Linux-Advocacy Digest #729, Volume #32 Fri, 9 Mar 01 19:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: What does IQ measure? (Steve Mading)
Re: What does IQ measure? (Steve Mading)
Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time (Pat McCann)
Re: Microsoft's .NET Vision (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time (David Masterson)
Re: Linux Joke (Steve Mading)
Re: What Linux MUST DO! - Comments anyone? (Salvador Peralta)
Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time (Pat McCann)
Re: The Double Fucking ala MS... (Steve Mading)
Re: GPL Like patents. (Steve Mading)
Re: What does IQ measure? (Steve Mading)
Re: Linus Torsvald's machine specification ("Chris Bennetts")
Re: What does IQ measure? (Steve Mading)
Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time (Austin Ziegler)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, was Why open source software is better (Pat
McCann)
Re: Linux Joke (Salvador Peralta)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: What does IQ measure?
Date: 9 Mar 2001 22:41:58 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy chrisv <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Brock Hannibal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:>chrisv wrote:
:>> Well, no reasonable person can deny that their are different talents
:>> related to your brain that are not measured by IQ tests. In my own
:>> case, I do plenty well on IQ tests, but, if asked to draw something
:>> artistically, I do very poorly. Am I "smarter" than a person with
:>> more artistic talent but less mathematical talent than me?
:>
:>Well, if you redefine intelligence to include artistic talent you
:>have a point. Fortunately , artistic talent is called artistic
:>talent, not intelligence. Musical talent is not intelligence.
:>Athletic prowess is not intelligence. Emotional empathy is not
:>intelligence. Why do people try to equate things that are not the
:>same?
: Well, I think that's the heart of this issue. You may in fact be
: right, in that this narrow definition of "intelligence" is
: scientifically correct. However, it's common for popular usages of
: terms to become broader than what is strictly correct.
Other way 'round, actually. The broader usage typically exists
FIRST, and then they scientific definition is nailed down later.
Consider "force". The word already existed before Issac Newton
decided it should represent mass times accelleration. It's an
arbitrary made-up defintion because scientists need to talk to
each other in precise terms. It's truly unfortunate that scientists
often pick terms that already *have* definitions and then redefine
them for their use. Making up new lingo for a field of study is
perfectly legitimate, but unless great care is taken you can often
accidentally slip into false equivocation fallacies when you use
words that already HAD a definition before science gave them a
new one. That's what's happening here. The scientific definition
of intelligence doesn't match up well with the common usage
way the word was used before the psychiatrists nailed it down.
: Thus, you have
: some people arguing that IQ tests are not a good way to measure
: intelligence. I think both sides of this issue have good points.
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: What does IQ measure?
Date: 9 Mar 2001 22:45:56 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Scott Gardner wrote:
:>
:> On Wed, 07 Mar 2001 22:49:34 -0500, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
:> wrote:
:>
:> >
:> >Part of the definition of intelligence is arriving at the correct
:> >answer quickly.
:> >
:> >If you gave a 13-year old child the following math problem:
:> >
:> > X = 20 / 4
:> >
:> > What is X?
:> >
:> >
:> What about the (possibly apocryphal) story of the classroom that is
:> given the assignment to add up all the integers from 1 to 100? All of
:> the students but one immediately see the method to the solution, and
:> start adding 1+2+3+4+5..., while one lone student just stares at his
:> paper in silencScott Gardner wrote:
:>
:> On Wed, 07 Mar 2001 22:49:34 -0500, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
:> wrote:
:>
:> >
:> >Part of the definition of intelligence is arriving at the correct
:> >answer quickly.
:> >
:> >If you gave a 13-year old child the following math problem:
:> >
:> > X = 20 / 4
:> >
:> > What is X?
:> >
:> >
:> What about the (possibly apocryphal) story of the classroom that is
:> given the assignment to add up all the integers from 1 to 100? All of
:> the students but one immediately see the method to the solution, and
:> start adding 1+2+3+4+5..., while one lone student just stares at his
:> paper in silence. The teacher notices this, and goes over to help the
:> student along. When she approaches him, he looks up and says "The
:> answer is 5,050." He figured out that the 100 numbers in question
:> could be grouped into 50 pairs of numbers (1,100), (2,99), (2,98),
:> etcetera, and that furthermore, each of those pairs of numbers summed
:> to 101. The product of 50 times 101 is a pretty easy calculation, and
:> results in the correct answer of 5,050. Additionally, he could do the
:> same thing with an arbitrarily long string of sequential integers, so
:> even if his exercise had taken longer than the other students, (which
:> it probably didn't), it could be argued that his was the more
:> "intelligent" approach, even if he didn't figure out this method as
:> quickly as the other students figured out the "brute force" method.
: That was Karl Friedrich Gauss (1777-1855).
: Are you implying that Gauss was not a VERY intelligent man?
Read his post. He was implying just the opposite. That even
though he took *longer* to figure out what to do, his was a
*better* solution in the long run. He was trying to counter
your notion that intelligent == fast. The problem with his
approach is that Karl's solution was *also* faster, since he
had his answer first.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time
From: Pat McCann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 09 Mar 2001 14:52:46 -0800
"JD" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Someone wrote:
> >
> > I was with you up until the last sentence. How are you using the term
> > "free" here (in the sense of cost or freedom)? And if they are using
> > the term incorrectly, in which sense do you perceive them as using it?
> >
> By advocating the non-fact that 'GPL' is a free license, it competes against
> much more free licenses. ...
If you think it's worthwhile to discuss other people's use of "free",
please do us a favor and answer the other part of the quoted question
by telling us what you mean by "free" when you use it your way?
I'm sure you use it in several ways like we all do, but at least give us
a straightforward definition of it in relation to your use of "free" in
saying that some software (BSDL) is free and other (GPL) is not. Please
do not talk about specific licenses or give examples, but provide a
definition of "free" (or "free software" if that is easier and has
special non-FSF meaning to you).
(Be careful. Some things you've said about "free" don't apply to BSDL.)
Whouldn't it be nice to have a good term (and definion) for
"freer-than-copyleft", other than "free"? You must admit it's confusing.
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft's .NET Vision
Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 17:55:24 -0500
Bob Hauck wrote:
>
> On Fri, 09 Mar 2001 09:19:52 GMT, Adam Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > Microsoft's .NET technologies will allow producers of content to
> > specify exactly how that content may be used--including whether it may
> > be viewed one or x times, copied, printed, stored, etc. The consumer
> > will have a lot of choice in how they pay for that content. This is
> > our idea of balance in a world where fair use will become pratically
> > irrelevant.
>
> It would seem that MS thinks that the PC is dead, at least as far as
> growth is concerned. They are apparently trying to become some kind of
> consumer electronics software emporium, witness the X-box and the .NET
> content control misfeatures you're talking about. They see a lot of
> money to be made in satisfying the entertainment industry's wants.
>
> Free Software is a bad thing in this context, not because of a direct
> threat to profits, but as a threat to the business model MS and their
> friends in the entertainment industry are trying to create. That model
> is, basically, "pay per play". Big Brother isn't the government, it is
> the RIAA and MPAA, with MS acting as the Ministry of Truth.
>
> In combination with Jim Allchin's statements on the GPL and the MPAA
> attack on DeCSS, it seems to me that there is an effort already underway
> to paint Free Software users and developers as criminals. To link Free
> Software to "hacking" and "piracy". Free Software just can't be
> tolerated, since if open source code becomes the norm it will be really
> hard to force people to go along with the new restrictions.
>
> I do wonder, though, if the various interests involved in creating this
> wonderful new world might be overreaching. Joe User is going to be
> righteously pissed off when he finds out that the RIAA takes a dollar
> out of his bank account every time he copies an MP3 and MS bills him
> when he writes an email to mom using Word 2010. At some point I think
> you can underestimate the intelligence of the consumer.
>
It's no underestimation to say that Joe Luser is going to be proudly
and obnoxiously ignorant about such things right up until he looks
at his credit-card bill.
> --
> -| Bob Hauck
> -| Codem Systems, Inc.
> -| http://www.codem.com/
--
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.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2001 18:01:36 -0500
Subject: Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time
From: David Masterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>>> "Steve" == Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The main complaint of the anti-GPL crowd seems to be that they
> want free software to be a one-way street - they want to be
> parasites of free software rather than participants in it.
Or maybe they've got bills to pay...
--
David Masterson ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Rational Software (but I don't speak for them)
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux Joke
Date: 9 Mar 2001 22:53:29 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: "Donovan Rebbechi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
: news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
:> On Fri, 09 Mar 2001 00:21:03 GMT, Chad Myers wrote:
:>
:> >I was complaining that people out there are blindly trusting SSH
:> >for secure information transfer and there are several ways in which
:> >that information security could be compromised
:>
:> We've already been through this. It's very unlikely to happen. People
:> who care enough about security that they're unwilling to take any risks
:> at all do not "blindly trust" anything.
: The fact remains that there are thousands of installed Linux and
: BSD systems which have an older version of SSH installed on them.
So your argument boils down to this then? They have the "fix" for
problem, the information is available, they have SSH2 now, and yet
the fact that they don't send armed thugs to break down every Linux
user's door and shout, "SWITCH TO SSH2 NOW, OR ELSE!!!" means
they aren't doing enough? Reality check: ANY time a security patch
is released and the word is spread about it, there will always be
those who don't heed it. This is true regardless of OS. Do you
think all Windows users are up to date on all service packs and all
patches for every application they have installed?
: There hasn't been a concerted effort to educate them to the faults
: of the "flawed" SSH1 protocol they're still using. The worst I've
: seen so far is a posting to the SSH developer's group complaining
: about the same thing I've been saying. No one seems to care.
------------------------------
From: Salvador Peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What Linux MUST DO! - Comments anyone?
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2001 15:06:35 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Renate Meijer quoth:
> I read the story about the slackware release. I pretty much did
> exactly the same, back in '92. Only my version came from a 'local' BBS
> and took three nights to download. It installed. Not quite as easily
> as, say, RH6.2 or SuSE 7.0 , but it was certainly no hell on disks.
> Even if there were 25 of them.
The trouble is, she is stuck back on Slackware in 1994 and using the
state of where that distro was 1-6 years ago to FUD the OS today.
I read that story yesterday while I was downloading the RPM's to update
KDE from the version that came with Mandrake 7.2 (2.0.x) to 2.1.x I
used graphical package manager front end to test for dependencies, went
to rpmfind.net to grab the few rpm's that I was missing, did another
test and updated my desktop. Exit the Xsession. startx. Bingo. Done.
Fully updated desktop at zero cost and next to no hassle.
> The whole story sounds like a load of FUD, although she's got some
> good points. Having a dummy-distro would be a good thing.
There is one. I call it Mandrake.
--
Salvador Peralta -o)
Programmer/Analyst, Webmaster / \
[EMAIL PROTECTED] _\_v
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time
From: Pat McCann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 09 Mar 2001 15:03:34 -0800
"JD" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Pat McCann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > (The GNU "free software" freedom is explained as the freedom of users
> > to redistribute it , run it, view it, and publish modifications of it.
> >
> Note that the GPL freedom of redistribution is limited by enumerated
> constraints in the license. Free software doesn't need those sorts of
> constraints, since they are inconsistant with it (the software) being
> free :-).
What sort of constraints? I've not seen a software license without
constraints (though I can concieve of them). Certainly not the BSDL.
>
> You'll often hear about the encumberances being immediate deemed
> 'unimportant' due to some sort of moral judgement, but they still exist.
>
I suspect that you are doing the same thing, but with a different
threshold. Unless you mean that "free software" is synonymous with
"non-proprietary software" (ie, "software in the public domain").
It's not clear to me what you mean. A clarification would be good.
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Double Fucking ala MS...
Date: 9 Mar 2001 23:08:25 GMT
Peter Hayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: On 7 Mar 2001 08:48:05 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking) wrote:
:>
:> Michael Vester ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
:> : snoopygates wrote:
:>
:> : > w2k just came out and they haven't sat down to fix the bugs. Now they are
:> : > forcing the new windows on us. When will it ever stop?
:>
:> : Not as long as the can make piles of money.
:>
:> Actually a stop sign is in sight. The minute that Intel can no longer deliver
:> on faster chips to run the more bloated software, the upgrade-go-round will
:> collapse, and like yeast in a jug of fermenting grape juice swimming in their
:> own excrement, Microsoft will have to die off.
: M$ will rewrite their bloatware more efficiently. More efficient routines
: and tighter code in general will produce a faster more reliable product
: which they'll market as something new. Benchmarks will encourage the
: unknowing to re-invest in what they already have, or more accurately what
: they should have been sold in the first place. I wouldn't be surprised if
: this was already part of M$'s game plan. Maybe they write tight code and
: bloat it up so they've ensured a fall back position for when things go
: wrong.
But taking bad code and just trying to tighten it up is damn near
impossible. Efficient tight running has to be a goal from day 1,
it can't be added in later.
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: GPL Like patents.
Date: 9 Mar 2001 23:06:51 GMT
Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: However, he told me that when the user receives the binary of my program
: and installs it on his system, and then the system links it to the GDBM
: library, there is a violation of the GPL.
Then he's talking out of his ass. This cannot be enforced becaues YOU
didn't do any violating, and in fact the above situation could happen
without your knowing it. You can't be held liable for actions that
others do.
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: What does IQ measure?
Date: 9 Mar 2001 23:16:56 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Scott Gardner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: True. Hollywood is one of my almost-pet-peeves. (I only allow myself
: three or four full-blown pet peeves, so I have to be selective about
: what I let bother me.)
: Why is that we (speaking about the American culture here) pay these
: people millions of dollars, practically worship them as dieties or
: royalty, pay them to endorse our products, and generally emulate the
: hell out of them when their only talent that they exercise publicly is
: their ability to act!?!? I know that some of them have other
: talents--hell, Kris Kristofferson was a Rhodes scholar, for goodness
: sakes, but he's not famous for his thinking, he's famous for reciting
: lines given to him by a writer! I've always wondered if the writers
: for the show "Friends" get to wash the stars' Porsches as part of
: their contract!
It seems that the best shows on TV are the ones where the actors also
participate in the scriptwriting. I don't necessarily think this is
because they make better scripts, but because it's a litmus test that
ensures the actor knows more than one aspect of his field, and isn't
a moron.
------------------------------
From: "Chris Bennetts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linus Torsvald's machine specification
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 10:24:04 +1100
"Woof" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I read an interesting article recently where Linus was quoted as saying
> he develops Linux on a 386 running Windows 3.1
> "I like the slow speed, it gives me chance to think" he says
Ha! Win2k on a gigaHertz box gives you even more time to think! ;-)
--
--Chris
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: What does IQ measure?
Date: 9 Mar 2001 23:29:15 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Correlation does not imply causation.
: However, Correlation which coresponds with reverse correlation
: usually does imply causation one way or the other.
Not necessarily. It also leaves open the possiblity of an un-examined
third thing that is a cause of the two things being examined, rather
one of the two being a cause of the other.
For example, I would imagine there is a high correlation between
people who like Monty Python and people who like Red Dwarf. This
isn't becuase one causes the other, it's because both are effects
of the cause "likes British comedy".
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
From: Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2001 18:37:44 -0500
On 9 Mar 2001, Steve Mading wrote:
> Embrace-and-extend is a working way to make the original less useful.
> Consider HTML. MS originally opposed the internet and web browsing,
> preferring an AOL/Prodigy/Compuserve type of model for their MSN. When
> it became clear that it wouldn't work, they instead embraced and
> extended the technology, so that now there are some websites out there
> that don't work worth a damn if don't use Internet Explorer. They
> did this by glomming onto a fairly open protocol (HTML) and adding things
> that didn't improve it one bit, they merely made it incompatable.
Sorry, but Netscape gets that honour first -- and the stuff that I've
been reading says that IE is still more compatible than Netscape -- but
not necessarily Mozilla.
> The main complaint of the anti-GPL crowd seems to be that they
> want free software to be a one-way street - they want to be
> parasites of free software rather than participants in it.
That's merely the spin put on it. It has nothing to do with reality, I
assure you.
-f
--
austin ziegler * Ni bhionn an rath ach mar a mbionn an smacht
Toronto.ON.ca * (There is no Luck without Discipline)
=================* I speak for myself alone
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, was Why open source software is better
From: Pat McCann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 09 Mar 2001 15:53:49 -0800
Craven Moorehead <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Richard [Stallman] dos not recognise the right of one person to keep his code
> private/proprietary. This is much less honourable, in fact, I find it
> deplorable.
Wrong. The FSF (a person in the eyes of US law) and other GNU software
owners under the leadership of RMS keep lots of code private/proprietary.
Just try using their software while flagrantly violating the terms of
their license to you of their private/proprietary copyrights. You'll
soon agree with others who have been threatened with lawsuits that
Richard not only recognises the right, but exercises it.
------------------------------
From: Salvador Peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux Joke
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2001 16:05:22 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Chad Myers quoth:
> But it also _STILL_ supports SSH1, even though it's known to have
> serious and compromising flaws.
...making linux the only OS in the history of the planet to have
administrators who don't pay attention to security warnings.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/8/17456.html
Care to post a link which gives evidence of someone who has been
financially hurt or had their personal data stolen because they were
using openssh1?
lol.
--
Salvador Peralta -o)
Programmer/Analyst, Webmaster / \
[EMAIL PROTECTED] _\_v
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
