Linux-Advocacy Digest #222, Volume #32 Thu, 15 Feb 01 20:13:06 EST
Contents:
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Re: The Windows guy. (Nigel)
Re: Windows XP! Will it really be reliable? (Charlie Ebert)
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Microsoft seeks government help to stop Linux (petilon)
Re: The Windows guy. (Nigel)
Re: I will give MS credit for one thing ("Weevil")
Re: KULKIS IS A MISERABLE PIECE OF SHIT ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Windows XP! Will it really be reliable? (Nigel)
Re: The Windows guy. ("Edward Rosten")
Re: The Windows guy. ("Edward Rosten")
Re: The Windows guy. ("Edward Rosten")
Re: How Microsoft Crushes the Hearts of Trolls.
Re: Windows XP! Will it really be reliable? ("Edward Rosten")
Re: KDE Whiners
Re: Windows XP! Will it really be reliable? (Nigel)
Re: KDE Whiners ("Edward Rosten")
Re: KDE Whiners ("Edward Rosten")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 00:10:39 -0000
On Thu, 15 Feb 2001 22:32:20 GMT, Robert Surenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.misc Peter T. Breuer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> In comp.os.linux.misc Robert Surenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> In comp.os.linux.misc Johan Kullstam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan Mercer) writes:
>>> Or how about this one...
>
>>> Little fairies manipulate scientific experiments for their infinite
>>> amusment and joy. These little fairies are from the 5th dimension
>>> and feel their greatest acomplishment is that they have faked out the
>>> humans who now believe that all objects fall at the same rate.
>
>>> All smart little fairies know that heavy things fall faster.
>
>>> Prove it.
>
>> We don't have to. The burden of proof is on you. You'll find it
>> rather hard, mind you, because your theory has no testable
>> consequences that I can see. You can believe it if you like, but
>> it's a nontheory; its predictive power is nil.
>
>No, I'm sorry, You have speculated that the Scientific Method is
>somehow different than a faith. Even impliying that "truth" can
>be approched. I don't see how you can prove this and have mearly
>given you some alternatives to the data you are observing.
>
>The burden is on you to "prove" the Scientific Method, without
>using it in a proof.
There is no burden. This forum is proof enough. This network,
the machine you are blathering on, the house you are sitting
in, the power grid that powers all three and even your very
existence are all consequences of following the scientific
method.
You having enough to eat, you being sufficiently sheltered
from your enviroment to make it to adulthood, your ancestors
surviving long enough to procreate, all are due to the notions
that humans have about their universe that came about through
the scientific method.
[deletia]
Demanding proof of the scientific method in this century is
much like demanding proof that the sun exists.
--
Common Standards, Common Ownership.
The alternative only leads to destructive anti-capitalist
and anti-democratic monopolies.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: Nigel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Windows guy.
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 01:18:31 +0000
> CDRWin uses text based files for this, and is completely scriptable.
>
> http://www.goldenhawk.com/cdrwin.htm
>
Ok - will give it a try when I get a chance. I have used this package
before but it didn't seem worth paying money for something to do what my
other software can already do for free but will try it purely for curiosity
reasons to see if it can really do what my linux scriptfile does (back up
all directories on a server created within the past 2 weeks). Other
software I have used can backup all files created within a specified time
limit but not directories (some directories contain installable builds and
only 1 or 2 of the of many files in each directory has new date so would
create unuseable backups if only look at filedates).
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows XP! Will it really be reliable?
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 00:19:43 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Aaron Kulkis wrote:
>
>
>Marten Kemp wrote:
>>
>> Charlie Ebert wrote:
>> <<snip>>
>> >
>> > When you compare the development cycle between Intel and AMD,
>> > AMD is not hindered by secret contracts with Microsoft.
>> >
>> > If anything, you will hear a slosh in the boots of Intel as they
>> > walk away from the next encounter from AMD.
>> >
>> > If I was the president of Intel, I would tell MS to just fuck off.
>> >
>> > --
>> > Charlie
>> What secret contracts? Special opcodes they only tell Microsoft about?
>
>MS tells them what opcodes they want Intel to implement....or something.
>
Oh please gentlemen!
Are you telling me that nobody is aware of the 64 bit Intel processor
used in the HP-9000 series? It's been on the road for along time now.
It's the same damn chip. But it's available ONLY for mainframe use.
You mean to tell me you guys didn't know that?
They are under contract to sit on this chip until Microsoft get's finished
working the bugs out of their 64 bit code.
Go call an HP rep and ask him what kind of CPU is used in an HP-9000
mainframe computer.
>
>> -- Marten Kemp
>
>--
>Aaron R. Kulkis
>Unix Systems Engineer
>DNRC Minister of all I survey
>ICQ # 3056642
>
>
--
Charlie
**DEBIAN** **GNU**
/ / __ __ __ __ __ __ __
/ /__ / / / \/ / / /_/ / \ \/ /
/_____/ /_/ /_/\__/ /_____/ /_/\_\
http://www.debian.org
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 00:20:17 -0000
On Thu, 15 Feb 2001 22:00:09 GMT, Robert Surenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.misc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> On Thu, 15 Feb 2001 20:38:45 GMT, Robert Surenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>In comp.os.linux.misc Johan Kullstam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan Mercer) writes:
>>>
>
>> The only problem with your tirade is the fact that the
>> only reason you even exist now is because of such
>> "religious" beliefs.
>
>Perhaps, although humankind existed for 100,000 years without
>formal science... 3 or 4 hundred years is probably not enough time
So. That doesn't have any relevance to your own existence.
>to see if this science stuff is better for the species.
>
>By the way, tirade is defined as a "long haranging speech". It is
>a word usually used by a person who avoids the question.
That is just empty rhetoric on your part. The fact still
remains that you only exist because technology has allowed
you and your forebears to live and thrive. Unless you are
Amish, just about anything you have is a result of this
'highly questionable' scientific method that is taken on
faith.
>
>I proposed several hypothesis as to why the Scientific Method
>appears to work. No speach... just some questions.
They are irrelevant. They all resolve to the same outcome.
God and faith become meaningless when they don't have any
impact on your life. Even if this is some strange game,
the fact remains that we seem to be figuring out the rules
rather well.
It is not up to us to disprove your absurdities. OTOH,
proof by counterexample should be trivial enough that
you would be willing to take on that burden.
>
>
>>>Science comes up with stuff that works... but it does not lead to
>>>truth.
>
>> No one with any clue claims that it does. It suffices that
>> it works remarkably better than following church doctrine.
>
>It appears so, for matters of the five senses.
>It fails miserable when it comes to ethics or phylosophy
>or religion.
Who claimed otherwise?
[deletia]
The rest of your rant is irrelevant to the point at hand.
If you wish to force "god" to be considered relevant for
discussions of ethics or philosophy, then that is another
matter. I would disagree with you in such an argument as
well.
Man will always spoil enlightenment. So any talk of god
is meaningless when it comes to just about anything.
For "god" is just the agenda of man in disguise.
--
Having seen my prefered platform being eaten away by vendorlock and
the Lemming mentality in the past, I have a considerable motivation to
use Free Software that has nothing to do with ideology and everything
to do with pragmatism.
Free Software is the only way to level the playing field against a
market leader that has become immune to market pressures.
The other alternatives are giving up and just allowing the mediocrity
to walk all over you or to see your prefered product die slowly.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: petilon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Microsoft seeks government help to stop Linux
Date: 15 Feb 2001 15:26:46 -0800
After killing innovation in the web browser market by distributing
IE for free, Microsoft is now calling Linux a "threat to innovation"
because it is being distributed for free.
"There is always something enamoring about thinking you can get
something for free." says Jim Allchin of Microsoft.
Read the outrageous story at:
http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-4833927.html?tag=owv
------------------------------
From: Nigel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Windows guy.
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 01:26:31 +0000
Mike wrote:
>
> "Nigel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:eJCi6.2046$uY2.42094@news2-hme0...
> >
> > > REAL soft links
> > > REAL memory protected multi-tasking
> > > REAL pipes
> > > REAL multi-user capabilities
> > > REAL remote usage
> > >
> >
> > Wow - didn't think of all of these. Bet the windows clones of unix tools
> > can't use the output of one command as commandline parameters for next
> > command.
>
> Huh? xargs works fine on my W2k machine. Were you thinking of something
> else?
>
> The stuff Aaron mentioned is more realistic. The NTFS file system supports
> links, but not in a way that most Unix users would find useful. I'm not
> sure what he means by "memory protected" multi-tasking, but I suspect he's
> referring to Win95/98, not NT/2k. Pipes have been supported for years in
> DOS - I'm not sure when they were first implemented, but I'm sure I
> remember using pipes in DOS 2.0. Pipes are a pretty simple construct, so
> it's hard to think of why they wouldn't be supported (is there some other
> pipe, Aaron?). My Win2k box supports multiple users (but those familiar
> with W2k will realize that "multiple" means 2). As far as remote usage
> goes, that's the one point I'd acknowledge straight away, but it's not one
> that I find that I miss.
>
DOS (and windows console) can pipe the output of one command into the next
(e.g. 'DIR |more' which pipes the output of DIR into the 'more' command)
but unix can also pipe the output of one command into the commandline
arguments of the next command - e.g. piping the output of the find command
into the commandline arguments of the del command to delete all files with
specified name anywhere on filesystem.
------------------------------
From: "Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I will give MS credit for one thing
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 00:27:18 GMT
Todd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:96gloe$gpc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Todd wrote:
> > > > One explanation, I guess, is that Windows ME probably has all kinds
of
> > > hacks
> > > > to its scheduler to make it better for playing videos.
> > >
> > > Or maybe MS simply improved it. Haven't you seen the Linux kernel
> source
> > > code? Now THAT is a hack in itself.
> >
> > Beg to differ, I realize you are trolling, but the Linux kernel sources
> are
> > pretty good.
>
> Hmmm... I guess we have different coding standards. I really do think
they
> look like hacks. I am looking at the source from RedHat 7.0... the kernel
> source should be the same across distributions...
If you are looking at the source code, and you think it's shoddy hacked-up
programming, then why don't you cut and paste a small portion and tell us
all exactly what's wrong with it and how they *should* have done it?
This ought to be pretty entertaining. :)
> > If you look at the Windows DDK sources, those are some nasty
> > hacks.
>
> Really? I have the Enterprise MSDN edition, and have definitely done work
> with the DDK. What driver source code are you referring to??
And to be fair, you can ask some of the Linux pros in here to do the same
with Windows DDK sources.
> I know Linux users don't think much of IE, but this is because they can't
> run it. If they could, they would see that it ROCKS over Netscape any
day.
> I have found that IE crashes *a lot* under 9x, but extremely rarely under
> w2k - in fact, it doesn't crash on me at all under w2k.
>
> It is the crappy 9x OS.
Why is it that you and your fellow wintrolls never, ever spoke that way
about Win 9x while Microsoft was selling it?
I can predict with perfect confidence that when MS moves completely to Win
XP (or a successor) and stops shipping Win 2K, you and your chums will be
all over the boards talking about how fantastic the new OS is and what a dog
that old 2K was.
------------------------------
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: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 00:29:18 +0000
In article <nRTi6.49772$[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?
>
> More like "to whom", given that you're the one asking the question. Or
> do you consider yourself a "what"?
It would go some way towards demonstrating Kulkis' credibility if it were
true.
>>> My question is about the relevance, not
>
>> So?
>
> Precisely. What difference would it make?
To what or to whom?
>>> the correctness. I could also ask about the redundancy.
>
>> Is it correct (relavence aside)?
>
> What difference would it make?
To what or to whom?
-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: Nigel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows XP! Will it really be reliable?
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 01:33:20 +0000
Tom Wilson wrote:
> In article <96d6ak$kng$04$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Ralph Miguel Hansen"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Aaron Kulkis wrote:
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Bill gates deserves a house that burns to the ground every few days.
> >>
> >> THAT would be funny!
> >>
> > You monster. He gave us the wintrolls.
> >
>
> And for this, deserves to be locked in said house as it burns. <g>
If his house is using windows systems to run everything then this is very
likely - franticly trying to reboot the front-door so he can get out.
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Windows guy.
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 00:32:55 +0000
> Pipes have been supported
> for years in DOS - I'm not sure when they were first implemented, but
> I'm sure I remember using pipes in DOS 2.0. Pipes are a pretty simple
> construct, so it's hard to think of why they wouldn't be supported (is
> there some other pipe, Aaron?).
Incorrect. DOS has never supported pipes. It emulated pipes by putting
the pipe contents in to a temp file and then dumpunt the temp file to the
input of the next process. DOS could not do proper pipes, since it was
single tasking.
-Ed
> My Win2k box supports multiple users
> (but those familiar with W2k will realize that "multiple" means 2). As
> far as remote usage goes, that's the one point I'd acknowledge straight
> away, but it's not one that I find that I miss.
>
> -- Mike --
--
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: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 00:34:15 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Tim Hanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Aaron Kulkis wrote:
>>
>> Edward Rosten wrote:
>> >
>> > > He's talking non-interactive. With an interactive editor like
>> > > Notepad or vi, one must manually open the file into the text buffer
>> > > and do
>> >
>> > Vi can do noninteractive stuff. Wirte a script for the ex abck end
>> > and execute that, just like ed scripts, but better.
>> >
>> > -Ed
>> >
>>
>> "Ed is the one true editor...."
>>
>
> Ed??!? You use ed? What a wimp! Anything above DEBUG is a waste of
> resources. It's a little hard to duplicate graphics in hex, though...
> :-)
Pfeh! When I *really* want to get something done, I use cat.
-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: The Windows guy.
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 00:36:09 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Tim Hanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> A transfinite number of monkeys wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 13 Feb 2001 20:38:29 -0500, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> : He is working on a Linux web server. He wants to do a global replace
>> in VI. I
>> : tell him to use sed. He whines a bit, then tries it. I hear from his
>> cube.
>> : "Sweet!"
>>
>> Why bother leaving vi to do something that simple?
>>
>> :%s/find-expression/replace-expression/g
>
> I have spent the last couple of weeks learning some of the nuances of
> sed, and it _is_ slick.
Now write a program to print out the words to `100 green bottles'.
Have fun!
-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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How Microsoft Crushes the Hearts of Trolls.
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 00:37:42 -0000
On Thu, 15 Feb 2001 23:43:47 GMT, Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> |||
>> / | \
>
>Man, I miss my old Atari ST!
...a GUI and OS that fit into a 200K ROM.
--
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows XP! Will it really be reliable?
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 00:42:12 +0000
>> > 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.
Yeah. Good idea. Buy not one but TWO PCs and TWO Win2K licenses to do
what ONE Linux PC and do. Great.
> 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.
Micros~1's own uptime stats. Who'd argue?
>> > runs DirectX 8 ! What more could you ask for?
>>
>> UNIX.
>
> But UNIX doesn't run DX 8!
No, I meant that's what more you'd want. That'e certainly what M$ wants
(remember, NT was supposed to be a better UNIX thsn UNIX).
> Nor Office, nor half a zillion other needed
I don't need office.
> or wanted stuff.
I don't want office either, it's crap. In fact, Linux runs everything I
want and need, where as Windows doesn't.
-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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: KDE Whiners
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 00:43:28 -0000
On Thu, 15 Feb 2001 23:27:52 GMT, Tim Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Mig wrote:
>>
>> A transfinite number of monkeys wrote:
>>
>> > On Wed, 14 Feb 2001 23:12:40 +0100, Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > : Weird.... for me it looks like Ximian trus to sell a modified Gnome with
>> > : some extra apps. Allways saw Gnome as the possible alternative to KDE in
>> > : the distant future and not Ximian.
>> >
>> > You're under no obligation to buy anything from Ximian. You can download
>> > *everything* that goes onto their CDs from their FTP site. Yet, this
>> > still
>> > seems to upset you somehow. Do you also get mad at RedHat for selling
>> > CDs of their distribution? How about BSDI/Walnut Creek for having the
>> > audacity to sell FreeBSD CD's?
>>
>> Im not upset by anything else then the avertising and that issue is
>> cleared... so im NOT upset at all at the moment.
>> I welcome commercialism in Linux and the BSD's since i believe that the
>> quality and diversity of products will increase and i am willing to pay for
>> it.. actually i have spent much more on Linux software and Linux
>> distributions then on Microsoft software
>>
>> What irritates me is that Gnomers allways have given the impression that
>> commercialism was bad and when suddenly one of their conmmercial entityes
How much LESS of a clue could you have?
Did you, like, take this from an anti-FSF playbook or something?
Copyleft is not "anti-commercial". It is infact very much
pro-commercial if you really think about it a bit. Some
things simply should not be "owned" or subject to monopoly.
It's bad for business.
One proprietary competitor is weaker than 5 open ones together.
[deletia]
>Windows spell check, no doubt. I don't know any GNOME advocates who
>believe commercialism is bad, and no one here is "[going] on attack on
>[a] free project." Advertizing does not constitute attack. No one here
>said anything bad about KDE, except for the kickback scheme from
>TrollTech, which is simply their revenue model.
[deletia]
Personally, I never faulted QT for being proprietary. I thought
it was a buisiness mistake on Troll's part. Howver I thought it
was their mistake to make.
I faulted KDE for using it.
That's a rather subtle distinction that typically gets glossed over.
--
Having seen my prefered platform being eaten away by vendorlock and
the Lemming mentality in the past, I have a considerable motivation to
use Free Software that has nothing to do with ideology and everything
to do with pragmatism.
Free Software is the only way to level the playing field against a
market leader that has become immune to market pressures.
The other alternatives are giving up and just allowing the mediocrity
to walk all over you or to see your prefered product die slowly.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: Nigel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows XP! Will it really be reliable?
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 01:45:30 +0000
> > > > What do you think about McDonald's? :)
> > >
> > > I like their french fries ;)
> >
> > Yeah, they are good.
>
> ... and chicken mcnuggets with sweet and sour sauce. the sauce is
> important.
>
Perhaps we should start a alt.food.mcdonalds.advocacy newsgroup
On Second thoughts maybe not - we will only get the site swamped with
burger-king trolls claiming their burgers are easier to use and cause fewer
clothing BSOD's (burger stain of death).
Sorry - it's late and this is the best humour I could think of.
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: KDE Whiners
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 00:46:21 +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.
>
> The Europeans started putting advertising on hockey-arena side boards
I don't watck (ice) hockey. It's not big over here.
> DECADES before the US....and also pioneered putting them "on" the ice
> itself. I was flipping through the channels one day, and there was a
> Swedish game on... ALL of the face-off circles had been converted into
> huge advertisements.
>
> Complaints from Europe about other people inappropriately placing
> advertisements are....amusing
Last time I visited the US, advertising was much heavier in general than
over here.
-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: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 00:47:21 +0000
>> If I search for KDE, I don't want to see stuff about Ximian.
>
> If I watch TV, I dont want to see commercials every twenty minutes. I'd
> like to have commercial breaks only once, in the middle of the film, and
> just long enough to brew one cup of tea and go to the toilet.
Nah. I don't like commercial breakes in films at all (esp. if the film
isn't light). That's what I love about the BBC.
-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
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
