Linux-Advocacy Digest #432, Volume #32 Fri, 23 Feb 01 14:13:06 EST
Contents:
Re: Business (Bob Hauck)
Re: The Windows guy. (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Are todays computers 1000 times better than the original PCs? (Bruce Scott TOK)
Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Linux Threat: non-existant (Bob Hauck)
Re: Ooooopsss there goes another one. (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Why don't we see more advocacy for Linux/MPI? (Bruce Scott TOK)
Re: Does anyone know how much computer power we have/ (Bruce Scott TOK)
Re: The Windows guy. ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Interesting article (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited ("Quantum Leaper")
Re: The Windows guy. (Steve Mading)
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else (Dan Mercer)
Re: The Windows guy. (Steve Mading)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Business
Reply-To: hauck[at]codem{dot}com
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 17:41:26 GMT
On Fri, 23 Feb 2001 01:03:31 +0000, Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron Kulkis"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Mike wrote:
>>>
>>> "Aaron Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>> >
>>> > Hey, Drestin
>>> >
>>> > Still pimping out your wife?
>>>
>>> Aaron: People who live in glass houses...
>>>
>>
>> Do I have a website devoted to selling nude photos of my wife like
>> Drestin does his?
>>
>> a) yes B) NO
>Was it his wife or some random model?
His wife. If Deja was online you could look it up 8->
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Codem Systems, Inc.
-| http://www.codem.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: The Windows guy.
Date: 23 Feb 2001 17:43:08 GMT
On Fri, 23 Feb 2001 16:20:55 +0000, Edward Rosten wrote:
>OK. I'll concede, it was a poor argument. I suppose that I should think
>before I post more often :-)
>
>I believe what you're saying is that if C is a subset of A and B is a
>subset of A then C may or may not be a subset of B. Do I take this
>correctly?
More or less, yes.
>Under the definition:
>
>A (shell) pipe takes the output of one process and puts it in to the
>input of another process.
Well, that's better, we've got a decent definition.
I agree with your conclusion, I was mostly criticising the argument.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Scott TOK)
Subject: Re: Are todays computers 1000 times better than the original PCs?
Date: 23 Feb 2001 18:41:34 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I just noticed I have 1000 times more ram than my first PC/XT, it is a dual
>processor 600 MHZ system which is a an aggregate 250 times faster. My first
>hard disk was 20Meg, I have an aggregate 2300 times more disk space.
>
>It has been an amazing 16 years of computing.
My first machine was an ATARI 400 with 16kB which I later upgraded to
64kB. There was no hard disk; you used cartridges for programs (one of
which was an assembler, and a _different_ one of which was BASIC), or a
tape reader.
Then in 1985 came an ATARI ST, the first machine with 1MB RAM for 1k
USD. Still no hard disk (I used a 512kB RAMdisk and the rest was more
than OK for Fortran development).
Now thanks to my institute I use a laptop with 800 MHz, 256 MB RAM, and
11GB hard disk. The ATARI ST was 10 to 100 times slower than a DEC VAX
with my linear code (one-D). This laptop is almost as fast as two CPUs
of our T3E (which was bought with 600 MHz Alphas in 1997). My 3-D
turbulence code runs at full resolution (225 MB in core) in 80 hours (on
the T3E it is 8 hours on 16 CPUs).
--
cu,
Bruce
drift wave turbulence: http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~bds/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 17:46:30 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Aaron Kulkis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Thu, 22 Feb 2001 16:32:18 -0500
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>
>Nick Condon wrote:
>>
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Edward Rosten) wrote in <972j0q$jm6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>
>> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron Kulkis"
>> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >>> LOL! Robin Hood was a common thief.
>> >>
>> >> No...that was the TAX COLLECTOR.
>> >>
>> >> Robin Hood merely returned to the people what was wrongfully stolen from
>> >> them by Little John's tax collectors.
>> >
>> >Robin Hood was a common thief turned in to a legend.
>> >
>> >Little John was one of the Merry Men according to that legend. Are you
>> >refering to she Sherrif of Nittingham?
>
>Nottingham.
Indeed. The Sherriff of Nittingham was in a lesser-known province;
his main worry was a roguish comedian named Ribbon Hard, whose
man modus operandi was to tie bows on the rich and give to the poor
humorous material for uproariously bad jokes about rough clothing
created by manual labor....
(I'll go quietly...)
[rest snipped]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random weird puns here
EAC code #191 18d:16h:16m actually running Linux.
Darn. Just when this message was getting good, too.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: Linux Threat: non-existant
Reply-To: hauck[at]codem{dot}com
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 17:48:34 GMT
On Fri, 23 Feb 2001 16:56:12 +0000, Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>A troll implies some kind of intelligence (see the jargon file). Chad is
>simply a net.kook.
How do we get him nominated for KOTM?
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Codem Systems, Inc.
-| http://www.codem.com/
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Ooooopsss there goes another one.
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 17:43:49 -0000
In article <97130s$sho$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> Borland, marketing wizards that they are, went on a media blitz for the soon
> to be released RAD port of Delphi to Linux (Kylix). Months I have waited in
> anticipation of this release. Now, I have been told that a 'professional'
> version of this product will cost $999. Almost twice what the Windows
> version costs.
There is going to be a free version, later this year. Or $99 if you
purchase the CD.
--
---
Pete Goodwin
All your no fly zone are belong to us
My opinions are my own
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 17:53:16 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Ayende Rahien
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Fri, 23 Feb 2001 02:00:48 +0200
<974anu$lcr$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>"The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
>message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
>> I certainly hope Windows XP has a new file system, one which doesn't
>> have such weird-assed constructs as WINDOW~1.DOC or "ALLCAPS" mutating
>> to "Allcaps" in the Explorer.
>>
>> (As I understand it, both DOS and NTFS suffer from the "tilde malady";
>> the new file system would have to be completely Unicode-compliant
>> naming-wise to avoid it. I'm not sure if Unix can handle Unicode or
>> not, mostly because Unicode has a lot of NUL characters (\0), which
>> C doesn't handle all that well.)
>
>There is a registry key that let you disable short file names (the ones
>causing WINDOW~1.DOC that you mentioned.
>AFAIK, it has always been there.
>NT maintain this only for backward compatability.
>
Ah, OK. But how much "backward compatibility" is required? Surely
Windows programs no longer need these filenames? An interesting
question in itself, considering the vast panorama of configurations
out "in the wild".
I can't say I know, but I'm glad somebody thought of a disabler.
(Of course, the registry is another dumb idea, courtesy of
Microsoft -- but that's presumably fodder for another thread. :-) )
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 18d:16h:23m actually running Linux.
Linux. The choice of a GNU generation.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Scott TOK)
Subject: Re: Why don't we see more advocacy for Linux/MPI?
Date: 23 Feb 2001 18:45:53 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Has anyone played with MPI lately? For those who don't know, MPI is a package
>used to create and run parallel "clustered" (distributed) programs. It is
>standard in RedHat since 6.1 (I believe).
>
>I can envision an office environment where all the desktops use Linux, and all
>these desktops can run MPI programs. Most office users have powerful PCs that
>run e-mail, and office packages. It kills me that there is so much wasted
>computing power.
>
>Think about it..Your desktops are your super computer. Where I work, I am
>working on a real-time data analysis system, it takes a bit of time to create
>the data indexes. It is CPU intensive. I would re-write it as an MPI system in
>a heart beat if I had MPI access to an office full of multi-hundred megahertz
>systems each with over a hundred meg of ram.
Linux MPI is great. The cluster at our Greifswald institute uses LAM
MPI and it is a strong competitor for the main T3E if you only need in
the range of 16-32 CPUs. My code with no modifications gets a speedup
of 12 on 16 CPUs with full size grid (particle codes do even better; one
was running on 32 and getting much better turnaround than on the T3E).
That stuff works, and it is a godsend for small academic groups with
limited resources. Many groups are building such clusters nowadays.
--
cu,
Bruce
drift wave turbulence: http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~bds/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Scott TOK)
Subject: Re: Does anyone know how much computer power we have/
Date: 23 Feb 2001 18:48:34 +0100
In article <975h12$spb$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Bloody Viking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>mlw ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
>: I just posted about how I have 1000 times more RAM than my first PC/XT. not
>: mentioning my CP/M machine.
>
>: Lets face it: we are all running supercomputers. It is simply amazing how much
>: computer power we have?
>
>Put into that perspective, it is amazing. What's amazing is just how slow
>Microsoft OSes are. They take this "early cray" computing power and slow it to
>the point it's as slow as a Commodore 64. MS must put a lot of for-next loops
>in the code to slow it down!
I think we are in the range of what used to be supercomputing (remember
when 64MB RAM was such a big deal? mid-80s, Cray-2). Even early 90s
machines like the Cray XMP could not outdo present day PCs, and this is
even without invoking MPI and clusters.
--
cu,
Bruce
drift wave turbulence: http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~bds/
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Windows guy.
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 17:58:23 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Donovan Rebbechi"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Feb 2001 16:20:55 +0000, Edward Rosten wrote:
>
>>OK. I'll concede, it was a poor argument. I suppose that I should think
>>before I post more often :-)
>>
>>I believe what you're saying is that if C is a subset of A and B is a
>>subset of A then C may or may not be a subset of B. Do I take this
>>correctly?
>
> More or less, yes.
>
>>Under the definition:
>>
>>A (shell) pipe takes the output of one process and puts it in to the
>>input of another process.
>
> Well, that's better, we've got a decent definition.
>
> I agree with your conclusion, I was mostly criticising the argument.
Yes. I got lazy.
Cheers
-Ed
--
| u98ejr
| @
Share, and enjoy. | eng.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 18:03:42 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Gerry
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Fri, 23 Feb 2001 02:45:35 -0600
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Most any country. Law-abiding citizens are not the ones commiting
>> the crimes.
>
>I think your view of the world it too polarized.
It may depend on the laws. After all, if a law forbidding computer
usage except for dire emergency usage were passed tomorrow, we'd all
become criminals, most likely. It's unclear to me how many people would
immediately (or, say, within a week) comply.
Yeah, I know that's a contrived example. Of course, AK above has
uttered a tautology -- if a citizen doesn't commit any crimes, he's
automatically law-abiding, even if he sits in hits chair and does nothing
but watch TV, eat frozen dinners, and occasionally go to the bathroom.
(Assuming that there aren't laws against watching TV, eating
frozen dinners, and going to the bathroom, of course.)
Not exactly a model of civic virtue, of course -- but certainly not
someone one would have to patrol for on the mean streets with a
speed-capable cruiser, shotgun, can of mace, handcuffs, flashlight,
pistol, Kevlar armor, billy club, radio transceiver, computer terminal,
siren, and a sheaf of ticket forms.... :-)
>
>--
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://homepage.mac.com/gbeggs/
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.GerryICQ.com/
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 18d:17h:26m actually running Linux.
This space for rent.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Interesting article
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 18:24:27 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Les Mikesell
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Fri, 23 Feb 2001 02:21:55 GMT
<7Pjl6.2012$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>"Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:973u4o$gks$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Les Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> : "Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> : news:96v133$im8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> :>
>> :> It demonstrates exactly the opposite.
>>
>> : How do you get that? If it has to be done over it means it was done
>wrong
>> : the first time. Do you want to encourage users to make their own
>> : mistakes with the security of their files?
>>
>> Some things have to be done over and over even if they are done right
>> the first time, because circumstances change. In my example, you will
>> note, I described a department with new people coming into it that
>> weren't there when the groupd was first made.
>
>But when circumstances change, they change globally. Why would
>you want every individual to apply ACL's and have to update them
>on every file when the circumstances change as opposed to letting
>the system administrator take care of updating the groups as
>the groups change?
A good point, although I for one will mention that Apollo DOMAIN Aegis
tried not to copy its ACLs; changing an ACL would be simply a matter
of exchanging one pointer for another in an object (inode), and doing
reference count management. There was also a 'salacl' program --
SALvage ACLs -- in case Murphy got involved; he always does. :-) [*]
However, I don't recall if ACLs could be edited directly; I doubt it,
somehow. (I don't know what NT does.)
In the case of an individual leaving a department, it would be trivial
to deny him access by simply removing him from all groups, if one
assumes NIS or NIS+-type functionality, then "pushing" the changes
through; any well-administered NIS has to take care of this sort
of thing on a regular basis, at least in larger companies; people
are hired, fired, transferred, and promoted regularly.
Note that he can still control files (documents) he owns; presumably,
this is worked around by giving the files away ('chown') when the files
are released to a centralized area, to a management account of some
sort (e.g., "qa_doc"), which has no password and is unsuable for login
("*" for encrypted password and shell of /bin/false, for example).
Unfortunately, only root and the owner can give away files.
All this is probably a little more complicated than NT's ACL system,
but not much more.
>
> Les Mikesell
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
[*] 'salvol' was Aegis' answer to 'fsck'. There were a number of other
such tools, but 'salacl' is the only other one I can remember offhand.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 18d:17h:36m actually running Linux.
This is the best part of the message.
------------------------------
From: "Quantum Leaper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 18:38:57 GMT
"Aaron Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> Mike Flournoy wrote:
> >
> > in article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Aaron Kulkis at
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > wrote on 2/22/01 8:43 PM:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Quantum Leaper wrote:
> > >>
> > >> "Aaron Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Nick Condon wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Edward Rosten) wrote in <972j0q$jm6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron Kulkis"
> > >>>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>> LOL! Robin Hood was a common thief.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> No...that was the TAX COLLECTOR.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Robin Hood merely returned to the people what was wrongfully
stolen
> > >> from
> > >>>>>> them by Little John's tax collectors.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Robin Hood was a common thief turned in to a legend.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Little John was one of the Merry Men according to that legend. Are
you
> > >>>>> refering to she Sherrif of Nittingham?
> > >>>
> > >>> Nottingham.
> > >>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I think he's referring to Prince John, a little snake in the Disney
> > >>>> version.
> > >>>
> > >>> Sorry, got the two Johns mixed up.
> > >>>
> > >>> Prince John was rather little (in more ways than one).
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Prince John had his older brother King Henry (who had gone off
> > >>> on a crusade) to be declared dead, and had himself crowned King.
> > >>> He then implemented a police state so that he could go about
> > >>> methodically seizing all of the wealth throughout England (under
> > >>> the PRETENSE of paying for the Crusade).
> > >>>
> > >> The more common story is Prince John is trying to raise the ransom
money for
> > >> King Henry, thats why he has to raise the taxes.
> > >
> > > But raised the taxes FAR in excess of what was needed to ransom Henry.
> > >
> > > Henry was being held by some Duke in Germany for 150,000 marks.
> > > He was freed after someone paid the Duke 100,000 marks.
> > > this is a matter of historical record.
> > >
> > >
> > >>
> > >>> Robin was a yeoman, part of the rising middle class of the
> > >>> period.
> > >>>
> > >> Robin is a Saxon, some stories he can be any thing yeoman to the
leading
> > >> Saxon of the Nottingham. The important fact is that he is a Saxon,
and
> > >> they (Prince John and the ruling Nobles) are Normans.
> > >
> > > Saxon is a tribe. Yeoman is more of a job title.
> > >
I never did see the message to me, but I never said Saxon and Yeoman were
the same. I said leading Saxon, I never meant it to equate to a job
title.
> > >
> > I believe Richard the Lionhearted was captured by Duke Leopold while
passing
> > through Austria on his way home from a fruitless crusade. It was done as
> > revenge for something Richard had earlier said or done to him. He turned
him
> > over to Holy Roman Emperor Henry Hohenstaufen who used him as ransom for
> > 150,000 marks and an oath of fealty. It was Richard and John's mother
> > Eleanor of Aquitaine who delivered the money and retrieved her son. I'm
not
> > sure where the money came from but she was a lady who could pull a lot
of
> > strings. It was rumoured that John and King Philip of France had joined
to
> > offer an even larger sum if Richard could remain captive but Eleanor
showed
> > up with cash. ( Mothers, sons, brothers, and cousins- nice family,
> > lot-a-love ).
> >
> > Mike
> >
> > ( I think my facts are mostly straight but it's all from books
> > I've read, I'm no scholar )
>
> I can find zero flaws in the preceding narrative.
>
A very good narrative of the historical facts, but Robin Hood is still a
myth, a story and nothing more.
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Windows guy.
Date: 23 Feb 2001 18:49:48 GMT
Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
: Therefore, a VW Beetle is not a car.
: The problem with this argument of course is that I am erroneously using
: a particular implementation of "car" to define the term, and then confusing
: properties of that implementation with what a car is. While the argument
: is entirely consistent with the notion that a car be defined by
: Lambourghini's implementation, it is a blatantly absurd definition.
But what if the Lambourghini (sp?) was the first car ever made, and
was not called "Lambourghini" but was in fact just called "car",
because it started the whole idea of "car"? Then someone else comes
along and makes a knockoff copy of it called "beetle", that appears to
have the same features, if you don't examine it too carefully.
Pipes on Unix came first. They were not some abstract CS concept that
got implemented seperately on Unix and DOS/Win. DOS got it by copying
the idea from UNIX.
: More on the subject of computers, the fact that the C++ compiler Visual
: C++ supports MFC does not mean that anything that doesn't support MFC
: is not a C++ compiler (even though it doesn't support all the functionality
: that VC++ does). The reason again, is that C++ is not defined
: by an implementation.
But what if a C compiler didn't support malloc(), or printf()? Those
were invented first on UNIX, just like pipes. I wouldn't consider
a compiler (techically the library actually, not the compiler) that
was missing them to be actual C.
: Likewise, instead of using a reasonable definition of pipes, you are
: mistakenly confusing a particular implementation and application with
: what pipes actually are.
Yeah, the first implementation, from which the generic idea was drawn.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan Mercer)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Date: 23 Feb 2001 18:54:32 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
chrisv <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>> You make it sound like grocery stores are getting hurt by the tax.
>>> The threshold is very high, you have to be a millionaire for the
>>> tax to have *any* effect.
>>
>>Wrong. $600,000 is where it kicks in....which is *NOTHING*
>>for a farm or a small machining shop.
>
> Umm... The limit is higher than that for farms and small businesses.
>
But is based on market value of the property, not upon earning
potential. The Death Tax is a major cause of urban sprawl. As
farmers die with land adjoining developed areas, the land evaluation is
based on its value developed, not maintained as farm land. The heirs
are forced to sell the land to developers, the next ring is added
to the urban area, the interior continues to deteriorate, ad nauseum.
I have friends who own a house next to a farm. The have a fantastic view
out the back window. But as soon as their elderly farmer neighbor
shuffles off, the land will be gobbled up by developers despite the
rather significant sinkhole (caused by an underground stream) on the
property. Maybe they'll call the new development Sinkhole Estates.
Farms and small businesses are frequently cash poor and asset rich
(even if the assets are mortgaged to the hilt).
The Miami Dolphins were once owned by the man who built them from
scratch. The Robbies' were good owners, they also tried to bring
Major League Soccer to the US (they owned the Minnesota Kicks).
When Joe Robbie died, the heirs were unable to hang on to a
franchise that had grown from an investment of a few hundred thousand
dollars to one worth hundreds of millions. And who buys it but Wayne
Huizenga, a fatcat for whom the franchise is just another toy.
The Robbies' gave it their lifesblood, but TS.
If Estate Taxes really did prevent hereditary wealth, I would
favor them. But the Rockefeller's are still rich. The Kennedy's
are still rich. So are the Dupont's and the Dow's and the
Carnegie's and the Mellon's. And why? Because they can afford to
buy the politicians to put in the loopholes, and buy the accountants
to find the loopholes.
But, I am not bitter.
--
Dan Mercer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Opinions expressed herein are my own and may not represent those of my employer.
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Windows guy.
Date: 23 Feb 2001 18:55:08 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: The definition says it's a queue of bytes between two processes. A file is
: most definately a queue of bytes. And it bridges two programs via their
: stdin and stdout.
Programs != Processes.
The DOS style is actually a temporary storage between one process and
ITSELF, because there is only one process in DOS. At different times it
is populated by different program images, but it is only one process.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
