient.
>
>Irrelevant since whether or not they're subjective, at least I *can* make
>value judgements; you can't!
Why? I could just as easily claim to have a functional definition that I am
refusing to give you. If I did, I would have just a stupid a position as yours,
though.
>> In Dolly, the genetic material was removed from an embryo cell and replaced
>> with the DNA from a cell of the original sheep. The functionality of the embryo
>> cell was not changed, and the otiginal cell was simply gutted and discarted.
>
>You're an ignorant imbecile. In Dolly, they had to reactivate all the genes
>that were inactive in the original cell's DNA. That qualifies as training.
Despite your obvious lack of knowledge of the issue, you still manage to be
wrong. There was no genetic manipulation whatsoever on the DNA that was placed
in the embryo cell.
>> The functionality of the mature cell was not changed, since that cell was not
>> even present in the embryo.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 21:55:05 GMT
Roberto Alsina wrote:
[a bunch of tripe.]
Ahhhh, this is finally coming to an end.
------------------------------
From: Michael Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix rules in Redmond
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 21:57:20 GMT
Drestin Black wrote:
> Come on Mike, you know one answer doesn't fit every question. Obviously
> there are situations where Gig adapters will excel but not in the scenario I
> was discussing/discribing (unless I misunderstood the situation). I'm using
> gig over copper quite happily at two installations - we find multiple NICs
> perform better when there are more users doing large amounts of relatively
> small requests. When the transfers are long/streams the bigger individual
> pipes are the way to go. Depends on usage, I know you know that.
How did it not fit? We have tons of users doing tons of requests (both large
and small, but more small from what I've seen) and Gig far outperforms
individual smaller connects. Of course if we could put so many quad 100Mbit
cards in that we have more then 1Gig.. then it might change. :)
Like I said, if your machines can't push more data over Gig, even with tons of
small requests, then either your adapters or OS aren't working as they
should. Then again, we're using filers built for this, so they might have a
much more optimized network stack.
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc. - http://www.miguelito.org
My favorite error message from xscreensaver:
bsod: Couldn't allocate color Blue.
------------------------------
From: Michael Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix rules in Redmond
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 21:58:34 GMT
Drestin Black wrote:
> Actually, depending on what you are doing there will be many cases where 2 x
> 100 Mb/sec NICs > 1 x 1 Gb/sec NIC when serving more than one target. Sure,
> if you just want to move a huge chunk of data from point a to b, a single
> stream, the biggest single pipe will win. I expect that is not the case here
> and that's why my suggestion towards multiple 100 mb/s NICs. ALSO, fault
> tolerance - I'd rather have 2 NICs than 1 when one of them crashes eh?
Actually I'd rather have an HA filer pair so that if one's NIC (or entire
head) dies.. the other can take over in less then 15 seconds.
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc. - http://www.miguelito.org
#define QUESTION ((2b) || !(2b)) /* Shakespeare */
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 19:02:50 -0300
El mi�, 04 oct 2000, Richard escribi�:
>Roberto Alsina wrote:
>> El mi�, 04 oct 2000, Richard escribi�:
>> >No, cretin. Psychopathy is a property of BEINGS, not humans. Aliens
>> >could easily be psychopaths.
>>
>> Assuming they exist, the definition of human would probably extend to include
>> them.
>
>In that case, I demand that you formally and rigorously define 'human'
>and explain why it includes or excludes 1) human psychopaths, 2) AI,
>and 3( corporations.
In your words, why should I bother? But hey, today, I'd say it includes every
person who is of the homo sapiens species. I suppose you could define homo
sapiens semi-formally, somehow, based on commonality of DNA.
>And btw, you're a fucking cretin to not define human as homosapiens.
If a homo neanderthalensis was alive today, he would probably be considered
human, too. The definition would have to be modified.
>> >> >Consciousness is irrelevant. He *has* lost (some of) his rights
>> >>
>> >> Such as?
>> >
>> >The ability to piss when he wants to.
>>
>> Not in the corporation I work for.
>
>And this is even remotely relevant because ..... ?
It shows that "corporations deny employees the right to piss" is not a correct
statement.
>> >The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is not perfect and this can be judged
>> >because human rights are *NOT* made in such declarations, they're only DECLARED.
>>
>> Sure. The UN, however, only declares rights they deem existing, one would
>
>The UN is not an expert on moral philosophy!
I am pretty sure some UN staff are.
>> assume. So, they would disagree with you about there not being a right to
>> religion.
>
>I don't give a shit, and nobody who knows anything about morality gives
>a shit either.
I don't care. All I said is "the UN would disagree". Just showed you they
indeed would disagree. If you care or not, I don't care. You are free to
believe that there is no right to have a religion. Just acknowledge plenty of
others disagree, with good reasons.
[snip]
>> Again, not *all* their stock. You see, if a corporation announced a plan to
buy >> back all the stock, the natural price point for stock would be exactly
the >> fraction of the assets of the corporation (I'm guessing, but it sounds
natural). >
>And of course, this is completely irrelevant since this situation never
>needs to come to pass in order to go from corporation to cooperative;
It is the path you suggested for such a thing to happen. If you say this
doesn't need happen, I would say you had not needed suggesting it.
>what the original problem was and the only thing I gave a damn about.
I still believe such a thing is not possible. How could it happen? The way you
suggested doesn't seem to work.
>A corporation can issue stock to its employees at the same time that it
>is buying back stock from non-employees.
It would break the corp's fiduciary duty, and be probably forbidden by law.
And even if it wasn't, the employees would have worthless stock, since the
dilution of value would be even greater.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 19:10:31 -0300
El mi�, 04 oct 2000, Richard escribi�:
>Roberto Alsina wrote:
>> El mi�, 04 oct 2000, Richard escribi�:
>> >human thoughts are ascribable to individual neurons. And you STILL don't
>> >fucking get it!
>>
>> Maybve I don't get it because it's not true.
>
>Nope, it's because you're an absolute moron.
>
>> I could decide right now that we
>> need 10 new computers to provide for another classroom. Or I could decide we
>> don't. In both cases, it's a corporate decision (the corporation gets the
>> classroom), and it is a decision *I* make, noone else.
>
>Riiiiiiight. And you have no oversight on this?
None whatsoever. I am in charge of such things. Unless you mean that budgeting
is overseing me. But then again, I do the budgeting for my area.
> Nobody hired you?
Nobody that worked or currently works in this corporation.
> Nobody checked that you were sane?
Usually, employees are required to take a test. I was not.
> Nobody ever reviewed your performance?
Not yet. Probably in the future when we have a more formal management
structure. I review the performance of others, currently.
>Internalizing other people's values does not make them yours.
Whose value am I internalizing?
>> >You STILL think that "all thoughts must be traceable to
>> >individual neurons or else thoughts can't possibly exist" <-- either that
>> >or you believe that human thought is *magical*. IMBECILE!
>>
>> Or I think the analogy between humans in a corporation and neurons in the brain
>> is flawed,
>
>And yet you can't explain this magical invisible "flaw" in a rigorous
>manner.
>
>> as I have said a hundred times. Add this to the list of ways in
>> which that analogy is flawed: decisions in corporations are traceable to
>> individuals, thoughts in the brain are not traceable to neurons.
>
>Wrong idiot; they're not traceable by *YOU* and you think that your
>idiocy is an inherent trait of the universe, that it's not *your*
>limitations, only the "universe's" limitations. Arrogrant cretin.
You just said thoughts are not traceable to individual neurons the previous
post. Maybe you should not consider your stated position so harshly.
>> >This isn't any kind of meaningful power on the scale of the corporation,
>> >only enough to dominate people lower down in the corporate hierarchy.
>> >Even the CEO does not have the power necessary to remake a corporation
>> >for the better.
>>
>> According to you, he could turn the corporation into a cooperative.
>
>No, shithead. I said that the *CORPORATION* could decide to turn
>*ITSELF* into a cooperative. *YOU* are the one who identifies the
>entire corporation with a single CEO (who obviously has no oversight,
>right?).
The CEO can have a degree of oversight from the board. Noone oversees the
board (except law, but that's external to the corp.).
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
