Linux-Advocacy Digest #296, Volume #31 Sat, 6 Jan 01 12:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: The 2.4.0 kernel was released at 4pm pst. (Craig Kelley)
Re: Linux vs Microsoft ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does) (Craig Kelley)
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. (Craig Kelley)
Re: Linux can be made unstable, too. (Bob Hauck)
Re: Linux is awful (Bob Hauck)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. (.)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. (.)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 11:10:33 -0500
Kyle Jacobs wrote:
>
> You have to understand that "UNIX Engineers" like Mr. Kulkis would be out of
> a job if people believed that Windows 2000 was an improvement over Windows
> NT 4.
Windows 2000: Tallest Midget at the Circus.
>
> "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:HBd56.55058$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "JM" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > On Wed, 03 Jan 2001 23:55:57 -0500, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> > > ("Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
> > >
> > > >Les Mikesell wrote:
> > >
> > > >> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > >> news:92vara$i8r$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >> >
> > > >> > "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > >> > news:kWy46.53665$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >> > > Yes there is a list of commands, but they don't have much to do
> > with
> > > >> > > administering the machine. Where do I find the command that
> would
> > > >> > > add or remove an ip addresses for example. There is one, but
> where
> > > >> > > do I find it and it's documentation?
> > > >> >
> > > >> > ipconfig
> > >
> > > >> Let me try again. Where do I find this command and it's
> documentation,
> > > >> unless you meant to imply that the correct way to find out about this
> > > >> hidden functionality is to ask on usenet? Where are the on-line
> > > >> manual pages for this new stuff?
> > >
> > > >Send $5,000 to Redmond, and they'll sell you some books that tell
> > > >the name of some books that can be obtained for $10,000 which
> > > >contain the answer.
> > >
> > > And then it would just say "Type ipconfig and press enter. Click over
> > > there for a nice wizard which will guide you through the typing
> > > process."
> >
> > Don't be quite so cynical even if it comes naturally from prior
> > experience with MS products. Win2k really does have some of
> > the long-missing command line functionality filled in but for some
> > reason nobody knows anything about it.
> >
> > Les Mikesell
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >
> >
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
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 (C) 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: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 11:11:44 -0500
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:BQp56.151406$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > You have to understand that "UNIX Engineers" like Mr. Kulkis would be out
> of
> > a job if people believed that Windows 2000 was an improvement over Windows
> > NT 4.
>
> Actually, Mr. Kulkis probably never even *seen* a Unix.
> All his posting were made from a win98 machine.
Actually, I'm posting from a Unix machine.
I changed the string in the headers to obfuscate what platform I'm actually using.
Security through disinformation.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
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 (C) 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: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 11:12:53 -0500
Kyle Jacobs wrote:
>
> Now now, some people prefer the simplicity and power of the Outlook News
> reader.
>
> He may very well be a UNIX "Systems Engineer" who prefers to do his posting
> on a Windows machine.
>
> Or you could be 100% right, and he could just be a whiny little troll who
> likes to bash Windows because he thinks that "Big Billy" is the one who
> forced him to run Windows all these years.
>
Actually, I'm running on a Unix machine. I just changed the header
string to Windows to obfuscate what platform I'm actually using.
Security through obfuscation.
> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:935ibc$5o9$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:BQp56.151406$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > You have to understand that "UNIX Engineers" like Mr. Kulkis would be
> out
> > of
> > > a job if people believed that Windows 2000 was an improvement over
> Windows
> > > NT 4.
> >
> > Actually, Mr. Kulkis probably never even *seen* a Unix.
> > All his posting were made from a win98 machine.
> >
> >
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
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 (C) 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: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The 2.4.0 kernel was released at 4pm pst.
Date: 06 Jan 2001 09:34:47 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Does it really finally work with those USB ports?
I've been using USB for 2 years now -- the first time with an iMac's
USB keyboard/mouse.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux vs Microsoft
Date: 6 Jan 2001 16:36:16 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: I don't see Windows 2000 (nor NT) listed on your resume. Therefore you
: have no experience on any enterprise class software from Microsoft
Mafia$oft doesn't make enterprise-class software.
: and
: are unable to have a credible first hand opinion regarding such. I
: understand your frustration with Microsoft's consumer level operating
: systems, especially if you are attempting to run third party enterprise
: class software on a consumer level operating system.
NT4 is indeed better than consumer versions of WinDOS, but it still
doesn't approach the level of reliability of a genuine
"enterprise-class" OS such as Linux, Solaris, FreeBSD, or OpenBSD.
: Try Windows 2000 SP1 and just see if you don't see real significant
: stability that you are not accustom to from the Microsoft operating
: systems you have listed. (Then share specifics on your experience.)
Neither I, nor the company I work for, are willing to be the "guinea
pig" and commit to yet another round of upgrades to a basically shitty
OS whose only selling point is that it is allegedly - under idealized
circumstances (read: new hardware) - marginally less shitty.
We instead are doing all new development using Java and mostly
thin-client N-tier architecture, as well as rewriting as many of the
traditional client/server apps as we can before they die of unnatural
causes.
When finished we will have no compelling reason to deploy any version
of Mafia$oft anything, anywhere.
: Admit no operating system is perfect and there is an element of
: jealously for Microsoft since they are the defacto for most living human
: beings on planet Earth.
What a bunch of USAian-centric bullshit (and I say that as a U.S.
citizen myself).
Most living human beings on planet Earth have not always had enough
food to eat. Quite a few still don't. Many have never even *seen* a
telephone or a computer. In the two countries that together hold
nearly half the world's population - China and India - virtually all
copies of Mafia$oft crapware are "pirated" since their retail purchase
price greatly exceeds the means of virtually any of their citizens.
Mafia$oft bullshit is far less common outside of the U.S., and less
common still outside English-speaking countries. Several countries
have outlawed the use of M$ bullshit inside public schools and/or
government offices, and many more are likely to follow.
Even in the U.S., most companies of any size are sick to death of M$
crapware that crashes, doesn't play well with its peers, breaks for no
apparent reason (usually in fact due to DLL Hell and forced upgrades),
and requires a constant investment of time and money, not to improve
anything, but just to keep the fucking thing running.
They are looking for alternatives, and some are finding that Linux (or
one of the other free OSen) meets their needs nicely - especially on
the server side, but increasingly for desktop use as well.
And Linux desktop-oriented software, though still somewhat less mature
than its 'Doze equivalents, is improving by leaps and bounds.
Mafia$oft is running scared. Its OS business is threatened by free
software (Linux); its Office business is threatened by free software
(StarOffice now, maybe KOffice when it's a little more mature); its
development tool business has been bleeding mindshare not only to Java
(which is nearly free and will almost certainly become free in the
near future), but to free software such as Perl and Python and Gtk+
and such. Its investment business, its only reliable source of
profits over the past couple years, is suffering under the weight of a
tech recession caused largely by Mafia$oft's failure to give consumers
or businesses ANY reason to acquire new software (other than free
software) or new PCs.
And should the DoJ abdicate its responsibility and drop the antitrust
prosecution against Mafia$oft, then at least half the states in the
U.S., and most of the developed countries elsewhere in which Mafia$oft
has done "business," will be more than happy to take its place.
Your Mafia$oft-centric view of the world has never been shared by the
IT community, much of which never trusted the larceneous bastards in
the first place, and some of which (including yours truly) cautiously
accepted some of their products, hoping for year after year after
fucking year that they would improve "Real Soon Now" to the point of
actually being usable.
But this view is no longer shared even by Joe Sixpack, much less
citizens of other countries. M$ is increasingly being seen for
exactly what it is - a criminal organization that tried,
unsuccessfully thank God, to take control of every piece of
information in the entire world. (See _The Road Ahead_ - Gates'
version of _Mein Kampf_).
If you defend those bastards, you're as bad as they are.
Joe
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does)
Date: 06 Jan 2001 09:36:07 -0700
"Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Listen, there IS a technology called "pattern detection" which works on Word
> macro viruses (to detect "suspect" patterns).
>
> Why can't pattern and behavior recognition be instituted into an intelligent
> recognition system to recognize the interdependencies, and MODIFY the
> previous configuration strings accordingly?
>
> I'm thinking an XML system meets heuristics detection from AV.
You want fuzzy heuristics determining the state of your system?
No Thanks.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: 06 Jan 2001 09:40:10 -0700
"Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> That "book on the GIMP" is a model example of how LINUX DOCUMENTATION SHOULD
> BE.
>
> Those ass-backward"howto" guides could take a tip.
Different people learn differently. It's been shown several times
that various approaches need to be made to effectivly teach people.
For me, HOWTO and man pages are a great boon; I hate sifting through a
bunch of useless information.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: Linux can be made unstable, too.
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 16:43:42 GMT
On Sat, 06 Jan 2001 00:43:33 +0000, JM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Fri, 5 Jan 2001 23:45:43 +0100, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> (Peter K�hlmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>> I have a UPS running at home (2 computers + telephone system
>> connected to it, 1000 Watts power for about half an hour) and it
>> costs about 400 Dollars.
> 400 Dollars is a LOT if the power hardly ever goes out.
1000 Watts is a pretty big UPS. A 250 with five minutes of holdup will
do fine for a single computer and can be had for about $150. All you
need is enough time to do a clean shutdown (which can be automated).
OTOH, if your phones run off of it, you'll probably want more than five
minutes <g>.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 16:43:44 GMT
On Sat, 06 Jan 2001 14:56:02 GMT, Form@C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
><5zC56.14692$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>I thought the 640x480 screensize was fading as more and more PC's
>>support 1024x768 nowadays.
> Fading but not gone nor forgotten! Many notebook & laptop screens
> currently in use won't go higher than 640x480 (newer ones may be
> better, but I daren't even look at the prices!). PDA screens won't
> even reach *that* yet!
I have a Compaq 1130T laptop. It is a five-year-old model and even it
supports 800x600. The hard drive went out last week and when I was
looking for a replacement I stumbled on some places selling the same
laptop used (reconditioned with a warranty) for under $500.
Even at 800x600 though, I've run into the "giant dialog" problem. Often
there is an Xt config setting to adjust that, but you usually have to
hunt a bit to find it.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Date: 6 Jan 2001 16:52:06 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Jure Sah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Let's say I'm a person who is looking for an OS that linux claims to
> be...
> "." wrote:
>> Yes, all scattered about in both /etc and the documentation. It takes
>> less than a minute to set it all up.
>> Not everyone is using the same hardware as you.
>> It depends on the program, but you can get them to be anywhere you like
>> if you read the documentation.
>> Apparantly youve never read the documentation.
>> Thats not an enlightenment thing. Read the documentation.
>> Read the documentation. To wit:
>> You can alias that if you want. Hell, you can make a cute button for
>> your desktop out of it too if you like. Read the documentation.
>> It does. Read the documentation.
>> Read the documentation.
>> Thats an enlightenment feature. Read the documentation.
>> Its in the documentation. Read it.
>> And besides that, theres an assload of wine documentation on the web.
>> Look it up.
>> You didnt read the documentation. Wine does not work with W2K binaries=
.
>> You arent running samba. Read the documentation.
>> Then you're an idiot. Its not that difficult, and you doubtlessly
>> didnt read the documentation.
>> I didnt. You did it wrong, and didnt read the documentation.
>> You simply do not, and do not WANT to understand linux. Either that
>> or you are retarded.
>> Eterm -bg black -fg white +sb -s 10000 -F sabvga &
> This linux thing seems like an operating system that is trying to oppose
> the user at any cost. Or maybe a non-functional DOS version -122.3, with
> a Bible of documentation that tries to teach the user how to communicate
> to the OS in machine language!
> Linux sux to me already, and I was only listening to a person who likes
> it!
> Say how do you connect to network from linux? Something like: "Jhwers
> -tr fj3h42 -ij fsd76234h +dc -u 748738967 -E fdgbazidurks =C9=F4=EB=A4" =
?! Yuck!
> Even DOS command lines looked a lot better than that!
Or you can fire up linuxconf (that would be "linuxconf" from a command=20
line if you deleted its pretty icon from your desktop) and do it in=20
there.
Its even got buttons and tabs just like windows to make you nice and
comfy.
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Date: 6 Jan 2001 16:56:36 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>It depends on the program, but you can get them to be anywhere you like
>>if you read the documentation.
> Wrong....It doesn't work, and you know something I AM SICK AND FUCKING
> TIRED OF READING SHIT JUST TO PERFORM SIMPLE TASK UNDER LINUX!!
And now we can all see what your problem is. You know all about windows,
and somehow you believe that this translates into "knowledge about
computers".
It doesnt. Knowing how to drive a '73 VW superbeetle does not mean you
know how to drive a Mclaren F1.
If you dont want to learn an operating system, dont use it. Case
closed.
=====.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 17:00:59 GMT
Said Donovan Rebbechi in alt.destroy.microsoft on 6 Jan 2001 07:48:03
>On Sat, 06 Jan 2001 01:25:12 GMT, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>Said Donovan Rebbechi in alt.destroy.microsoft on 5 Jan 2001 22:59:34
>
>>>They have a mandate from the majority of those who bother to vote. Those
>>>who don't bother to vote don't count. Those who want to be counted vote.
>>
>>I'm afraid this is a flawed and even dangerous argument. Everybody
>>counts;
>
>As far as the election is concerned, those who don't vote don't count.
You didn't say "they get elected", you said they "have a mandate", which
clearly indicates that when you said they "don't count", you meant in
terms of public policy decisions by elected officials, not in terms of
election of candidates. But I appreciate the retraction; sorry for the
firm reaction, which may have seemed a bit knee-jerk if this is what you
meant. It isn't what you said.
>>>>So trying to circumvent a flaw, and succeeding, by negotiating with a
>>>>leading candidate to consider your concerns, is a bad thing? I don't
>>>>get it.
>>>
>>>No, the fact that the system needs to be subverted in such a way indicates
>>>there's something wrong with the system.
>>
>>Subvert? Sounds like a dangerous term, in the wrong hands. That isn't
>>"subverting" the system; that *is* the system.
>
>You're saying vote swapping is part of the system ? That's news to me.
>I thought vote-swaps were back door unenforceable verbal deals.
Not at all. "You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" is not, in and of
itself, an ethical problem at all, and 'swapping your vote' for a
candidates' (potentially unenforceable) agreement to support your cause
is, I would think, common practice in a coalition government, as it is
essentially all that any party-based systems is. But perhaps I
misunderstood what you were referring to.
>>OK, I see your point; I'm again being imprecise. I see a government
>>determined by 'instant run-off elections' as sharing many of the same
>>problems and dangers as a coalition government.
>
>Such as ?
Greater control by extremists to the detriminent of the moderate
approach.
>>They require a different form of compromise than a two party system. As
>>counter-productive as the naked extremist partisan rhetoric we suffer
>
>You think partisanship is unique to your system ?
I think naked extremist partisan rhetoric by the primary parties is.
Not entirely unique, but more uniquely problematic, if not more
counter-productive.
>>these days might be, it is worth considering that it only exists because
>>of the inherent motivation for both sides to "stick to their guns", and
>>maintain their principles, if you will.
>
>But they don't, in fact the senate rules make it impossible for them
>to do so.
Maybe because these rules are necessary because it is such a problem,
particularly in a two-party system. What rules, specifically, are you
thinking of, though?
>> But they must, inherently,
>>compromise on their activities, since there is no coalition to support
>>them in straying from the moderate course.
>
>I don't know why coalition governments keep popping up, or how they're
>related to instant runoff systems.
They are another radical reform which has been discussed more commonly
since the Fracas in Florida. Its my fault. In this case, I am still
answering your question about what similarities I suggested would effect
both a coalition government and using instant run-off elections.
>However, the US system does effectively result in an uneasy coalition
>between the Dems and Reps since they have to work together.
>
>> In a coalition government,
>>or one run by someone with the ephemeral 'mandate' that an instant-run
>>off provides, the compromise has to only be enough to gain *control*,
>>not enough to gain real *support*.
>
>I don't see how this relates to instant runoffs (In fact one could argue
>that the Dem/Rep "coalition" has gained control, but not real support,
>due to the forced duopoly created by the electoral system. I'm not going
>to pursue this argument further though, since I don't agree with it.)
Actually, it is a very neat and tidy summary of my position opposing the
two party system.
>>>Unfortunately, there's a widespread perception that voting for someone
>>>who *has no chance of winning* is "throwing away your vote".
>>
>>That's what I said. So why are you encouraging this perception, by
>>using it as an assumption in your presentation, if you know it is
>>unfortunate, since it is not correct?
>
>I'm not encouraging this perception. I'm merely pointing out that the
>supporters of third party candidates often vote for a candidate that
>they don't support, and when they vote for the candidate they do support,
>it adversely and undesireably hurts their preferred main party candidate.
Their "preferred main party candidate" is their third party candidate,
or else they are "throwing their vote away". ;-0
>>>largely because if a candidate has no chance of winning and you vote
>>>for them, your vote will not have any effect on the outcome of the
>>>election (bar hurting the major party candidate who you might otherwise
>>>have voted for, which is certainly not the effect the voter would hope
>>>for)
>>
>>By definition, every vote is wasted, then, except those that were for
>>the winner.
>
>Not at all. The margin of victory or defeat is also important.
But just as historically fixed as who won; if you are planning on
looking back from the future and proclaiming who's vote "counted", and
who's didn't "count", then you're wasting your time and engaging in
empty and meaningless rhetoric.
>>>Why do you think run-off elections are so hard ? In case you don't
>>>understand how they work, it's not necessary for voters to vote
>>>more than once. They fill out ballots ranking the candidates in
>>>order of preference.
>>
>>It is not the number of ballots, but the level of true consensus
>>necessary, which makes the size too large.
>
>I don't understand your point.
I don't think a run-off election results in a large a consensus
supporting a candidate so much as it results in a large consensus not
opposing a certain candidate. There's certainly an attractiveness in
the 'every vote counts' phenomenon, but in the end, it comes up with the
same "the only vote that counts is the one you cast for the winner", and
by encouraging the cooperation of those who may variously oppose the
winning candidate to nevertheless provide a mandate for him to lead
according to only his own party's politics.
Or maybe it just makes me too uneasy.
>>>Australia has 18,000,000 and has been doing just fine with instant
>>>runoffs. There are countries in Europe that are somewhat larger
>>>and have succesfully deployed a similar system.
>>
>>To be honest, I wasn't aware of that. Does it result in picking the
>>"most favorite extremist", rather than a moderate?
>
>Usually, the moderates get in (that is, moderate in the local context.
>A "moderate" leftist outside of the US is probably an extremist in the
>US)
Well, you got that right. :-)
>>I didn't say they were crackpot schemes. Merely that saying they are
>>objectively preferable, and should be implemented in the US, would be a
>>crackpot scheme.
>
>I didn't say they were "objectively" preferable. It's pretty hard to
>find anything that's "objectively preferable".
I had thought that's what you were saying, when you suggested they were
"more robust" in a three-or-more-party election. It's been an
interesting discussion, though, and I've learned quite a bit; I doubt
I'd disagree with you, now that you've cleared up my confusion, and if
you aren't trying to declare there is an objective advantage.
Though I have to admit, if moderates usually get in using such a system,
it does seem to have a great deal of value, and I might myself be
willing to say it is "objectively preferable", if that is true.
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
** 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 by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
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
******************************
