Linux-Advocacy Digest #247, Volume #33 Sun, 1 Apr 01 06:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Communism, Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day. (Mathew)
Re: Java, the "Dot-Com" Language? ("gbp")
Re: Java, the "Dot-Com" Language? ("gbp")
Re: What is user friendly? (GreyCloud)
Re: ATTN: Outlook Express Users and Virus's (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: Java, the "Dot-Com" Language? ("gbp")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles,alt.society.liberalism,talk.politics.guns
From: Mathew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Communism, Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day.
Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2001 19:48:53 +1000
For a person who constantly calls people"little dictators"
and "fascists" , Aaron certainky takes the cake for personifying
his own words.
A product of fascist military indoctrination ,no doubt.
On Sun, 1 Apr 2001, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
> Scott Erb wrote:
> >
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> > >
> > > Scott Erb wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > This is why Democracy is *ILLEGAL* at the Federal and State level.
> > > >
> > > > What on earth do you mean?
> > >
> > > You didn't pay attention in your civics class, did you?
> > > Either that, or your teacher was some leftist tool.
> >
> > Your response is argumentum ad hominem, and thus a fallacy. Anyway,
> > I've got a Ph.D. in Political Science, so I obviously have studied quite
> > a bit about political systems.
>
> That must be why you are so full of propaganda, and yet miss
> things that are completely fucking obvious to 4-year olds,
> such as your ridiculous assertion that races don't exist.
>
> To be a fully brainwashed liberal parasite, a PhD is an absolute
> necessity...and something as utterly WORTHLESS and non-testable
> as Political Science is a bonus for establishing your credentials
> as a true-believer.
>
> Tell us...if you studied Political SCIENCE...tell us of all
> the repeatable, verifiable experiments which you perform?
>
> After all, that *IS* a necessary pre-requisite for something
> to be a science.
>
> No....no...you didn't study Political *Science*...not at all.
>
> You studied Political PROPAGANDA METHODOLOGY.
>
> Fortunately, you are easily defeated by anybody who is half-way
> observant of history and the world around him.
>
>
> >
> > > > You do know, don't know, that a Republic can be democratic?
> > >
> > > That's a contradiction in terms.
> > >
> > > DEMO-CRACY literally equals "government by the people"
> >
> > As I explained, a Democratic Republic is NOT a pure democracy where
> > majority rules, but a democratic system that is limited by certain
> > rules, in our case, a constitution.
>
> FUCK YOU and your LYING PROPAGANDA SPEWING ASS.
>
> There is no "democratic" about it. We are a Republic. More
> specifically, we are a CONSTITUTIONALLY LIMITED REPUBLIC.
>
> NOWHERE in *ANY* government laws and sort of democratic *anything*
> allowed at the State or Federal level.
>
> If you want to run a town, or even a county, as a democracy, you
> are fully within your rights to do so.
>
> But the US Constitution, the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, specificies
> in UNMISTAKABLE language the the United States is a Republic.
>
> Not a "democratic republic"....just a Republic.
>
> Popular election of Representatives and Senators does *NOT*
> a democracy make, nor a Democratic Republic make, so you and
> your PROPAGANDA NOISE about the US being a "democratic Republic"
> can go take a flying fucking leap off a cliff.
>
>
> >
> > > If you look at the Constitution, it is quite clear that "the people"
> > > are specifically PROHIBITED from governing the nation....that is
> > > left to the Senate and the House of Representatives....that is,
> > > a REPUBLIC (governance by representatives)
> >
> > That is called representative democracy.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>
> Wrong. The United Kingdom is a Representative Democracy.
> However, *WE* do not have a parliamentary system, therefore,
> we are not a Representative Democracy
>
>
> By the way, it's best not to contradict yourself within a
> mere one paragraph of your previous statement.
>
> To wit, you previously said that the United States is a "democratic
> republic", and *NOW* you said that it is a "representative
> democracy".
>
> Well, which is it? A Democracy by Representation, or a
> Republic by Democracy?
>
> It can't be BOTH ways.
>
> Therefore, I have now demonstrated, by your own definitions,
> that you lied at least once.
>
> Of course...the real truth is that you lied twice. Every time
> you try to weasel in the word "democracy" to describe our system
> of government, your are LYING.
>
> Remember, Asshole, several MILLION American took an oath to defend
> the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES against *ALL* enemies, both
> foreign and domestic.
>
> People like you, claiming to have a PhD in Political Science, who
> then go around telling lies like such as above, qualify, in no
> uncertain terms, as ENEMIES OF THE CONSTITUTION.
>
> Make no doubt about it.
>
> Some day...when they you're lined up against the wall, and you
> feel the hot, searing pain of bullets ripping through your body,
> literally turning the very cells around the entry wound into
> a worthless pool of slime in the wound cavity....just remember,
> that I warned you.
>
>
> Oh..and if you think that you should call the government to
> come get me...guess what, asshole....I *AM* the government.
>
> Not only that, but *YOUR* *TAX* *DOLLARS* go to express purpose
> of training MILLIONS of people just like me, to kill closet-dictator
> assholes just like you.
>
> Just remember that the next time you advocate the idea that
> individual rights are unnecessary because you can trust the
> government to do the right thing.
>
>
>
>
> > People choose their
> > representatives, and can hold them accountable at election time. The
> > most pure system of representative democracy is the British system,
> > which is a parliamentary unitary system (not a Presidential federal
> > system).
>
> The United States is NOT a parliamentary system. Therefore,
> the premise of your argument is false...which makes the rest
> of your argument null and void.
>
> For a PhD in Political Science, how come you're getting your ass
> REAMED by an engineer who never even fulfilled the necessary
> humanities requirements for a degree?
>
> If I were you, I'd go back to whatever community college you got
> your PhD from and demand a fucking refund, because, whatever they
> taught you in class, it's quite obvious that you didn't learn jack
> shit about the real world (other than how to lie).
>
>
>
> >
> > -snip-
> >
> > > > sets certain rules and procedures within which the democratic aspects of
> > > > the system function. The term "Liberal Democracy" (used to describe the
> > > > US and many European states) means a Democratic Republic limited by
> > >
> > > The us is NOT a democracy of any type. Whoever told you that the US is
> > > a "Liberal Democracy" is either ignorant of what the term means, or
> > > filling your head with propaganda. Likewise for Europe. In fact,
> >
> > Alas, you're the one totally out of step with all theory and scholarship
> > on this issue, as well the history of the US.
>
> Said "Scholarship" being the work of your fellow leftist closet-dictators.
>
> Oh no, you, and they, *certainly* don't have an axe to grind...other
> than the fact that you got picked on in high school, and now you're
> looking for revenge...and the best way YOU can think of is to set
> up a form of government where you can micromanage their lives.
>
> Well, fortunately, because leftist assholes like you refuse to serve in
> the military...guess what....All the people who actually HAVE THE GUNS...
> ..you know..the MILITARY GRADE GUNS....the ones with the KEYS TO
> THE ARMS ROOMS IN THE ARMORIES...and the KEYS TO THE AMMUNITION
> STORAGE POINTS....guess what...***ALL*** of those people are the very
> same people who's political views you despise.
>
> The police, the army, the FBI, the CIA...leftist assholes like you
> all shirk your responsibilities as a citizen, to do your part to
> serve in these organizations...don't you.
>
> Therefore...here's a fucking thought that should help you sleep
> soundly...
>
> Those people who's political views you abhor:
>
> THEY're the ones who patrol your streets
> THEY're the ones who have the civil disturbance training.
> THEY're the ones who run the military
> THEY're the ones who fly the air force's combat aircraft
> THEY're the ones who crew the tanks
> THEY're the ones who man the cannons
> THEY're the ones who carry the rifles, machine guns, grenade
> launchers, and all of the other parafarnelia of
> the infantryman
>
> so DON'T FUCK WITH THEM, because THEY ARE THE ONES WHO STAND
> GUARD WHILE YOU SLEEP!
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> > > I know of *NO* nation on the face of the earth which is a democracy.
> >
> > If you look at any text (I'd recommend Hauss' Comparative Politics, or
> > Juerg Steiner's "European Democracies"), you'd see that all what are
> > called "democracies" today are Republics of some sort, save perhaps
> > Great Britain whose link to the Monarchy gives it a different kind of
> > rationale (though it still functions practically as a democracy, albeit
> > not limited by a written constitution but agreements between Parliament
> > and the Crown, and precident).
> >
> > No government is a "pure democracy" of majority rule with no limits.
>
> Really? Are you absolutely sure?
>
>
>
> > That is obvious.
>
> No, it is not obvious at all.
>
>
> >
> > > > liberal principles (a right to life, liberty, and property, with a focus
> > > > on individual freedoms, harkening back to philosophers like Locke, it is
> > > > distrustful of a strong central government).
> > >
> > > None of which has to do with Democracy.
> > >
> > > Respect for human rights is not democracy. In fact, Democracy is
> > > particularly DANGEROUS to human rights. Ever hear of the term
> > > "the Tyranny of the Majority" If "the majority" of easily confused
> > > and swayed citizens can be rallied to violate your human rights, then
> > > exactly how does a democracy connote human rights.
> >
> > All that is why we have Democratic Republics. That is what the general
> > term "democracy" means in current usage. If you're attacking crude pure
> > democracy you're just attacking a straw man, your argument has no
> > relevance to issues at hand today.
>
> You insist on insertin the word Democracy without showing me ANY
> citations that give you a basis for such a claim.
>
> The United States constitution specifically spells out the word
> REPUBLIC. The word "Democracy" isn't even mentioned. In fact,
> up until the 1930's, the U.S. Army Basic Training handbook, which
> is given to each soldier, specifically stated that not only is
> the United Staes ***NOT*** a democracy, but also (truthfully,
> I might note), that democracy is the greatest threat to the
> protection of human rights.
>
> Democracy is the last step before dictatorship.
>
> Ask the Russians.
> Ask the Germans.
>
> They know.
>
> >
> > > Fortunately, the final protector of the human rights affirmed in the
> > > Constitution is the 2nd Amendment (Unconditional right to keep and
> > > bear arms) which gives teeth to all of the others.
> >
> > Of course, a fat lot of good that will do you if you try to claim the US
> > government is illegitimate and try to ignore it. The government can
> > outescalate you every step of the way.
> > cheers, scott
>
> Clue for the clueless...I ***AM*** the government, you asshole.
>
> Specifically, I am part of the very force that you saw will be
> "sent to get me"....in fact....I would say that 90% or more of
> the infantrymen,...the guys who you think will be "sent out to
> get me"....believe the same things as what I stated above.
>
> Putting PhD behind your name doesnt change the fact that we all
> know that you're lying out your ass....
>
>
>
> --
> 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: "gbp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,misc.invest.stocks
Subject: Re: Java, the "Dot-Com" Language?
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2001 09:50:28 GMT
>In the corresponding time of the last 5-6 years, Microsoft has gone
from
>having NO PRESENCE in the enterprise software market, to having
built an
>infrastructure AND server products that is a rapidly growing
sub-segment of
>the company ($5 billion annually last quarter).
>
>I predict that Microsoft will have more profit from this segment
this
>quarter than Sun has profits overall. Likewise, I bet a very
substantial
>part of Sun profits this quarter will be from software. The
hardware segment
>has tanked.
>
I have serious reservations about microsoft. I don't believe they
will be able to expand into mid and high end markets like they want
too.
Simply put. In my experience many admins just don't like Microsoft.
They may use MS desktops and servers but generally consider them
toys compared to their Unix servers. They don't trust MS enough
to commit to their products and they don't believe the company
produces high quality software.
In addition Unix admins get paid more than NT admins and I don't
think they are going to line up for a pay cut just because windows
2000 has feature x y and z....
------------------------------
From: "gbp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,misc.invest.stocks
Subject: Re: Java, the "Dot-Com" Language?
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2001 09:54:20 GMT
>First, Sun Sparc is basically a RISC Architecture and Intel is a
CISC
>Architecture (eventhough both have barrowed others Ideas..!) CISC
puts lots
>of functions(like mupltiply,divide) into one CHIP (complex) and
frees up
>Compiler & higher level writing. and RISC does the opposite. With
that RISC
>can multiply Hardware wise very fast with less heat dissipation.
That's why
>you can have Sparc with 50-100 processors easily. But, writing a
compiler is
>very complex for RISC.
You have this reversed. In general writing compilers is more easy
for RISC because the instruction set is simpler. This is a major
reason why Apple and most (all?) unix vendors went RISC. Because
they knew that they would have to write compilers if their machines
were to be of any use.
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What is user friendly?
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2001 01:56:48 -0800
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
> soc.singles removed from followups. (Um....insert your own joke regarding
> weird crossposts here, folks. :-) )
>
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Jan Johanson
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
> on 24 Mar 2001 16:13:02 -0600
> <3abd1b3f$0$28213$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> >"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >> Which gets back to my main point:
> >>
> >> Mafia$oft sticks you with code compiled for an 80486, and nothing
> >> better....even if you're running a Pentium III.
> >
> >Wrong. There is Pentium specific code in NT as well as Windows 2000. There
> >are also processor specific speed ups for the PII and PIII OP sets, as well
> >as specific speedups for MMS, SSE and SSEII.
> >
> >>
> >> Linux installs an 80386 kernal and apps BUT, it lets you re-make the
> >kernal
> >> and apps, so that you are using executable code that was optimized for
> >> your CPU.
> >
> >So, can't run linux on a 286 without a recompile eh?
>
> Can't run Linux on a 286 at all; it requires a flat address space.
> At least, last time I checked. :-) Someone might have snuck in some
> detection code deep in the kernel, but it would definitely require
> a recompile with an intelligent compiler that can translate the
> flat address space into segment:paragraph form. (And that's assuming
> no code mucks with the translation tables and/or card registers in an
> incompatible fashion within the drivers or modules during something
> like DMA setup. Oy vey....)
>
> No, g++ isn't quite that intelligent, at least as far as I've
> looked at it. :-)
>
More intelligent than VC++6.0. I have the MSDN CD-rom set. VC has
trouble with multiple inheritance and the MSDN admits it by showing
possible work-arounds. g++ seems to handle multiple inheritance quite
well. As time goes on g++ will improve.
> Not sure if this is a bug or a feature or merely a reflection of the
> sad legacy of backward compatibility we've been saddled with
> because of the monopolistic tendencies of the software market -- said
> tendencies being created either by ourselves (because we like it that
> way?), or by a certain gigantic software vender that even now is still
> trying to dominate the market, explaining that it's doing so
> "for the sake of the naive user".
>
> Also, because Intel was first, Motorola second. The 68000 series
> was superior in terms of register usage and addressing capability.
>
Using the "register" specification in a C program is far more useful on
processors with orthogonal register usage than on Intel processors.
Wish I could afford better, but all I can do now is get used VAXens.
> Sigh.
>
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
> EAC code #191 54d:06h:45m actually running Linux.
> Darn. Just when this message was getting good, too.
--
V
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: ATTN: Outlook Express Users and Virus's
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2001 22:03:59 +1200
Well, the ones I watch are:
Ben Elton
The Young One (I know, I know, its old, but its a classic)
Monty Pythons Flying Circus
The Ali G Show
One Foot in the Grave
Father Ted
Vicar of Dibbly
Matthew Gardiner
GreyCloud wrote:
> Matthew Gardiner wrote:
> >
> > Geeze you yanks have a real problem with a sense of humour.
> >
> > Matthew Gardiner
> >
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > > On Sat, 31 Mar 2001 14:16:07 +1200, Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
> > > >Use a valid email address to make yourselfa accountable for you posting.
> > > >
> > >
> > > If you have more than 5 brains cells at your disposal, you'd be able to figure
> > > out how to remove the anti-spam crap and e-mail me.
> > >
> > > If you'd be kind enough to remove all the assholes off the internet, I've be
> > > happy to post without an alias. In the meantime, I use an alias to prevent such
> > > assholes from doing stuff like looking my address up in the phone book and
> > > ordering, fraudulantly, crap that I have to go out of my way to return.
> > >
> > > Get over it and quit being such a jerk.
>
> Actually, I'm quite fond of British humour. I liked Allo' Allo' and
> "Are you being served?" What is the latest over there currently
> running?
------------------------------
From: "gbp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,misc.invest.stocks
Subject: Re: Java, the "Dot-Com" Language?
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2001 10:00:27 GMT
>There are many RISC processors out there, HP PA-RISC, IBM 603-604
series
>RISC, MIPS, Sparc, Alpha and a few others I can't recall. Intel is
the
>only one I know of still clinging to CISC ideas.
>The list goes on. Why do you think so many computer companies have
>favored RISC then?
Its my understanding that intel considers itself to be essentially
_stuck_ with CISC since existing PC software depends on the CISC
intruction set of the 386+. So since they already were firmly in
the CISC camp their designers added even more (a lot more!)
instructions to the chips to try to improve them that way.
These improvements assume that compilers will take advantage of all
these instructions. In their case it seems like a fairly safe bet.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
