Linux-Advocacy Digest #292, Volume #29 Sun, 24 Sep 00 18:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (STATIC66)
Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (STATIC66)
Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT (Bryant Brandon)
Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively (dc)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (dc)
Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT (dc)
Re: The Government's Decision to Use Microsoft ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: The Government's Decision to Use Microsoft ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT (C Lund)
Re: Linux to reach NT 3.51 proportions in next 2 years ("Yannick")
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) ("Colin R.
Day")
Re: Linux to reach NT 3.51 proportions in next 2 years ("Nik Simpson")
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) ("Colin R.
Day")
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (STATIC66)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) ("Colin R.
Day")
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (STATIC66)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: STATIC66 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2000 20:15:44 GMT
On Thu, 24 Aug 2000 20:16:08 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (david
raoul derbes) wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>In article <Az%o5.250$v3.3240@uchinews>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>(david raoul derbes) wrote:
>>
>>
>>> First off, are you really so certain that "the dollar amounts.. [paid]
>>> by the wealthy are a hell of a lot more"?
>>
>>Yes.
>>
>>>
>>> A fair number of pretty wealthy Americans pay *no tax whatsoever* in this
>>> country. There are all manner of tax shelters and dodges that wealthy
>>
>>A very small number.
>
>To be sure, a very small number of people. But maybe a hell of a lot
>of dollars.
>
>>Statistically, the wealthy pay a far, far higher percentage of their
>>income in taxes than the poor. I can't believe anyone would even
>>question that fact.
>
>What percentage do the wealthiest pay in this country? According to my
>father-in-law, who used to work for H. & R. Block, 39.3%. Last year,
>my wife and I were in the 32% bracket, and believe me, we earn a
>hell of a lot less than most people we know; I'm a schoolteacher
>and my wife is an artist. We have investments. No one would call
>us wealthy.
>
>>> people can avail themselves of, which poor people have no chance of.
>>> For one, as you know, mortgages. There is a substantial tax benefit to
>>
>>Oh, I see. So mortgages are a tax loophole that only the rich can get?
>>
>>You might want to check into reality some day.
>
>You might want to read what I said, which is immediately below.
>
>>> having a large mortgage. Poor folk can't qualify for home ownership, so
>>> fat lot of good that does them. (OK, you don't have to be wealthy,
>>> thank God, to qualify for a mortgage; but you have to be to qualify
>>> for a *large* mortgage.) But a poor person can't find a down payment,
>>
>>Let's see if I get this right.
>>
>>Let's say you make a million dollars per year. You have a choice of a
>>mortgage for $1,000 per month or $10,000 per month.
>>
>>Depending on where you are in the amortization schedule, a different
>>amount of that counts as interest. For convenience, let's say the first
>>mortgage costs you $10 K per year in interest and the latter is $100 K
>>per year in interest.
>>
>>In the 28% incremental bracket, you pay $7,200 after tax for the former
>>and $72 K after tax for the latter. So, the larger mortgage costs you
>>more money.
>
>Yeah, and it saves you a lot more, too; in one case, you save 28K,
>and in the other case, 2.8 K. I don't see the difference of 25.2K
>as pocket change, but I'm not wealthy.
>
>>Of course, you're also ignoring the AMT which phases out deductions like
>>the mortgage deduction so you really get _less_ tax break than if you
>>made less money.
>
>Phases out? It had no effect on my taxes. None. It was just a nuisance
>to have to figure out, even courtesy of MacinTax.
>
>>As I said, you really ought to check your facts.
>
>And maybe you should read more carefully.
>
>>
>>> and doesn't have the income to qualify for the loan. And that is only
>>> the most obvious example. There are scandalous examples of laws passed
>>
>>Not to mention obviously wrong.
>
>Ah. It is "obviously wrong" that poor people cannot qualify for a mortgage,
>and it is "obviously wrong" that the mortgage I have does not save me
>some money in taxes.
>
>Please, point out the obvious errors!
>
>>
>>> by our Congress that have, no kidding, exactly *one* beneficiary, who
>>> turns out to be (a) wealthier than Yoko Ono and (b) a significant
>>> contributor and probably constituent of the guy sponsoring the
>>> legislation.
>>
>>There are abuses--no doubt. But that doesn't change the fact that the
>>vast majority of "wealthy" individuals and families pay a huge tax
>>burden.
>
>The fact that you put "wealthy" in quotes tells me that despite your
>antagonism, you and I are much closer to each other's positions than
>you grant. The majority of the tax burden in this country falls on
>what I would call middle class. I have no problem bearing my current
>tax bill. I wish *only* that people far wealthier than I bear an
>equal *percentage* of their income tax. You think they are doing so.
>I fear that they are not. I am pretty confident that I am getting
>a better break (because I figure my income tax out, and I see the
>breaks put in for people with mortgages, investments in real
>estate, etc etc) than lots of people earning 25 or 30K. And I don't
>think that's fair. I suspect the breaks I am getting are even
>more pronounced at the upper end. I suspect *you* suspect that
>yourself, judging by the "wealthy" in quotes.
>
>>> I have no problem at all paying people a tax refund even if they paid
>>> no taxes, if they are working and trying to support a family. Would you
>>> rather they started robbing banks? Robbing *you*? Are you opposed to
>>> welfare in all its forms? Try doing without it... I don't mind paying
>>> *these* taxes: it's the money we use to support e.g. the helium stockpile
>>> (no kidding) that bothers me...
>>
>>Excuse me, but what's the difference if they rob me directly or rob me
>>via the Government (other than the obvious difference that it costs me
>>more if the government is involved due to beaurocratic inefficiency)?
>
>Joe, how likely is it that the government is going to pull the trigger
>after you give them your wallet? It happens all the time on the street.
>
>I regard many forms of welfare as cheap insurance, frankly. People who
>become justifiably angry and who in this country can easily get a gun
>scare the hell out of me.
>
So government theft is O.K. because they let you live after they
finish their pilfering??? silly logic....
>If you want peace...
>
>David Derbes [[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2000 20:26:37 GMT
Rule number one:
Never post when you are, obviously drunk...
claire
On Sun, 24 Sep 2000 19:47:50 +0000, Jacques Guy
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>[who cares]
>
>Eat shit, asshole.
>
>(Remember your very first posts? At least I have
>the courtesy to use your original spelling. In my
>English, it's "arsehole")
------------------------------
From: STATIC66 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2000 20:42:35 GMT
On 25 Aug 2000 16:55:12 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
wrote:
>On Fri, 25 Aug 2000 11:30:58 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>>> 2. Defense Expenditures
>>
>>Legitimate spending...Constitutionally MANDATED, in fact.
>
>But the constitution doesn't say anything about "how much". For example,
>it would be difficult to argue that cutting the defence budget by 90%
>is "unconstitutional.
>
90%?? what kind of pinko are you ??
Maybe we could just turn the white house over while we are at. Go
ahead and raise a white flag.
Clinton has decimated our military strength and moral (I saw it first
hand). it can't take anymore. Make no mistake about it, it protects
YOUR freedoms..
>>> 3. Social Security
>>
>>Unconstitutional. END IT NOW.
>
>Based on what ? Your opinion ? The opinions that count, legal opinions of
>those better qualified than yourself seem to contradict this.
>
SOCIALISM
>>> 4. Medicare
>>
>>Unconstitutional. END IT NOW.
>
>See above.
>
SOCIALISM
>>What part of UNCONSTITUTIONAL SPENDING do you not understand?
>
>Well if you really think it's "unconstitutional", take it to the courts,
>and you'll see that opinions somewhat better informed than yours have
>a different understanding of the constitution.
------------------------------
From: Bryant Brandon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2000 15:53:47 -0500
In article <s0qz5.247$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "PistolGrip"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
@"Bryant Brandon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
@news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
@> In article <jzoz5.237$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "PistolGrip"
@> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
@>
@> [...]
@>
@> @> Nope, W2K hides it. I cna't get to it at all. I just get a disk
@> @> full error message when i try to log in.
@> @
@> @Then either you and/or your administrator has no clue what they are
@doing.
@> @I can assure you.
@>
@> If you can be so sure I suppose you can tell us what the problem is?
@
@Sure, if I could look at it. I manage 100+ Win2000 machines and there is
@definitely something wrong with your setup, not the OS.
I wouldn't be surprised. Close as I can figure they've got some
logfile or something somewhere that just gets bigger and bigger. But,
of course, they've got it rigged up so that I can't see if I'm right.
They also use Novell Netware. Each machine logs in as a client. I
wouldn't think novell would be a problem, though, becasue they've been
using it for years with 95/98/NT4 without any trouble.
I suppose my question is: does w2k eat up diskspace merely logging
in? The only reason I could see would be a logfile as I said above, but
I've seen Windows do all sorts of crazy things in the past, so nothing
would surprise me.
--
B.B. --I am not a goat! http://people.unt.edu/~bdb0015
------------------------------
From: dc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2000 15:51:50 -0500
On Sun, 24 Sep 2000 19:16:19 GMT, "Joe R." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>In article
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, dc
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 24 Sep 2000 02:21:42 GMT, "Joe R." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article
>> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, dc
>> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Sat, 23 Sep 2000 21:26:04 +0100,
>> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark) wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >In article
>> >> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> >> > dc wrote:
>> >> >>On Sat, 23 Sep 2000 17:47:11 GMT, Timberwoof <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>>some of these standards. And because of the Macintosh's excellent
>> >> >>>support for networking, Apple product users are well-connected.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>This I don't quite understand. Not from a 1990's AppleTalk
>> >> >>perspective, but from a September 2000 perspective, how are Apple
>> >> >>product users "well-connected" compared to the rest of computerdom
>> >> >>(meaning, NT and ME)?
>> >> >
>> >> >I'm having trouble with the phrase 'rest of computerdom' which I
>> >> >assumed
>> >> >would mean what people actually use, not NT and ME.
>> >>
>> >> For better or worse, that is what most people actually use.
>> >
>> >Most people use NT and ME?
>> >
>> >You're out of your mind (what little apparently remains).
>>
>> Or a derivative of one of those OSs, yes, Joe, that _is_ what most
>> people use.
>
>No, they don't. "Derivative" means later work derived from the earlier
>one.
Agreed. So I'll just say "Windows".
------------------------------
From: dc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2000 15:54:29 -0500
On Sun, 24 Sep 2000 20:42:35 GMT, STATIC66
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 25 Aug 2000 16:55:12 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 25 Aug 2000 11:30:58 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>>>> 2. Defense Expenditures
>>>
>>>Legitimate spending...Constitutionally MANDATED, in fact.
>>
>>But the constitution doesn't say anything about "how much". For example,
>>it would be difficult to argue that cutting the defence budget by 90%
>>is "unconstitutional.
>>
>90%?? what kind of pinko are you ??
>
>Maybe we could just turn the white house over while we are at. Go
>ahead and raise a white flag.
>
>Clinton has decimated our military strength and moral (I saw it first
>hand). it can't take anymore. Make no mistake about it, it protects
>YOUR freedoms..
>
>>>> 3. Social Security
>>>
>>>Unconstitutional. END IT NOW.
>>
>>Based on what ? Your opinion ? The opinions that count, legal opinions of
>>those better qualified than yourself seem to contradict this.
>>
>SOCIALISM
Sorry, but how is it unconstitutional? We didn't ask if it was
"SOCIALISM" or not...
>>>> 4. Medicare
>>>
>>>Unconstitutional. END IT NOW.
>>
>>See above.
>>
>SOCIALISM
Ditto - how is it... ?
------------------------------
From: dc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2000 15:59:27 -0500
On Sun, 24 Sep 2000 15:53:47 -0500, Bryant Brandon
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>@Sure, if I could look at it. I manage 100+ Win2000 machines and there is
>@definitely something wrong with your setup, not the OS.
>
> I wouldn't be surprised. Close as I can figure they've got some
>logfile or something somewhere that just gets bigger and bigger. But,
>of course, they've got it rigged up so that I can't see if I'm right.
Why do you think it's a logfile issue?
> They also use Novell Netware. Each machine logs in as a client. I
>wouldn't think novell would be a problem, though, becasue they've been
>using it for years with 95/98/NT4 without any trouble.
> I suppose my question is: does w2k eat up diskspace merely logging
>in? The only reason I could see would be a logfile as I said above, but
>I've seen Windows do all sorts of crazy things in the past, so nothing
>would surprise me.
When you log in, the profile on the server is copied locally. If
someone downloading madonna'sgreatesthits.mov, at 500MB, and put it on
their desktop, and your admin staff doesn't have quotas in place (as
of SP3, IIRC, in NT4) then yes, you could see this issue. Just look
in c:\winnt\profiles and see how big all of those directories are.
Don't you have a desktop support staff to do this for you? Once
someone called it in, it should've been fixed immediately...
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Government's Decision to Use Microsoft
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2000 16:22:14 -0500
"lyttlec" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> It compiles and runs with g++, and Borland C++ Builder 4.52 and others,
> but under VC++ 5.0 I get lots of errors saying such things as "std is
> not a namespace" and that "<<" does not have a right hand operator of
> type string.
Visual C++ 5.0 was released in 1996, and was designed and specified in 1995.
That's 2-3 years before the standard was finalized in 1998.
Offhand I don't know if the standard namespace had been approved or not back
then.
> Anyway, when I get all versions to compile and run :
> g++ gives inf as the result of divide by zero ( it should if I read the
> standard correctly)
That would be a result of infinity.
> Borland gives a "divide by zero" message and dies. The application dies,
> but not the OS
>
> VC++ prints 1.#INF.
Also a result of infinity.
> What gives? I don't expect the Borland to be correct, as it is too old.
> But does the gnu project and I read the standard wrong or is it MS?
Actually 4.52 was out about the same time as VC5.
If you're talking about the standard namespace stuff, then it was all
pre-standard. If you're talking about the dividsion by 0, that's undefined
in the standard. Clearly, both gcc and VC are providing handlers for the
divide by 0 exception and returning a result of inf.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Government's Decision to Use Microsoft
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2000 16:28:25 -0500
"lyttlec" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I got it to work with the #define __STL_NO_NAMESPACE 1 and then by
> casting string to c_string : S.c_str()
> Looks like VC++ has a problem with namespaces and with strings ( << and
> >> are supposed to be defined for C++ strings).
They are defined for them. The problem, however is that your code uses
<iostream.h> instead of <iostream>. iostream.h is the legacy (pre-standard)
iostream library, which of course doesn't know anything about the standard
defined string.
> The exe file for VC++ is 142KB, for g++ it is 28KB, and for Borland
> 101KB.
> So much for VC++ being the most standard compliant C++ compiler.
Nobody ever said VC was the most standard compliant. It's not by a long
shot, but your errors here are not indicative of that (other than the
standard namespace problem, but that's because you're using a 5 year old
compiler).
I also fail to understand what the size of the executable has to do with it
being compliant or not. g++ uses a shared library for it's runtime library.
VC does as well, but you clearly don't have it configured to use it. You're
statically linking in the library.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (C Lund)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2000 23:22:02 +0100
In article <4yoz5.235$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "PistolGrip"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well... can't believe I'm jumping in the silly argument.
Note that I jumped out of it some time ago. I got fed up with that
merry-go-round.
> But, what version
> of NT/2000 are we talking about?
I think he was talking about NT in general.
> I'll point out a *few* things W2k has that Win9x doesn't.
(long and informative list snipped)
Again, it would seem W2K has the same old interface, but lots of new stuff
"under the hood". Yes?
--
C Lund
http://www.notam.uio.no/~clund/
------------------------------
From: "Yannick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux to reach NT 3.51 proportions in next 2 years
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2000 21:19:54 GMT
Bob Hauck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message :
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Sat, 23 Sep 2000 19:48:33 GMT, Yannick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >Bob Hauck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message :
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> On Thu, 21 Sep 2000 02:13:24 GMT, Mike Byrns
> >> >You *can* move the taskbar around and even add new bars to it.
> >>
> >> In which Windows? I think KDE may have beat them to that one. OS/2
> >> did for sure.
> >
> >You can move the taskbar around since Windows 95 and Windows NT 4.
>
> But later you say this is true only if you install IE4.
I may be wrong, but as far as I remember it _is_ possible to move it around
without the IE4 upgrade, as well as auto-hide it.
What is _not_ available before IE4 are :
- desktop bands that you can put on the same line (such as having the quick
lauch bar and the taskbar on the same line)
- shortcut bars, possibly user defined, like the one provided by default
(the quicklaunch bar)
> Out-of-the-box
> Win95 and NT4 do not do this, apparently. Another add-on eh? I'm not
> seeing how all these add-ons are proving that KDE is merely a clone of
> the Win95 interface.
I'm not saying that KDE is a clone of Win95 interface here. I'm simply
enumerating what kind of taskbars and desktop toolbars different versions of
Windows provide, on the user point of view as well as on the developer's.
This in reaction to the small quotation at the beginning of this post. I
just wanted to provide information, not comparison.
> >As for the classical bars (like before the IE4 upgrade), you always had
the
> >possibility to develop an application using a desktop bar since NT4 and
> >Win95. It would have been a full-width (or full-height) bar, but could
> >auto-hide too.
>
> We were talking about user-level features that KDE supposedly borrowed
> from Win95.
I know. I adressed that point (about user-created shortcut bars). I simply
wanted to add the developer part for information (mainly because that's a
subject I've been looking at recently).
Hope this helps.
Yannick.
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2000 17:30:26 -0400
Richard wrote:
> Gary Hallock wrote:
> > Gee, do some programmer beat you as a child? Where does all this hatred for
> > programmers come from?
>
> Unix is a piece of crap.
You are just completely wrong.
> For no better reason than Inertia, it will
> continue to dominate for decades. Do I need a better reason?
>
Do you need a better reason to what? Lie about a great operating system?
>
> It doesn't help that software interfaces are written in such a
> way that they can only be described as "utter assholes" if you
> were to label them with human characteristics.
Wrong again.
> So my anger stems
> from the fact that I have to deal with utter assholes on a daily
> basis. Seem reasonable to you?
No, your anger stems from your own cluelessness.
Colin Day
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Nik Simpson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Nik Simpson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux to reach NT 3.51 proportions in next 2 years
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2000 17:22:36 -0400
"Yannick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:_duz5.339$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Bob Hauck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message :
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > On Sat, 23 Sep 2000 19:48:33 GMT, Yannick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > >Bob Hauck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message :
> > >[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >> On Thu, 21 Sep 2000 02:13:24 GMT, Mike Byrns
> > >> >You *can* move the taskbar around and even add new bars to it.
> > >>
> > >> In which Windows? I think KDE may have beat them to that one. OS/2
> > >> did for sure.
> > >
> > >You can move the taskbar around since Windows 95 and Windows NT 4.
> >
> > But later you say this is true only if you install IE4.
> I may be wrong, but as far as I remember it _is_ possible to move it
around
> without the IE4 upgrade, as well as auto-hide it.
>
You are right. IE4 added the capability of dragging the icons of frequently
used applications onto the main task bar (as opposed to the Start Menu), it
also added the ability of making you frequently used links available on the
Start bar.
--
Nik Simpson
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2000 17:33:23 -0400
Richard wrote:
> "Boyle M. Owl" wrote:
> > People are free to run whatever software they wish to run. If *you*
> > don't like "non-professionals" writing code, then jusd don't run any
>
> Hey, buddy, I also don't like professionals writing bad code. I have
> just as much agaist most implementations of Unix as I have agaist
> Linux.
Then your standards of software quality are lame.
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: STATIC66 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2000 21:34:47 GMT
On 26 Aug 2000 22:54:47 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
wrote:
>On Sat, 26 Aug 2000 18:06:40 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>
>>Actually, public education usually has the *highest* per-pupil spending
>>[for "average" kids] while still having lousy results.
>>
>>Why is that?
>
>What do you mean by "lousy results" ? The kids in public schools probably
>aren't as good on average, so using things like SAT scores as a measure
>is not terribly meaningful.
I would argue that using the test scores might actually work more to
your favor than his point.
Where I live They have instituted a computer based learning program,
which has for their statistical averages raised grade level
reading/math from almost a year below grade level to a 2 3/4 above
grade level reading/math in two years.
1. I support (the districts) computers and see it first hand.
2. my children attend the district.
Basically They have trained the students to test better in these
particular areas. They have not realistically made the kids much
smarter (I think the exception would be computer skills).
Yet they tout the numbers at every available opportunity.
So I wouldn't buy into testing numbers I think they are generally
inflated.
I can't count the number if IT "professionals" that practiced testing
and question memorization long enough to pass a certification exam and
then get to th real world problems and know NOTHING.
The truth is that the public schools are being used for entirely too
much social experimentation,and environmental leftist propaganda. I
see it every day first hand. My wife and I are discussing sending the
kids to a private school it is so bad.
My son is actually taught NOT to stand up for himself when bullied.(at
the school) When he was telling us about an incident at school and I
told him to stand up to the bully, he broke down and cried because he
said he would "get into big trouble at school"..
And before you ask if it is so bad why do I work there??
1. It allows me to provide for my family.
2. It is a challenging environment to work in.
3. I enjoy the opportunity to interact with the children
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2000 17:35:27 -0400
Richard wrote:
> "Colin R. Day" wrote:
>
> > Richard wrote:
> > > Sure I can. It's a well-known fact in OS circles that a
> > > single uniform interface is a fundamental principle of
> > > good design.
> >
> > Cite, please.
>
> Denis Ritchie on the design of Plan 9. But it's such a well-
> established and *OBVIOUS* fact that /I/ wouldn't expect
> knowledgeable people to be discussing it much. It would
> be like doctors discussing the importance of breathing
> oxygen.
No, it isn't that obvious. The Linux UI's are good and getting better.
Get a life, troll.
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: STATIC66 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2000 21:36:54 GMT
On Sun, 27 Aug 2000 02:58:44 GMT, ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>> >
>> > On Sat, 26 Aug 2000 18:06:40 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>> >
>> > >Actually, public education usually has the *highest* per-pupil
>> > >spending [for "average" kids] while still having lousy results.
>> > >
>> > >Why is that?
>> >
>> > What do you mean by "lousy results" ? The kids in public schools
>> > probably aren't as good on average,
>>
>> And why is that?
>
>Because private schools are typically quite selective about who they'll
>accept, obviously.
No, Private schools (most) are selective about what they teach and do
not have a Social agenda behind their teaching.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
