Linux-Advocacy Digest #586, Volume #32 Thu, 1 Mar 01 18:13:08 EST
Contents:
Re: [OT] .sig (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Hijacking the IP stack (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: URGENT MESSAGE TO CHAD'S EMPLOYER Was: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: The Windows guy. (Bob Hauck)
Re: The Windows guy. ("Edward Rosten")
Re: The Windows guy. ("Edward Rosten")
Re: What the hell is MS thinking? (Bob Hauck)
Re: The Windows guy. ("Edward Rosten")
Re: why open source software is better (Bob Hauck)
M$ Worker to Thug Ratio (Bill Antigates)
Re: A question for a user who wants to jump the M$ ship (Seve)
Re: Microsoft seeks government help to stop Linux (Steve Mading)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) ("Edward Rosten")
Re: ahem :) ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Whats the difference between BSD and Linux? (.)
Re: The Windows guy. (Steve Mading)
Re: ahem :) (Bill Antigates)
Re: ahem :) ("Edward Rosten")
Re: [OT] .sig (Gergo Barany)
Re: FUNNY LAUGH (Bill Antigates)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: [OT] .sig
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 17:18:04 -0500
Gergo Barany wrote:
>
> Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Gergo Barany wrote:
> > > Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > Every major conflict has been because one side was ill-prepared for
> > > > war...and took a major shellacking because of it.
> > >
> > > World War I is a counterexample to this theory, I believe.
> >
> > Wrong. The war STARTED when Tsar Nicholas of Russia foolishly sent
> > troops down to Yugoslavia to support the Serbs.
>
> This statement is absurd in itself. The Serbs needed support because
> they were fighting the Austrians; therefore, war must have already
> had started by that time. In fact, Austria declared war on Serbia on
> July 28, 1914, and Russia didn't start mobilization until the next
> day, but didn't declare war yet (or rather, at all).
>
> > At this point, there was a GREAT imbalance in forces (Russian + Serb
> > forces far outnumbered Bosnian forces).
>
> It was Austria (which Bosnia was part of at that time) that declared
> war, and they were very prepared, having sent an ultimatum to Serbia
> on July 23, five days earlier.
But Serbia was unprepared for war.
>
> > The level of preparedness of Austria, Germany, France, Italy,
> > Britain, US, etc. are of no consequence, because by the time they
> > got involved, the war was already started.
>
> As I stated above, Russia didn't get involved at the very beginning
> either. In fact, Germany (August 1) and Austria (August 6) declared
> war on Russia, not the other way round.
Russia was already in before Germany got involved.
>
> > Because Russia got involved, Austria and Germany were sucked in
> > by treaties with the Ottoman Empire....who attacked Germany.
>
> The Ottoman Empire entered the war on November 11, on the German
> side. All hell had already broken loose by that time, and the
> stalemate in France had already begun.
You're right...my timeline on that was a little hazy.
> > This brought France and England into the war against Germany
> > (again, due to treaty obligations)...etc., etc.,
>
> Luxembourg (August 2), France, and Belgium (August 3) were attacked
> by Germany without having committed any acts of aggression. It was
> called the "Schliefen Plan", and the Germans had been preparing for
> it for a long time. They even knew that they had no realistic chance
> of winning the war if they couldn't conquer all of northern France
> within 6 weeks; that was the time Britain needed to mobilize and
> start sending troops across the Channel.
>
> > The ever-expanding nature of the war was due to treaty obligations,
>
> Yes, partly.
>
> > NOT because late-coming belligerants percieved some opportunity
> > to gain something by going to war.
>
> Germany had long planned to go to war with France, and Austria
> wanted more influence on the Balcans; they only needed a plausible
> reason to go to war. When they couldn't find one, they used an
> implausible one: Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand was murdered on
> June 28, but the Austrian ultimatum was sent on July 23, almost a
> month later; Serbia *accepted* it with reservations and was willing
> to negotate, I believe, yet Austria declared war on them.
> There were no treaties that caused Germany to overrun Belgium and
> Luxembourg, which were both neutral; they did it because they were
Germany overran Belgium and Luxembourg were unprepared to keep
the Germans from doing just that....
> the aggressors and needed to get to nortern France as quickly as
> possible.
>
> > At that point, they were
> > merely defending their honor as governments worthy of signing
> > treaties and sticking to them.
>
> Our definitions of "honor" seem to differ, but that's OK.
I don't consider it honorable, either. I'm just explaining
the thinking of heads of State and the diplomatic corps.
They oftentimes consider soldiers to be mere pawns.
> Gergo
>
> --
> QOTD:
> "I used to be lost in the shuffle, now I just shuffle along with
> the lost."
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
K: Truth in advertising:
Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shelala,
Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakan,
Special Interest Sierra Club,
Anarchist Members of the ACLU
Left Wing Corporate Extremist Ted Turner
The Drunken Woman Killer Ted Kennedy
Grass Roots Pro-Gun movement,
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....
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
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"
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
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.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.bsd.misc
Subject: Re: Hijacking the IP stack
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 17:18:59 -0500
Donn Miller wrote:
>
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > You know! I'm thankful that there's one more person on this planet
> > who's realized this.
>
> > Microsoft STOLE the code for the stack from BSD.
>
> I believe the correct terminology is "embraced and extended".
Maybe we should have the FBI embrace and extend Microsoft out of existance.
>
> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
K: Truth in advertising:
Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shelala,
Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakan,
Special Interest Sierra Club,
Anarchist Members of the ACLU
Left Wing Corporate Extremist Ted Turner
The Drunken Woman Killer Ted Kennedy
Grass Roots Pro-Gun movement,
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....
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
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"
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
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.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: URGENT MESSAGE TO CHAD'S EMPLOYER Was: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 17:20:09 -0500
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> "Ed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:97ja2v$ogg$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > I thank God every day that I don't have to use that box as my desktop
> > > because the state of Unix and Linux is so poor, I would have to shoot
> > > myself if I did.
> >
> > Please, whoever employs Chad, remove his windows machine this instant and
> > make him use Solaris/CDE.
> >
> > -Ed
>
> Let the record show the kind of immature childish assholes I attempt to
> engage in an intelligent debate with.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Chad Myers and intelligent debate are mutually exclusive terms.
Hope that helps, lying asshole.
>
> -c
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
K: Truth in advertising:
Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shelala,
Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakan,
Special Interest Sierra Club,
Anarchist Members of the ACLU
Left Wing Corporate Extremist Ted Turner
The Drunken Woman Killer Ted Kennedy
Grass Roots Pro-Gun movement,
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....
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
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"
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
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.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: The Windows guy.
Reply-To: hauck[at]codem{dot}com
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 22:21:32 GMT
On Thu, 01 Mar 2001 04:54:49 GMT, Marten Kemp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Bob Hauck wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 01 Mar 2001 01:04:03 GMT, Marten Kemp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >How does run Linux as a guest of Linux?
>>
>> VMWare.
>And can one run VMWare as a guest of VMWare?
I dunno, but there have been reports of people running Linux inside
VMWare inside Linux. Which is what I thought you were asking.
If you want to continue this to infinite levels, you probably want an
IBM mainframe, which has much better hardware support for this kind of
thing than does x86.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Codem Systems, Inc.
-| http://www.codem.com/
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Windows guy.
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 22:21:41 +0000
>>: Actually, this does not demonstrate that a multitasking system is
>>required
>>: to satisfy your definition of "pipe". It demonstrates a limitation of
>>: single process systems, and that's about it (unless you specify that
>>your
>>: example must work).
>>
>>: Otherwise, we can invent contrived examples that will fail almost
>>anywhere.
>>
>>: eg:
>>
>>: process_that_reboots_the_system | tail -3
>>
>>: This only works on systems that can save their state to disk.
>>
>>Huh? How? The data sits there in the tempfile-pipe unused because the
>>'tail' program never actually gets run. After the reboot the system
>>isn't going to remember that it was about to execute the 'tail' command
>>on that pipe. The above example doesn't demonstrate what you are trying
>>to demonstrate. It fails on BOTH multitasking systems and uni-tasking
>>machines.
>
> Try reading the post again. It fails on machines that can't save their
> state to disk. (but doesn't necessarily fail on all multitasking
> machines)
No it doesn't. Any output that leaves process_that_ (ie via a write()
call) will get passed to tail before the system reboots.
Also, rebooing a system implies that you're trashing any saved states
anyway.
-Ed
--
| u98ejr
| @
Share, and enjoy. | eng.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Windows guy.
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 22:23:12 +0000
>> >> >> A simpler definition is:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> a mechanism which allows the output of one process to be put in
>> >> >> to the input of another process in the order that it (the data)
>> >> >> was outputted.
>> >> >
>> >> > You need to include some sort of reference to the fact that
>> >> > process1 and process2 are running simultaneously (as opposed to
>> >> > sequential execution...i.e. process2 must be able to start
>> >> > executing while process1 is still running).
>> >>
>> >> You don't need to specify that process 1 and 2 are concurrent, since
>> >> it can be deduced from the definition.
>> >
>> > No..there's wiggle room to allow perverted interpretations such as
>> > the DOS implementation.
>>
>> No. Under my definition, what DOS has are _NOT_ pipes.
>
> You failed to word it in such a way that completely precludes the usage
> of temp files.
No I didn't. Read some of my other posts in the thread. This definition
of pipes can be shown not to work using temporary files. That completely
precludes the use of temporary files.
-Ed
--
| u98ejr
| @
Share, and enjoy. | eng.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: What the hell is MS thinking?
Reply-To: hauck[at]codem{dot}com
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 22:24:07 GMT
On Thu, 1 Mar 2001 02:19:27 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > PnP was actually designed for PCI, and was later adapted to ISA, which
>> > is why it's called ISA PnP to differentiate between them.
>>
>> Sounds like a marketing usage. PCI configuration and ISA PnP have very
>> little in common other than that.
>It supports a scheme called ISA Plug and Play, which is different from Plug
>and Play in general, and more recently Universal Plug and Play.
Yup, it is a marketing thing. You can tell because the words are
attempting to confabulate several things that are really quite distinct
and make it appear that they are related. In reality, the only thing
that they have in common is that the device gets configured.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Codem Systems, Inc.
-| http://www.codem.com/
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Windows guy.
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 22:24:27 +0000
> Oops, my bad. :-) You're right; if the first program never finishes,
> the second program will see nothing.
>
> So the ordering might be OK, but it's very easy to order a null set. :-)
Yep. The ordering is fine. Its the lack of data that's worse.
-Ed
--
| u98ejr
| @
Share, and enjoy. | eng.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: why open source software is better
Reply-To: hauck[at]codem{dot}com
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 22:25:57 GMT
On 01 Mar 2001 06:13:46 GMT, Peter Seebach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Bob Hauck <bobh = haucks dot org> wrote:
>>On 01 Mar 2001 02:31:40 GMT, Peter Seebach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> all I want is something that can import my existing data, reconciles
>>> okay, and doesn't corrupt data. (The last clause rules out Quicken
>>> 2001 for Mac,
>
>><http://www.moneydance.com/>
>
>I looked into this, but the version I tried crashed the moment I tried
>to start it on my Mac. :(
Bummer. I believe he currently claims to support Mac though. The
product was recently bought by AppGen too.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Codem Systems, Inc.
-| http://www.codem.com/
------------------------------
From: Bill Antigates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: M$ Worker to Thug Ratio
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 14:26:05 -0800
If you were to break down M$'s headcount & payroll, how much of it actually
gets to the software "engineer"? And how much of it is spent defending the
empire through lies, deception, misleading magazines, corny "right to
innovate" ads, and etc?
------------------------------
From: Seve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.os.linux.questions
Subject: Re: A question for a user who wants to jump the M$ ship
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 14:29:19 -0800
try Win4Lin! You can run M$ crud within the safety of Linux. Crashes
won't bring down the machine.
win4lin.com
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft seeks government help to stop Linux
Date: 1 Mar 2001 22:23:29 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Steve Mading wrote:
:>
:> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:>
:> : The Mulberry docks were a brilliant innovation. There is little
:> : reason to believe that anybody else would have done the same thing.
:>
:> : For example, despite hundreds of beach-head landings in the Pacific
:> : (which, like it's name, is a relatively peaceful ocean), none of the
:> : belligerants *EVER* used such a dock...or even built any.
:>
:> Or needed to. Tanks are, to put it mildly, less than ideal for
:> use on south pacific islands, even if you had a way to land them.
:> Large unbroken grassy land is the tank's friend. Tanks were needed
:> in France's farmland, but would be pointless somwhere with more
:> rugged terrain.
: true...
And this gets back to your original claim that "There is little
reason to believe anyone else would have done the same thing". You
tried citing the beach-head landings in the Pacific and their
lack of such docks as an example of this. By your admission here,
you should realize that there was little *incentive* to even bother
landing tanks in those conditions. (So your example doesn't really
mean anything).
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 22:36:34 +0000
>> >> Well, not everything is perfect on Linux. For instance yesterday,
>> >> while I was testing the NIC of a new laptop, it continuously
>> >> complaining about network being unreachable, instead of telling me
>> >> plainly that the network cable I was using was unplugged at the
>> >> other side. :-)
>>
>> > That's only because the your NIC manufacturer didn't include the Time
>> > Domain Reflectometer option . :-)
>>
>> They did but It(tm) is Only(tm) Avaliable(tm) under Micros~1(R) Windows
>> (tm).
>>
>> -Ed
>
> Well, I've not yet wiped clean the Win(tm) 98(tm) the laptop came with.
> Tomorrow I'll test in the same conditions with Micros~2(R) Windows(tm)
> 98(tm), and I'll let you know. After all, I had to pay for it, so I can
> use it.
If you read the docs very carefully, you'll find that they haven't
implemented this new feature yet :-)
As an aside, I don't know why NIC card manufacturers haven't put a
machanism on the crads to detect an unplugged cable. It shouldn't be too
hard since when plugged in, the cable is plugged in to a matched load, so
no reflections occur. When it is unplugged, the signals should get
reflected, which should not be too hard to detect.
-Ed
--
| u98ejr
| @
Share, and enjoy. | eng.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: ahem :)
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 22:37:39 +0000
>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Bobert Big
>>Bollocks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> ahem :)
>>
>>*cough* :-/
>
> Um.....what were we debating again? :-)
Why Bobert has big bollocks?
-Ed
--
| u98ejr
| @
Share, and enjoy. | eng.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: Whats the difference between BSD and Linux?
Date: 1 Mar 2001 22:39:04 GMT
J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>> Well, my understanding is that they're completely overhauling the SMP
>> support, and the threading models.
> Yep, they need to catch up.
>> They're adding kernel threads, better
>> pthread support, tighter security/auditing (probably more in line with the
>> NT event system and DAC's),
> That's a howler! BSD is as unix as it gets, I really can't
> feature them going to pc features - I'd be shocked.
You should be, because thats not whats happening. Erik is misinformed.
However, I have heard of an ACL supporting filesystem being implemented
later on somewhere in the freebsd family. We'll see.
>> direct support for Alpha, ia64, and possibly
>> PowerPC and ARM.
> Catching up, that's good.
Catching up to all those mainframes running strongarm processors.
Neat.
=====.
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Windows guy.
Date: 1 Mar 2001 22:38:01 GMT
Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: On 1 Mar 2001 17:57:58 GMT, Steve Mading wrote:
:>Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:>
:>: Actually, this does not demonstrate that a multitasking system is required
:>: to satisfy your definition of "pipe". It demonstrates a limitation of
:>: single process systems, and that's about it (unless you specify that your
:>: example must work).
:>
:>: Otherwise, we can invent contrived examples that will fail almost anywhere.
:>
:>: eg:
:>
:>: process_that_reboots_the_system | tail -3
:>
:>: This only works on systems that can save their state to disk.
:>
:>Huh? How? The data sits there in the tempfile-pipe unused
:>because the 'tail' program never actually gets run. After
:>the reboot the system isn't going to remember that it was about
:>to execute the 'tail' command on that pipe. The above example
:>doesn't demonstrate what you are trying to demonstrate. It
:>fails on BOTH multitasking systems and uni-tasking machines.
: Try reading the post again. It fails on machines that can't save
: their state to disk. (but doesn't necessarily fail on all multitasking
: machines)
Okay, so just how many systems can actually do that? It strikes me
as a fundamentally impossible problem (A process cannot save its own
state, because its state is changing while it is running the code
that writes its state. It might be possible for the OS to save the
state of userland processes, but somewhere along the line you have
to have the 'last' process in the OS save its own state.)
------------------------------
From: Bill Antigates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: ahem :)
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 14:41:51 -0800
Edward Rosten wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Bobert Big
> Bollocks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > ahem :)
>
> *cough* :-/
?
:-|
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: ahem :)
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 22:47:12 +0000
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Bobert Big
>> Bollocks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > ahem :)
>>
>> *cough* :-/
>
> ?
> :-|
!
:[
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gergo Barany)
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: [OT] .sig
Date: 1 Mar 2001 22:48:19 GMT
Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Gergo Barany wrote:
> > Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > At this point, there was a GREAT imbalance in forces (Russian + Serb
> > > forces far outnumbered Bosnian forces).
> >
> > It was Austria (which Bosnia was part of at that time) that declared
> > war, and they were very prepared, having sent an ultimatum to Serbia
> > on July 23, five days earlier.
>
> But Serbia was unprepared for war.
Serbia itself may not have been completely prepared, but they
thought they could count on the Russians, and by extension on
Britain and France. Their side was certainly prepared for war. You
said yourself, "Russian + Serb forces far outnumbered Bosnian
forces".
> > > The level of preparedness of Austria, Germany, France, Italy,
> > > Britain, US, etc. are of no consequence, because by the time they
> > > got involved, the war was already started.
> >
> > As I stated above, Russia didn't get involved at the very beginning
> > either. In fact, Germany (August 1) and Austria (August 6) declared
> > war on Russia, not the other way round.
>
> Russia was already in before Germany got involved.
Could you quote any sources? Mine are from history class, so they
are not authoritative.
> > > The ever-expanding nature of the war was due to treaty obligations,
> > [snip]
> > There were no treaties that caused Germany to overrun Belgium and
> > Luxembourg, which were both neutral; they did it because they were
>
> Germany overran Belgium and Luxembourg were unprepared to keep
> the Germans from doing just that....
Yes, and because that was the quickest way to get to France. The
keyword here is "neutral"; this part of the war was not due to
treaty obligations.
Gergo
--
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro..."
-- Hunter S. Thompson
------------------------------
From: Bill Antigates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: FUNNY LAUGH
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 14:59:42 -0800
Charley wrote:
> maximize your window!
>
>
> _\|/_
> (o o)
> +------------------------------oOO-{_}-OOo----------------------------+
> | This is a UNIX email virus. It works on the honor system:
> |
> | If you're running a variant of unix, please forward this message to
> | everyone you know and delete a bunch of your files at random.
> |
> | Thank you for your cooperation.
> +---------------------------------------------------------------------+
>
>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
