Linux-Advocacy Digest #498, Volume #29 Fri, 6 Oct 00 23:13:04 EDT
Contents:
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: To all you WinTrolls (Grega Bremec)
Re: To all you WinTrolls (Steven W. Mentzer)
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?) (Richard)
Re: To all you WinTrolls (Grega Bremec)
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: To all you WinTrolls ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Donovan
Rebbechi)
Why is MS copying Sun??? (Hansang Bae)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes ("Joe Malloy")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2000 01:19:16 GMT
Roberto Alsina wrote:
> El vie, 06 oct 2000, Richard escribi�:
> >Roberto Alsina wrote:
> >> Vulcans do have values. They apply logic to act according to those values. At
> >> least, that's as much as I gather.
> >
> >Psychopaths have values as well. Unless you're using the word 'values'
> >in some kind of fuzzy enobling sense.
>
> Let's say "good values". They also have empathy, because, what else is a mental
> meld?
It's *not* empathy. And even if it were, all it would mean is that Vulcans
aren't psychopathic *towards their meld partner* for the duration of the meld.
> >> > Psychopaths behave only based on logic as well.
> >>
> >> If they did, they wouldn't ever kill people. After all, I don't think they want
> >> to die in the chair, which is one of the logical outcomes of such actions.
> >
> >This is probably why most psychopaths never kill people.
>
> Then, the "only" you gave was not really right, was it?
Killing someone is a perfectly logical thing to do if you feel
absolutely nothing for them, don't care how they feel (lack
empathy), they annoy you, and you don't expect to be caught.
> >> I gave you one, but I'll give you another: anything that can breed with a human
> >> is a human, anything that can breed with something that can breed with a human
> >> is a human, and I am human.
> >
> >Neanderthals could not breed with humans and yet you claimed that
> >they were human.
>
> I didn't claim exactly that. And whether they could or could not breed is to be
> proven.
Riiiiight. That they could interbreed with humans "merely" contradicts
everything biologists know about speciation. So of course, it's "to be
proven".
> Besides, I have said that given the example of another thinking
> species, I might have to change the definition of human. What I gave was the
> definition as of Oct. 6, 2000.
How very convenient for you, this way you can set yourself up as an oracle
and change definitions pretty much whenever it suits you.
> >Employees *AS A GROUP* cannot get bank loans sufficient to buy a corporation.
>
> Maybe they could. What is really wrong is that you say that since they can't,
> it's because "[banks] won't deal with cooperatives". Banks deal with
> cooperatives all the time, and loan them money.
Which must be why (already established) cooperatives have such hard
access to capital despite much higher success, growth and return rates.
This makes *perfect* sense.
> >That *was* the context of my statement, was it not?
>
> It was one possible context. "employees can't get loans"can mean they can't as
> a group or as individuals. No big deal, it's clear now.
I was talking about cooperatives and why it's so difficult to form them.
If you think that getting a loan as an individual is *at all* relevant
to this then you need to get your head examined.
> >> Then it's not quite "their stock", is it?
> >
> >Oh, so you're one of THOSE people. Do you also believe that if you can't
> >dump toxic waste on your land then it's not "your land" and that if you can't
> >sell your organs away then it's not "your body"? Fucking right-wingers.
>
> I am probably more left-wing than any major political organization in the US,
> but anyway: A property is not mine if I can't sell it.
And who is it that brought up the question of property? Have you never
heard of *possessions*?
Since both of the USA's major political parties are right-wing, and you
only claim to *probably* be more left-wing than them, are you or are you
not a right-wing extremist?
> Because stock that you can't sell is worth less than stock that you can sell.
> Thus you need more than one share sold to an employee to buy one non-employee
> share.
Not until the employee liquidates the stock, which can only happen
when the employee quits, is fired or retires.
> >Owning stock in a cooperative isn't an option, it's an obligation.
>
> And it makes no difference to the argument.
Of course it does. If you have to buy the stock for 10$ and it
*would* sell for only 9$ as non-transferrable, this doesn't mean
that you can't still charge the employees 10$ for it. The company
has until the employees retire to make up the difference in value
instead of having to absorb the difference at cooperative formation.
And as long as you hire replacements for the employyes that retire,
you never have to make up the difference.
> "The incompleteness theorem doesn't mean what people
> think it means. All it means is that the formalists (people
> like me) were right all along and that concepts without
> any sensible formal definition (like "truth") *do* mess up
> everything. Other than that, the thoerem is a trivial statement about the
> resolution of infinite problem domains using finite axiomatic sets."
>
> So, you reduce the Goedel theorem to silliness and a trivial statement.
The philosophical implications of Godel's theorem are not "silly".
> Specially since there is nothing in Goedel about concepts without sensible
There doesn't need to be. Godel's incompleteness theorem is a
counter-example to other people's silliness.
> formal definitions. There can't be, AFAIK there is no symbol for "things that
> are not properly defined" in maths.
"undefined"
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2000 01:28:20 GMT
Steve Mading wrote:
> Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : classes and primitive types are not objects). Objects in Smalltalk cannot
> : access each other's parts (in C++ friends can access each other's private
> : parts).
>
> So, that's one less useful feature.
Good riddance. "friends" is only useful to the lazy or non-OO
programmers.
> Am I to assume from this that the expression x + 3 * y would be
> interpeted in left-to-right order, which is plain wrong from an
> algebraic standpoint? If so, then that's one less feature.
You are correct, that "feature" is absent in Smalltalk. And good riddance!
Why the hell would I *want* to switch from a programming mindset to an
algebraic mindset in the middle of programming ??
> : OO means "everything's an Object" not "polymorphism and inheritance".
> So apparently OO means less useful features then? More pain in
Incorrect. OO means less *useless* features, less clutter, less junk,
less garbage. A well-crafted tool that does exactly what you want and
nothing more as opposed to a Rube Goldberg machine imposed on you.
> the ass work to get around restrictions that shouldn't even
> belong there in the first place?
If you want to be NON-OO then you have to work at it in Smalltalk.
If you want to be OO then you have to work at it in C++.
Which language is easiest will depend on what you want to be ...
> A good OO language should *ALLOW* one to create good OO code, but
> not *require* it for every dinky little hello world program.
In Smalltalk I can evaluate 'hello world' anywhere. Or even
Transcript show: 'hello world'.
A good OO language should make being OO easy. C++ does not do that.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Grega Bremec)
Subject: Re: To all you WinTrolls
Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2000 01:29:07 GMT
...and Roberto Alsina used the keyboard:
>
>Well, on Solaris you get a shell without command history, a broken
>international keyboard mapping for X, a tendency to corrupt the display if you
>don't run xconsole, CDE, a broken vi, a larger memory footprint, and no support
>for cheap hardware (like IDE CD-recorders).
>
ROTFL, I like your point of view :-)
Seriously, though, it took me 4 days of editing nei.conf and
/devicedb/master, digging around manpages (at least these are good in
Solaris, although scattered around a bit where they should be in one
piece, and too monolithic where there is a reason to split them...) in
order to set up one fscking NE2K-PCI card. In the end, I wound up with
a bin->hex table, splitting bits and bytes of the PCI ID and
calculating memory addresses of that card like some high school
pre-graduate... I don't think the average "mortal" would ever be able
to make it work. And I hate the fact there's only one console in text
mode.
Cheers,
--
Grega Bremec
grega.bremec-at-gbsoft.org
http://www.gbsoft.org/
------------------------------
Subject: Re: To all you WinTrolls
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Steven W. Mentzer)
Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2000 01:31:36 GMT
>
>I just had another handful last night on my 2k box. It was stable for awhile,
>but I wanted to try my Hauppage WinTV card again since Hauppage came out with
>some newer drivers awhile back. I was using a Pinnacle Sys Studio PCTV in the
>mean time, but the Hauppage always did have a slightly better picture. Boot
>up, open a capture app.. bang. BSOD. Recommended fix: disable ACPI (IRQ
>conflicts) which requires a full freaking re-install of 2k to accomplish!
>
>Same hardware config used on same box under linux: Rock solid.
>
This is a badly written system-level driver. The OS isn't at fault in this
case.
Now, if the glue chip drivers (BX,i820,i840) system drivers that ship with
Win2k were at fault, then I can see a real problem with the OS.
But the fact that hauppage doesn't know how to develop a Win2k driver doesn't
make Win2k bad.
I can develop a linux block driver that will panic the kernel in a few minutes.
Does that make linux bad?
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2000 01:38:46 GMT
Roberto Alsina wrote:
> Richard did. He mentioned symmetry as one of the universal measures of beauty.
> I really hope he believes a cubic building is more beautiful than, say, Bilbao's
> Guggenheim. It is, after all, much more symmetric.
A cubic building also violates many other laws of beauty.
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2000 01:39:33 GMT
Bob Hauck wrote:
> It is helpful if you want to be able to load code at runtime. To
> really take advantage of it you probably need to have an interpreted
> environment though. I'm coming around to the view that this is ok if
> the interpreter has an easy interface to C for the stuff that really
> needs to be fast.
People keep saying "interpreted environment" but Smalltalk code hasn't
run on top of interpreters in a LONG time.
You can define your own C primitives in Squeak Smalltalk. Dolphin ST
has access to external libraries but I don't know how it works exactly.
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2000 01:42:07 GMT
Roberto Alsina wrote:
> It's not more precise, and the information it conveys is ideological. Of an
> ideology I don't share, too.
Too bad.
> >Who wouldn't understand Odysseus ??
>
> Anyone who has not bothered to learn about classic literature.
And they will understand Ulysses ??
> >And H2O isn't the same thing as water.
>
> Pretty much.
Not even close.
Next you'll be telling me that ponds are the same thing as lakes.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Grega Bremec)
Subject: Re: To all you WinTrolls
Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2000 01:41:41 GMT
...and Nigel Feltham used the keyboard:
>
>How do the different versions of BSD (freebsd,netbsd, etc) compare with
>linux. I have used linux for 6 years since I had my first version of
>slackware 2.0 on a magazine coverdisk and now currently use Mandrake 7.1 on
>my laptop and suse 6.4 on my main machine but have just got hold of a
>magazine covermount version of suse 7.0 so may give this a try on the
>laptop - I have not got round to trying any version of BSD yet.
I'm also only just starting in BSD, so take it for what it's worth,
but as far as I've managed to play around with it (about half a year),
it's not all that different from Linux (look & feel -wise). Granted,
there are some notable differences between BSD flavours, but the
overall approach seems to be the same.
Since you used Slackware, you probably wouldn't have a problem
customizing the booting phase, as Slack has quite a BSDish rc system,
manpages and other sources of online information are _GREAT_, software
comes in plenty, as porting isn't all that difficult, and performance
might even be better in some cases.
What I miss though, is some of the more "exotic" features, like
setting up a fbdev console (to replace that disgusting 80x25 font with
something more appropriate, like 140x70), java (Linux-emu only IIRC),
software RAID booting, and I could probably come up with more. But as
I said, it's all pretty much non-standard stuff.
Cheers,
--
Grega Bremec
grega.bremec-at-gbsoft.org
http://www.gbsoft.org/
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2000 01:48:35 GMT
Roberto Alsina wrote:
> El vie, 06 oct 2000, Richard escribi�:
> >Roberto Alsina wrote:
> >> El vie, 06 oct 2000, Richard escribi�:
> >> >You're a tumour because your behaviour is unchecked.
> >>
> >> Your analogy is not working very well, I'd say. Do you think cells have some
> >> sort of super-cell that watches over them?
> >
> >Yes. They're usually called T-cells.
>
> And who watches the T-cells? Or are they tumors?
Who watches the shareholders?
> BTW: I see you deleted the part about me producing a net benefit to the
> "corporate organism". That kinda kills the analogy of me as a tumour, doesn't
> it?
Ask an MBA. I doubt they will agree.
> >> > which has destroyed
> >Do you seriously suggest that a government obsequious to foreign psychopaths
> >is going to discourage local psychopaths?
>
> I seriously doubt such a statement has any meaning, how could I agree or
> disagree?
Then you haven't been following along. Big surprise.
> >Is that what you call confusing "most" members of a group with "all"
> >members of a group?
>
> There was no "most" in your original post. Feel free to look it up.
Because that's what people understand by "group". The existence of exceptions
does not invalidate general laws in the social sciences (or anywhere else for
that matter).
> >> No. I just know several persons who work in companies, and I also see them
> >> off-work, and they seem to be the very same all the time.
> >
> >So did the Greeks. At least, to themselves.
>
> I fail to get the meaning of what you just wrote.
The Greeks were schizoid. They also considered themselves to be the very same
all the time. Unless they were possessed .... Never mind.
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2000 01:50:32 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> Said Richard in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >Usually called "internal" vs "external" consistency. The first is also
> >called "self"-consistency. It's not like this terminology is hard to
> >figure out, is there some reason why you eschew it?
>
> I don't; I just didn't think to use it in this context. I don't think
> that calling it 'internal' or 'external' consistency is a sufficiently
> clear concept to make it the optimal response.
And you claim to know how philosophical terms are defined ??
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: To all you WinTrolls
Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2000 03:04:07 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Pan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> Todd wrote:
>
>> But it isn't nearly as good as Windows 2000 nor as feature complete. Heck,
>> most UNIX are way better than Linux as well. For example, HP-UX / Solaris /
>> FreeBSD.
>
> What "features" do you get with a BSD or Solaris, or HP-UX, that you
> don't get with linux? Just curious because I though I've been using
> linux since 1996, I haven't used Solaris for roughly 5 years, and I've
> never used BSD or HP-UX and most of the people who say things like that
> are simply parroting what they've heard elsewhere.
Well I haven't used a bsd since 4.3. Compared to DEC's alternative at
the time, Ultrix, BSD was excellent. I'm sure it is even better now.
When Sun switched from SunOS 4.x (latterly called Solaris 1.x) to
SunOS 5.x (Solaris 2.x) it was a disaster. The early Solaris 2.x
releases were awful. Since Solaris 2.5.1 (SunOS 5.5.1) it has been a
very stable OS. Once you have configured a Sun box it just runs and
runs. Sun's come into their own when used as servers on decent
hardware (not their desktop machines such as the SS5, Ultra-1,
Ultra-5, whose IO performance is crap. Their server hardware is
excellent).
I've only used HP/UX a little a few years ago. Compared to the other
Unix's I've used it was an absolute pig.
Today I use SunOS 5.x and Linux exclusively. Linux is by far the
easiest 'Unix' to work with these days for administrative purposes. It
is also the best supported for many applications. I have recently
installed RedHat 6.2 on my Sun workstation at work. The performance
difference is amazing. I dumped CDE, when I used Solaris, a long time
ago as it was such a memory hog. I then ran xfce in its place. I now
run gnome at work on my Sun workstation and at home on my Linux PC.
For me the main advantage of Linux is choice. I can choose which
distribution I want and there are oodles of packages available for
them. If there isn't a package for any particular distribution then I
grab the source tarball and build it myself.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: 7 Oct 2000 02:18:13 GMT
On Sat, 07 Oct 2000 00:50:15 GMT, Richard wrote:
>Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>> In C++, you can make classes objects if you like.
>
>Which means that C++ classes are *not* objects.
They can be, but are not always. I think this is where our philosophy
differs. You like being forced to do things a certain way. I don't
really care for it that much.
>Or even better, like claiming that English is beautiful because you can
>write beautiful things in it.
Not a bad analogy. I'd take a pragmatic viewpoint and conclude that English
was a viable language for "writing beautiful things".
>In Java, primitive types are NOT objects. You have objects that
>contain primitive types and you have primitive types, don't
>confuse the two.
I thought everything derived from Object in java, though I haven't used it
that much.
>> I don't see how that makes C++ "less object oriented". If you don't like
>
>It makes C++ disgusting. It also DOES make C++ non-OO since people
>understand objects to have certain properties like solidity and non-
>interpenetrability which you have just admitted C++ does not have.
It only allows very limited penetrability, and friends must be declared
in the class, so you can control who can see your class.
Friends are rareely used for anything besides operator overloading.
I certainly don't use them for anything else.
>> friends, don't use them. C++ is a multi paradigm language. You can
>> program OO in it if you like, but it doesn't force you to.
>
>IOW, C++ is not OO. "supporting" OO is not the same thing as *being* OO.
Whatever. Supporting OO is good enough for me. I think a lot of people
would again disagree with you.
>And I just bet that all of those people would know nothing about Self,
>Smalltalk or Eiffel. They would all be ignorant C++ or Java programmers.
Dead wrong. A lot of them are well versed in these languages. For example,
Stroustrup is familiar with Smalltalk and Simula.
A lot of the leading authors of OO books and C++ books tend to be
familiar with languages such as self and smalltalk.
In fact, a lot of C++ idioms are partly inspired by features in some
of these languages ( for example, classes-as-objects )
>Smalltalk started this little clique called OOP and C++ programmers
>were too lazy to fulfill the membership requirements so they started
>telling themselves that they were part of the clique because it was
>the cool thing to be at the time.
An interesting interpretation of history indeed.
>It's a chimera, a frankenstein's monster, that is neither procedural
>nor OO. This does not make it /both/ procedural and OO, it makes it
>*neither*.
That's funny, you said it was "procedural" just a moment ago.
>A programmer *can* create an OO program in C++ but the language itself
>isn't OO, will never be OO, and this forces programmers who want to
>remain OO to reimplement everything that is not an object in C++. When
The only such "re-implementing" that needs to be done tends to be
when you use C libraries. You have the same problem when you try
to use C functions in Smalltalk.
>Java is neither procedural nor OO, it's hype-oriented.
That's funny, it was procedural a moment ago.
>> Well, apart from philosophical beauty, it's not clear that the former
>> has any tangible advantages ( i'm not going to argue about whether
>> philosophical beauty is a tangible advantage or not )
>
><rolleyes> Learn to (seriously) program in Smalltalk and *then*
Why don't you learn to program seriously in something besides Smalltalk ?
To be honest, I'm interested in learning it. I'm not trying to trash
smalltalk, but I think your comments about C++ are misguided.
>different experience from programming in a non-OOPL language. You
>are vastly more productive in it,
It depends on what you are trying to achieve. For systems programming,
people often program in a procedural style. For some things, generic
programming works well.
>And finally, in a world where you don't have to read a line of anyone
>else's code, it might be fine if other people aren't as OO as you are.
>That world is not the Real World.
Go implement something concrete and then lecture us about the "real world".
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: Hansang Bae <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.arch,comp.lang.c,alt.conspiracy.area51,comp.os.netware.misc,comp.protocols.tcp-ip,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: 7 Oct 2000 02:26:49 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Lew Pitcher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Actually, IBM went unannounced to Digital Research (the CP/M and CP/M
>86 guys), but Gary K. was out of the office (flying his plane, IIRC),
>and IBM got miffed. IBM then went to Microsoft (who at the time didn't
>have an OS product to offer) and Microsoft won the contract to supply
>an OS for the IBM PC. Microsoft quickly _licenced_ the source code for
>a CP/M-like OS for the 8086 from a small software firm in (IIRC)
[snip]
IBM went to MS for an OS. MS told IBM that "we do compilers, not OSes.
Go talk to the Digital folks"
When IBM came back to MS (after Kildahl and his wife said no to the
NDA), they took it upon themselves to fool IBM into thinking they had a
"ready to go OS"
hsb
"Somehow I imagined this experience would be more rewarding" Calvin
********************************************************************
Due to the volume of email that I receive, I may not not be able to
reply to emails sent to my account. Please post a followup instead.
********************************************************************
------------------------------
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
Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 22:22:25 -0400
"." wrote:
>
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "." wrote:
> >>
> >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > "." wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >> > news:8riija$23c$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >> >> > How it's SUPPOSED to work or how it actually DOES work? The two are
> >> >> >> > very different indeed.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I suspect that no one in this thread understands the details of either one.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> One of the very interesting things that people of this type seem to miss is
> >> >> > that
> >> >> >> in actuality, only a very tiny percentage (if any at all) of their tax
>dollars
> >> >> > goes
> >> >> >> towards welfare at all. In fact, until the clinton administration, every
>last
> >> >> >> penny of the federal income tax of everyone who lived west of the missisippi
> >> >> >> river went toward paying off the interest on the national debt. Now that we
> >> >> >> have been running positive for a few years and tax spending has been
> >> >> > restructured
> >> >> >> nearly entirely, again, little or no amount of your taxes go towards
> >> >> > supporting
> >> >> >> anyone on welfare.
> >> >>
> >> >> > WHAT?! Are you kidding? Have you seen a recent budget? More than 1/3 of the
> >> >> > U.S. budget goes to supporting Welfare and welfare related programs.
> >> >>
> >> >> No, actually just a little bit less than 1/3 is dedicated to domestic social
> >> >> programs; ONE of which is welfare. Most of the rest are not related to
>welfare.
> >>
> >> > Hint fucking hint ... all 'social programs' are welfare.
> >>
> >> Oh really? Does that include federal support for college scolarships?
>
> > Government grants: Yes
>
> > Private grants and loans...no biggie, as they are not taxpayers' money.
>
> >> Job training?
>
> > Yes.
>
> >> Etc?
>
> > Yes.
>
> So what would you suggest we do with illiterate, untrained people? Export them?
> Hang them? I think that converting them into productive members of society is
> probably the most long-term-positive option. And who exactly is going to pay for
> that?
I really don't give a shit, AS LONG as it doesn't depend on some
politician sticking his fucking thieving hands in my wallet nor
attaching any part of my paycheck
>
> -----.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
http://directedfire.com/greatgungiveaway/directedfire.referrer.fcgi?2632
H: "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"
I: 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
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Joe Malloy" <[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: Sat, 07 Oct 2000 02:48:36 GMT
> >So what would you suggest we do with illiterate, untrained people?
Export them?
> >Hang them? I think that converting them into productive members of
society is
> >probably the most long-term-positive option. And who exactly is going to
pay for
> >that?
> >
> Themselves, their families, their employer.
Let's say an "illiterate, untrained" person is my brother, son or uncle, the
question is: why should that person be entitled to a penny of my income
unless I wish to donate it to him? It's just the same as with people I
don't know, right?
Answer: by helping those, I help myself. I contribute to another human
being, even unknown to me, because I am able to do so. I, for one, don't
really complain about the taxes I pay (and boy, do we pay them!).
Bye!
- Joe
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
