Linux-Advocacy Digest #208, Volume #32 Thu, 15 Feb 01 11:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: Windows XP! Will it really be reliable? ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Windows XP! Will it really be reliable? ("Edward Rosten")
Re: KDE Whiners ("Edward Rosten")
Re: KDE Whiners ("Edward Rosten")
Re: KULKIS IS A MISERABLE PIECE OF SHIT ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Windows XP! Will it really be reliable? ("Martin Eden")
Re: I will give MS credit for one thing ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Windows XP! Will it really be reliable? ("Todd")
Re: The Windows guy. ("Edward Rosten")
Re: WindowsXP - Pay us to solve our bugs (Nils Zonneveld)
New kernel 2.4.1 rocks with IPMASQ (Kool Breeze)
Re: The Windows guy. ("Mike")
Re: and none of it is done with windows ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: I will give MS credit for one thing ("Todd")
Re: and none of it is done with windows ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else (Dan Mercer)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows XP! Will it really be reliable?
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 14:54:01 +0000
>>32 bits are underkill. 64 bits is the next logical step.
>>
>>2x as wide bus, 2x as much data per clock cycle.
>>
>>IA64 runs IA32 code like a P100, so they really, really need a 64 bit OS
>>in order to run at a decent speed.
>
> The pentium already pushes aroun 64 bits at a time. The vax, another 32
Pushes around, yes. But, it can't operate on 64 bits at a time.
> bit machine, had a 128 memory bus.
Even better. But take a look at IBMs up and coming Power4. Something in
the order of several thousand IO pins on the package.
> You don't need 64 bit registers and a 64 bit ALU to have such a data
> bus.
But you need a 64 bit ALU and registers to to 64 bit operations quickly.
-Ed
--
Did you know that the reason that windows steam up in cold|Edward Rosten
weather is because of all the fish in the atmosphere? |u98ejr
- The Hackenthorpe Book of lies |@
|eng.ox.ac.uk
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows XP! Will it really be reliable?
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 15:00:13 +0000
> 2000 is pretty darn stable. I've had almost zero problems with it, and
> it
Yeah! 120 day uptimes. Great.
> runs DirectX 8 ! What more could you ask for?
UNIX.
-Ed
> hehe... I know I'm gonna
> get quite a few responses here... :)
--
Did you know that the reason that windows steam up in cold|Edward Rosten
weather is because of all the fish in the atmosphere? |u98ejr
- The Hackenthorpe Book of lies |@
|eng.ox.ac.uk
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: KDE Whiners
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 15:02:57 +0000
>> This is the first time I've seen advertizing described as a dirty
>> trick.
>
> Its certainly not what we in Europe are used to.
I agree.
> Why the heck should
> there be a link to Ximian when one searches for "TheKompany" or
> "TrollTech" or
> "KDE" ??
If I search for KDE, I don't want to see stuff about Ximian.
-=Ed
--
Did you know that the reason that windows steam up in cold|Edward Rosten
weather is because of all the fish in the atmosphere? |u98ejr
- The Hackenthorpe Book of lies |@
|eng.ox.ac.uk
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: KDE Whiners
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 15:06:27 +0000
> : Chorus of whinning?? No.. just complaining about the methods used and
> with
> : the desired result.
>
> The KDE people act as if it was some sort of sneaky trick.. Sheesh.
> You know, Cisco should stop advertising in Network World, since there
That's crap you're talking. Network World is about networks in general,
so you's expect advertising. A search for KDE is a search for KDE. If I
search for KDE I want to see KDE stuff, not some competitors advertising.
-Ed
--
Did you know that the reason that windows steam up in cold|Edward Rosten
weather is because of all the fish in the atmosphere? |u98ejr
- The Hackenthorpe Book of lies |@
|eng.ox.ac.uk
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: KULKIS IS A MISERABLE PIECE OF SHIT
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 15:09:56 +0000
In article <ZvNi6.46313$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Edward Rosten writes:
>
>>> Aaron R. Kulkis writes:
>
>>>> Tholen, David
>>>> 1505 Alexander St,
>>>> Honolulu, HI 96822-4978
>>>> (808)941-3552
>>>>
>>>> Tholen, David Alexander St Apt 406, Honolulu, HI
>>>> 96822
>
>>> Of what relevance is that, Kulkis?
>
>> Is this correct (even if it is not relavent)?
>
> What difference would it make?
To what?
> My question is about the relevance, not
So?
> the correctness. I could also ask about the redundancy.
Is it correct (relavence aside)?
-Ed
--
Did you know that the reason that windows steam up in cold|Edward Rosten
weather is because of all the fish in the atmosphere? |u98ejr
- The Hackenthorpe Book of lies |@
|eng.ox.ac.uk
------------------------------
From: "Martin Eden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows XP! Will it really be reliable?
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 15:11:14 GMT
"Aaron Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> Martin Eden wrote:
> >
> > "jtnews" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > I just saw a news piece on Windows XP!
> > > Microsoft claims that it can run for days
> > > without crashing! Anyone have any real
> > > world experience with Windows XP?
> > > Is it really reliable?
> >
> > I kept Win2K up for over a month once. I played Half-Life on it and ran
the
> > seti at home screensaver whenever I wasn't around. The only reason I
ended
> > up re-booting was to install SP1.
> >
> > Windows is more stable than Linux for desktop use - if you have half a
brain
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> How much did M$ pay you to write that load of horse shit?
>
Since you bring up the subject of dishonesty, Aaron: I wonder if you finally
remember the unit you were attached to in the Gulf War. Who was your
Battalion Commander during the conflict? You know...when you claimed to have
won all those battlefield decorations for heroism, who pinned them on you?
;-)
>
>
> > in your head and some decent hardware. The problem with WinXP resides in
the
>
> Two machines...IDENTICAL hardware
>
> The LoseDOS machine makes it a couple of days.
> The Linux machine stays up for MONTHS.
Well surely that explains the following:
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows XP! Will it really be reliable?
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 13:20:13 -0500
Organization: Kulkis Consulting
Lines: 79
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en]C-CCK-MCD {TLC;RETAIL} (Win98; U)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You are a real "Unix Systems Engineer" aren't you? lol.
Aaron's troll-sig snipped.
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I will give MS credit for one thing
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 15:24:43 +0000
>> Based on past experience, the first option is much more likely.
>
> What past experience?? Give an example.
>
>> > source code? Now THAT is a hack in itself.
>>
>> Show me a better one and tell me in your own words why it is better.
>
> HP-UX.
>
> Because it is far more stable, more robust, more scaleable, and far
> better performing than Linux. No need to see the kernel to confirm it.
I was talking about the source code, but besides, you are comparing Linux
on vanilla hardware to HPUX on very high quality, expensive hardware. I'm
not saying HPUX is bad, I'm saying your comparison is poor.
>> >> Also note that with
>> >> all these undocumented APIs,
>> >
>> > Name *one* undocumented API that WMP uses... I'd be very curious
>> > since
>>
>> Don't be a fool.
>
> So then name one.
How the fuck can I name it if its undocumented. That's what calling you a
fool was about. If they use undocumented APIs, its plain stupid to ask
someone to name them.
>> > the codebase is exactly the same as that used on Windows 2000...
>>
>> Manu undocumante APIs have been found in the older MS OS's. It is
>> reasonable to assume that they exist in the new ones too.
>
> Of course! Undocumented APIs *always* have existed in MS OSs. Yet,
> what I am asking for is to *find* one of these undocumented APIs used in
> an
> *application*.
And MS certainly used to use them for performance reasons. What is there
to make be think that they don't still do the same?
> *You* could use an undocumented API if you so chose too... it wouldn't
> be
> smart if you don't plan on updating your software after every service
> pack.
Service packs break some software anyway.
>> >> But, I'd like to think of unix as
>> >> the best possible ALL-AROUND, general-purpose OS, while Windows,
>> >> pretty
>> > much,
>> >> is only good for games and video, and other multimedia crap.
>> >
>> > The reasons most people use personal computers.
>>
>> But not everyone.
>
> But most.
Not everyone. A huge number of people use the computer for wordprocessing
and similar tasks, most of the time.
>> >> Please don't get me wrong here, I'm a unix lover and MS hater.
>> >
>> > Why are you an MS hater? You acknowledge that they do some things
>> > better, but you still hate them?? Are you a hypocrite?
>>
>> I can't say for sure, but prbably because of the illegal business
>> practices,
>
> Yet unproven.
I thought they were appealing to get the sentance redced. I think you're
the only person claiming that MS hasn't used illegal businedd tactics.
>
>> ripping off the consumer with substandard,
>
> The consumer can choose not to buy windows...
That's what a monopoly is about. You said yourself in an eariler thread
that Win2K can do everything (because of software avaliable) and Linux
can't. Now you're saying consumers aren'f forced to buy windows. Looks
like you're a hypocrite.
>> over prices bloatware and trying to force everyone
>
> How do you force anybody? I can go out and still buy OS/2 for that
> matter... or Linux or FreeBSD or SCO or BeOS or a Mac or WHATEVER I
> WANT.
See above.
> > to use that substandard, overprices software.
>
> Again, the consumer does have a choice.
No, they don't. MS has a monopoly. Mosty users are too incompetant to
install any OS. Because of the monopoly, most computers are sold with
windows and Office, that effectively forces consumers to use M$. That's
what a monopoly is about and that is why it is bad for the consumer.
> I can also choose not to use any damned OS!!
Yet you still keef coughing up ��� for that POS masquerading as an
operating system.
> -Todd
--
Did you know that the reason that windows steam up in cold|Edward Rosten
weather is because of all the fish in the atmosphere? |u98ejr
- The Hackenthorpe Book of lies |@
|eng.ox.ac.uk
------------------------------
From: "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows XP! Will it really be reliable?
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 23:28:47 +0800
"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:96gque$iem$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > 2000 is pretty darn stable. I've had almost zero problems with it, and
> > it
>
> Yeah! 120 day uptimes. Great.
Assuming an uptime of 120 days, simply use a two cluster box (built into
Windows 2000 AS) for high availability. That's what the customer requires
really.
As for uptime stats., I think this really depends on the quality of the
admin... I don't have a problem with Windows 2000 crashing. We run 2000 on
quality hardware.
> > runs DirectX 8 ! What more could you ask for?
>
> UNIX.
But UNIX doesn't run DX 8! Nor Office, nor half a zillion other needed or
wanted stuff.
-Todd
>
> -Ed
>
>
>
>
>
> > hehe... I know I'm gonna
> > get quite a few responses here... :)
>
>
> --
> Did you know that the reason that windows steam up in cold|Edward Rosten
> weather is because of all the fish in the atmosphere? |u98ejr
> - The Hackenthorpe Book of lies |@
> |eng.ox.ac.uk
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Windows guy.
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 15:29:42 +0000
> The buffer size is only important if your system can not respond to
> interrupts quickly enough. RAM is expensive, so for all these CDRs with
> huge buffers, just so Windows can burn a CD, we users of real operating
> systems have to pay the bill for your crappy OS.
Not true. I have a P133 and can happily burn CDs at 8x (under Linux, of
course). I probably wouldn't be able to do much reliably without burning
coasters if the CD-RW didn't have a reasonable buffer. But, I'll admit
that this is an unusual case.
-Ed
--
Did you know that the reason that windows steam up in cold|Edward Rosten
weather is because of all the fish in the atmosphere? |u98ejr
- The Hackenthorpe Book of lies |@
|eng.ox.ac.uk
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 16:12:38 +0100
From: Nils Zonneveld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: WindowsXP - Pay us to solve our bugs
pip wrote:
> Any software company that does that sucks - period! M$, Apple (they just
> need to get potential revenue's figures - explains the low price) and
> IBM are all criminals in this.
>
I find NLG 100,= extremely expensive for Beta software that functions
only for a month (Mac OS X Beta). The price that's reasonable to ask for
beta software is the cost price.
Nils
------------------------------
From: Kool Breeze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: New kernel 2.4.1 rocks with IPMASQ
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 10:49:36 -0500
I dunno if anyone uses linux to IPMASQ online games, but MAN! What a
difference 2.4.1 makes on this!
I noticed web and email are MUCH smoother/faster as well.
I am weak on modules and making boot disks so I built a 2.4.1 kernel
with all my network interfaces and NetFilter. (Running RH 6.1).
Here are the steps from RH 6.X:
- get and install rpm-3.0.5-X # only if < RH 7.0
- get and install latest modutils*rpm # only if < RH 7.0
- get and install iptables*.rpm # only if < RH 7.0
- dl linux-2.4.1.tar.gz from kernel.org
- cd /usr/src
- mv linux linux.old
- tar xzvf /home/mydir/linux-2.4.1*
- mv linux linux-2.4.1
- ln -s linux-2.4.1 linux
- make menuconfig
- build into the kernel your net interfaces as well as all ipfilter
options
- make -j8 dep
- make -j8 bzImage
- make -j8 modules
- make -j8 modules_install
- make -j8 install
- add lilo.conf entry to include the new kernel
- lilo
- add to your ipchains fw script (ipchains no longer works without
other steps):
iptables -A POSTROUTING -t net eth0 -j MASQUERADE
IMPORTANT: This will effectively disable your FW rules as ipchains
will not run (I havent gotten to this yet!)
NOTE: Still OK to NON-ipchains fw commands!
------------------------------
From: "Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Windows guy.
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 15:53:35 GMT
"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Mike wrote:
>
> Many other things as well - surely you are aware that there
> are facilities common to all unices, which are completely absent
> from the pc platform. For instance, if a program calls "fork()"
> you will have to do some clever workarounds to get it to compile
> in windows, let alone do anything useful
The bigger problem is actually stuff like file name differences, ioctl, and
links, which occur far more often than fork(). Even though they aren't the
same, fork() calls can often be replaced by spawn() or exec() calls - when
they can't, it takes some work. I can't recall any particular case where it
was a problem, although I'm sure there are cases.
> > Genuine Unix, from a major vendor. Our current vendor could be called
vendor
> > S. Our previous vendor could be called vendor H. Real live Unix. All
day,
> > every day.
>
> So, you sit at a windows pc all day and telnet to Unix?
>
> All the DBAs all do that where I work - but none of them
> are even what I would call familiar with Unix.
I have a real live workstation, J. I'm not a DBA, I'm an electrical
engineer.
-- Mike --
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: and none of it is done with windows
Date: 15 Feb 2001 15:54:13 GMT
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> . wrote:
>> You are not to respond to any more of my posts, pete, because you
>> are too much of a gigantic fucking moron.
> No, I think because I showed up the poster of the original note.
>> Google is right smack dab in the middle of implementing all of the
>> stuff that deja used to have, plus bringing back on online the
>> archive that goes to 1995. Apparantly most of it will be completed
>> in the next 8 weeks.
> From what I've heard they're gutting it. We shall see.
"from what you heard"? Where exactly would someone like you hear
anything remotely true about this situation?
=====.
------------------------------
From: "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I will give MS credit for one thing
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 23:58:08 +0800
"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:96gscc$k78$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Based on past experience, the first option is much more likely.
> >
> > What past experience?? Give an example.
> >
> >> > source code? Now THAT is a hack in itself.
> >>
> >> Show me a better one and tell me in your own words why it is better.
> >
> > HP-UX.
> >
> > Because it is far more stable, more robust, more scaleable, and far
> > better performing than Linux. No need to see the kernel to confirm it.
>
>
> I was talking about the source code, but besides, you are comparing Linux
> on vanilla hardware to HPUX on very high quality, expensive hardware. I'm
> not saying HPUX is bad, I'm saying your comparison is poor.
Why? Linux is close to UNIX and that makes the comparison valid. You can
run HP-UX on inexpensive workstations.
HP-UX, on any hardware, is by far a better system than any distribution of
Linux.
> >> >> Also note that with
> >> >> all these undocumented APIs,
> >> >
> >> > Name *one* undocumented API that WMP uses... I'd be very curious
> >> > since
> >>
> >> Don't be a fool.
> >
> > So then name one.
>
> How the fuck can I name it if its undocumented.
Then how do you know they even exist or are being used?
> That's what calling you a
> fool was about. If they use undocumented APIs, its plain stupid to ask
> someone to name them.
Then, using the same logic, you can't claim that MS uses them... there would
be no proof.
> >> > the codebase is exactly the same as that used on Windows 2000...
> >>
> >> Manu undocumante APIs have been found in the older MS OS's. It is
> >> reasonable to assume that they exist in the new ones too.
> >
> > Of course! Undocumented APIs *always* have existed in MS OSs. Yet,
> > what I am asking for is to *find* one of these undocumented APIs used in
> > an
> > *application*.
>
> And MS certainly used to use them for performance reasons.
Which ones were those again?
> What is there
> to make be think that they don't still do the same?
MS *does* use undocumented APIs in some apps. However, so do some 3rd
parties.
Many of those so called 'undocumented' calls are indeed documented in MSDN -
yet there are cautionary notes advising not to use those calls because they
may change in the future.
BUT YOU CAN USE THEM IF YOU WANT.
> > *You* could use an undocumented API if you so chose too... it wouldn't
> > be
> > smart if you don't plan on updating your software after every service
> > pack.
>
>
> Service packs break some software anyway.
For example?
> >> >> But, I'd like to think of unix as
> >> >> the best possible ALL-AROUND, general-purpose OS, while Windows,
> >> >> pretty
> >> > much,
> >> >> is only good for games and video, and other multimedia crap.
> >> >
> >> > The reasons most people use personal computers.
> >>
> >> But not everyone.
> >
> > But most.
>
> Not everyone. A huge number of people use the computer for wordprocessing
> and similar tasks, most of the time.
A huge number do the above, in addition to playing games, editing videos,
and the like.
> >> >> Please don't get me wrong here, I'm a unix lover and MS hater.
> >> >
> >> > Why are you an MS hater? You acknowledge that they do some things
> >> > better, but you still hate them?? Are you a hypocrite?
> >>
> >> I can't say for sure, but prbably because of the illegal business
> >> practices,
> >
> > Yet unproven.
>
> I thought they were appealing to get the sentance redced. I think you're
> the only person claiming that MS hasn't used illegal businedd tactics.
One JUDGE claimed they were using illegal business tactics - and that Judge
has gone way out of bounds according to several antitrust experts - both for
and against the MS case.
Frankly, I think the appeals court is going to overturn most of the decision
anyway.
Again, I don't think MS has harmed consumers (which the government MUST
prove). I'm not harmed in any way. Netscape sucked. Good riddance.
> >> ripping off the consumer with substandard,
> >
> > The consumer can choose not to buy windows...
>
> That's what a monopoly is about. You said yourself in an eariler thread
> that Win2K can do everything (because of software avaliable) and Linux
> can't.
I didn't say that Linux couldn't do everything. I simply noted that W2k
does more what consumers want.
> Now you're saying consumers aren'f forced to buy windows.
Consumers aren't *forced* to buy anything.
> Looks
> like you're a hypocrite.
Why? A consumer can choose to use an OS that does less than another... it
happens all of the time. Look at how many people choose Linux :)
> >> over prices bloatware and trying to force everyone
> >
> > How do you force anybody? I can go out and still buy OS/2 for that
> > matter... or Linux or FreeBSD or SCO or BeOS or a Mac or WHATEVER I
> > WANT.
>
> See above.
I did - nothing convincing at all.
> > > to use that substandard, overprices software.
> >
> > Again, the consumer does have a choice.
>
> No, they don't. MS has a monopoly. Mosty users are too incompetant to
> install any OS.
True - OEMs and retailers make it easier for the consumer. Some retailers
install Linux or other Oses - but consumers return those systems because
they can't run off-the-shelf programs...
> Because of the monopoly, most computers are sold with
> windows and Office, that effectively forces consumers to use M$.
My father uses Windows - he has read a lot about Linux and had pondered
installing it.
I recommended against it - and he still wanted to try. Then I said the
easiest way for me to convince you not to use it is for me to go out and buy
you a copy and install it over Windows. He was then convinced.
> That's
> what a monopoly is about and that is why it is bad for the consumer.
Most consumers would NOT want Linux. It is mostly for the experimenters or
computer hobbyists / geeks.
This is what Linux users just do not understand - and probably never will.
-Todd
>
> > I can also choose not to use any damned OS!!
>
> Yet you still keef coughing up ��� for that POS masquerading as an
> operating system.
>
>
> > -Todd
>
> --
> Did you know that the reason that windows steam up in cold|Edward Rosten
> weather is because of all the fish in the atmosphere? |u98ejr
> - The Hackenthorpe Book of lies |@
> |eng.ox.ac.uk
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: and none of it is done with windows
Date: 15 Feb 2001 15:58:21 GMT
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mig wrote:
>> > Have you actually seen what they've done to Deja's archive? And you're
>> > proud that none of this is done with Windows?
>>
>> The archives run the same OS as allways - Linux! They did with deja and
>> they do it with google.
> And this is something to be proud of - what they've done to the archive?
1. you have no idea what theyve done to the archive, because youre a blithering
idiot.
2. all you know is that it looks different now and it only goes back six months.
with your very, very small brain, you've figured out that this means theyve
nuked the archive.
You truly are an idiot. Stop posting at once.
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan Mercer)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Date: 15 Feb 2001 15:55:12 GMT
Their is certainly a strong element of faith in science. We
accept the existence of that we have no direct knowledge (muons,
for instance) based upon the assurances of people we have no
direct knowledge. Is it really that far a stretch to believe
Christ existed based on the works of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John
than to believe black holes exist.
Just as the religious rely on the collective experiences of those
who have gone before, so does science. You certainly do not
perform experiments to prove every article of science you encounter,
you rely on faith that your predecessors performed their experiments
correctly. Following the cold fusion debate, you can witness the
uproar tha ensues when experiments appear to challenge the preheld
beliefs. The reaction of physicists is to deny and attack the new
evidence just as fundamentalists attack evolution. If cold fusion
yet proves out and is not the likely result of poorly conducted
experimentation, the howls from physicists will equal the howls
of those who originally shouted down the germ theory of Pasteur or
the works of Charles Darwin.
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In comp.os.linux.misc John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Robert Surenko writes:
>>> It also takes faith to believe the Universe is as appears to the 5
>>> senses.
>
>> I don't.
But the universe isn't as our senses report it. For instance,
you and I and a European bee may look at flower and think it is black.
The European bee, in fact, will ignore it. But an African or Africanized
bee sees a wider spectrum than either humans or their European
counterparts. So the African bee will visit that flower.
There are those who can "hear" radio waves - they hear the Northern
Lights as waves booming onto the shore - which may explain the
large number of people who began having problems hearing a background
noise after the ELF arrays began their work. Their are additional
senses we do not have (the electric field sense shared by electric eels
and some sharks, echolocation) and some (orientation) which may be
shared by only a percentage of humans (in experiments in which people
were blindfolded and soundproofed, then driven around in circles
to deliberately disorient them. They were then asked to poin to their
point of origin. Most pointed in random directions. But s significant
minority were able to point in the correct direction better than 80%
of the time).
>
> Well, there are issues of sanity involved here. Doubting the evidence of
> your own senses leaves you in a difficult position.
Then, to your mind the blind should not believe in light, nor the
deaf ins sound?
Insanity is a
> probable outcome (although that is a sane response to the predicament).
>
>>> Because of this it also takes great faith to not believe ( or believe
>>> not) in God.
>
>> Nonsense.
>
>>> Science and logic are a religion.
>
>> More nonsense.
>
> Agreed. It is after all, very difficult to program a computer using
> religious beliefs as a basis for your programming.
Faith is essential in programming a computer. Unless you are actually
programming the microcode of the CPU, you rely upon the belief that
what you write will do what you want, a belief that is all to often
shaken. Eveen the assemby writer must interact with other people's
work if only the BIOS, and must have faith that the work they did
was correct. Quite simply, we cannot confirm every postulate
we use in life. We cannot even confirm that ever postulate is ultimately
confirmable.
I tend to view that
> as evidence that scientific belief is qualitatively different, since
> believing in scientific principles like observation, no-interpretation,
> experiment, hypothesiis formation and refutation, does help you program
> a computer.
>
> On the other hand, so does alcohol and coffee.
>
> Peter
--
Dan Mercer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Opinions expressed herein are my own and may not represent those of my employer.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
