Linux-Advocacy Digest #349, Volume #33 Wed, 4 Apr 01 11:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Communism ("Beth")
Re: So IE5/Outlook/Outlook Express will all execute attachments (Chad Everett)
Re: Microsoft should be feared and despised (Craig Kelley)
IA32, was an advocacy rant (Alexis Cousein)
Re: Microsoft should be feared and despised (Craig Kelley)
Re: I'm so happy! (Chad Everett)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply-To: "Beth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Beth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Communism
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 14:41:20 +0100
T. Max Devlin wrote:
> Beth scribed:
> >T. Max Devlin wrote:
> >> Beth suggested:
> [...]
> >> >Think for yourselves.
> >>
> >> But when we do that, we get in arguments with others who think for
> >> themselves and come up with different results, leaving us back with
what
> >> you insist is "blind prejudices". I'm sorry, I just can't agree with
> >> your fatalistic view of political philosophy.
> >
> >No; We'd get into arguments when those people of blind predjuice will not
> >rationalise their opinions and instead spout rage and anger (and a
healthy
> >does of curses :)...a person that truely _thinks_ will NOT spout
knee-jerk
> >reaction NOR will they be adverse from listening to others...
>
> Well, I know that, and you know that, but Aaron? He don't know that.
Yes; But that doesn't negate what I say, does it? Just because he's ignorant
of basic facts like this, doesn't proclude them from being true...
My point was, as you yourself have confirmed in this post, that blind
prejudice (yes, I've just noticed my terrible spelling error...hey! Spelling
Troll! Where are you when I need you? lol ;) is the default - the norm - we
all, to greater or lesser extents, work from some sort of blind prejudice
towards something...so, the notion of dismissing someone on those grounds
would infer that everyone should dismiss everyone else in all cases without
question...basically, if you hold with that notion and follow its character
to the letter, then you end up doing the bully/ignore stuff that Aaron is
doing...
Maybe your cause is just and Aaron's not (or, to be fair, as I'm not the
"Keeper of the Truth" or anything - so I can't insist that I'm correct, even
if I believe so - thus, possibly vica versa...though, I pray that not the
case :) but your strategies are very similar...identical, even...so,
basically - even though I'd most probably side with you on this matter - by
what right to you proclaim yourself to be "correct" and Aaron "wrong"?
Do you see what I'm getting at? It is NOT sufficient merely to be "correct"
in what you state...you must also be "correct" in how you say it...Aaron may
(though, I stress, I certainly don't think so at all ;) be "correct" in his
opinion of communists but does that automagically make it justifiable for
him to murder people?
By such rationale, I could kill all the people in the world and this would -
without doubt - eliminate all crime...but, surely, it is NOT justifiable to
commit absolute genocide (surely, the greatest crime there is :) to
eliminate crime...it's nonsensical...
Therefore, is it justifiable to become a fascist (of any sort at all) in
order to eradicate fascists? Of course not, because you are NOT eliminating
the problem in the slightest...you are just swapping one fascist for
another...ironically, you will just be taking the place of your enemies...
The end does NOT justify the means...however noble and correct that end is,
it MUST be achieved correctly...that is, the "means" are ends unto
themselves...they are smaller "ends", so to speak...sub-divisions of the
greater "end"...
> >You seem a rational person, which is why I find it interesting that you
> >suggest that merely because someone holds a "blind predjuice" that they
are
> >unable to contribute and that they are inherently wrong because their
> >opinion does not tally with yours...
>
> The very phrase "blind prejudice" means what you identify as its
> results. If someone's beliefs are based on blind prejudice, they will
> not tally with anyone's but those likewise holding blind prejudice.
Correct; And have either of us lived in a communist regime? Are we not also
speaking from "blind prejudice"?
And, even if we weren't on this particular score, then we are surely stating
"preconceived opinion and bias" (that's the Oxford dictionary definition of
the word...I looked it up :) at some occasion...we cannot know everything,
thus, we cannot know that we're right...no matter how much evidence we could
muster because that only makes it more likely, it does not make it fact
until ALL the evidence - possible or impossible - is gathered...
Basically, I'm trying to point out that whether you are right or you are
wrong, you are still subject to all the same "laws" as Aaron is...having the
"correct" opinion on something is NOT sufficient, you must strive for that
ideal or whatever for you to be "correct"...owning the truth does not make
you true...knowing what's right does not make you just...
For that, you must do as you say...practice what you preach...you cannot
oppress those who would oppress others, no matter how justified your cause
may be...or you are no better than they...
It is possibly the hardest pill to swallow but you MUST turn the other cheek
when someone strikes at you...this does NOT mean inaction, as people often
mistake it to mean...the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jesus, Gandhi and others
were far from inactive, yes? But they could not strike at their "enemies",
how their enemies striked at them or they would be NO better than them...you
may fly a flag of a different colour but that is NEVER sufficient to be
"right" in itself...
You must employ this or, by the same rationale that someone may use to
dismiss their enemies, will just be applied straight on back at you...an eye
for an eye just leaves everyone blind...
> Anyone else is, indeed, capable of contributing and may or may not be
> correct, regardless of their viewpoint. At least we presume that in
> Socratic ignorance; in real life, we know what we like, and so if we are
> happy in our situation, we "believe in" the system which defines it. It
> is not "blind prejudice" to love democracy, for an American, even if he
> cannot elucidate the philosophical reasons he 'does', or 'should'.
Yes; And an American cannot truely consider themselves American unless they
respect the first amendment and allow anyone to speak their opinions,
whatever those opinions may be...let me clarify; There is more than one
definition of "American"...a person may consider themselves American by
birth in that country...but, then, unlike other countries in the world - as
was it's foundation - others born in other countries still are premitted the
right to call themselves "American" (the huddled masses ;)...so what is the
real definition here?
Simple; The American constitution (plus, flag/law/etc. :)...this was one of
the main reasons for its conception...an "American" (in their hearts and
minds...a =true= American :) is someone who pledges allegiance to the flag,
the country and - most importantly - the foundation, the embodiment of that
country - namely the American constitution...
That constitution absolutely defends the right for anyone to state their
opinion and to believe whatever they wish to believe...the freedom of speech
and religion...
Basically, anyone who does not also defend those rights is severely
jepordising their status as an true "American"...by the very definition and
spirit of the constitution itself...
Now, you may be saying "wait a minute! you're not an American"...quite
right...wouldn't claim otherwise...but there is a reason those rights are
present and defended in the American constitution because they are basic
human rights...as supported - in different phrasiology - under the
international human rights convention (which is still not fully
respected...sometimes it's hard not to despair at mankind)...
> It is, however, blind prejudice for an American to "hate commies", even if
> he *can* elucidate the philosophical or teleological justification for
> his hatred. The most reason could ever support is disagreeing with
> them.
Yes.
> That disagreement may be sufficient to provoke physical violence
> to prevent what may be a violation of what we here in America are "human
> rights", but generally simply opening up the borders and allowing
> refugees permanent citizenship is a more effective and efficient method,
> without the ethical difficulties of justifying murder or war.
Unfortunately, you are quite correct...as it can definitely provoke physical
violence...which, though it may seem justified to those that commit it, it
is truely regrettable for all concern...there _are_ better ways, if only we
can obtain them...the basic problem with such tactics is that you cannot
beat a belief into someone...you might be able to get their "co-operation"
but, deep down, they find you wrong, evil and fascist...you are _only_
delaying the problem, you cannot "cure" non-believers with
violence...they'll wait until your guard is down and respond...which you
will respond to...ad infinitum...an eye for an eye always just leaves
everyone blind...
> >thus, your opinions may be of a more
> >liberal nature than Aaron's but you employ the same bully/ignore
tactics...I
> >would definitely agree with your opinions more than Aaron, from what has
> >been said, but I fail to see what separates your tactics from his...
>
> I think you meant 'strategy', rather than 'tactics', or perhaps
> "position" versus opinions. His blind prejudice and my rational
> evaluation do indeed correspond on some points. As I've said before,
> that doesn't mean that his points are constructive, nor that my points
> are not.
And this is exactly the point I'm trying to make; Why is his opinion "blind
prejudice" and your opinion "rational evalution"? I see two sides, yes...but
they're on the same coin...Aaron could turn around and make exactly the same
case for his arguments...that you speak out of "blind prejudice" brought
about by swallowing whatever politically correct BS is about and that his
opinion is "rational evalution" of
the "real" situation...again, knowing "the truth" doesn't make you right...
I'm saying that _both_ of you are not being constructive because you are
both plants with their roots firmly in the ground...nothing wrong with being
strong and true to your opinions...but if you're too rigid then you're stem
will just snap...yes, too flexible and your stem won't even stand up but
there's the balance for you...
> >This would refute the notion of freedom of speech and religion, would it
> >not?
>
> Certainly not. It would make it impossible for religion to have any
> influence or impact on politics, but that is in fact the point. As for
> freedom of speech, recognizing Aaron's remarks as categorically
> worthless when they are based on blind prejudice does not in any way
> impugn his right to say them.
Fair enough; That is your opinion.
> >EVERYONE thinks they're right...merely dumping some monologue and
ignoring
> >response will NOT prove you're right...empathise...this person who you're
> >talking to thinks you are totally wrong...
>
> You haven't been talking to Aaron long enough. He doesn't "think" I'm
> wrong; he considers it a given, since I disagree with him.
Well, I meant "thinks" as in that is his opinion (i.e. it is the thoughts in
his head :)...the degree to which he holds that opinion I wasn't trying to
hint at...
And, yes, I haven't been talking to Aaron long enough but I've seen this
sort of "debate" a million times and it's always the same thing again and
again...Aaron probably won't listen to you because it's all routine...do you
know what a pantomime is? They always have a section in every pantomime
where one character says: "Oh no it isn't" and the other character replies:
"Oh yes it is" and they ping-pong these responses back and forth - adding
emphasis each time...it's meant to be comedic but it bears too much
resemblence to most "debate" in this world that I could never find it that
funny...
> >no amount of "I'm right, you're
> >wrong" will EVER change that...in fact, it will only make the situation
> >worse because they feel you're forcing them to think as you do...no
matter
> >how liberal your opinions, to Aaron, you are being a facist and forcing
your
> >opinions on him...
>
> Its the other way around, Beth.
lol...don't you see my point? It's symmetrical...yes, of course, it's the
other way around...it's BOTH ways round...it's symmetrical...that's my whole
point...and that's what everyone who employs bully/ignore tactics
misses...such tactics can only work - only make sense - when you sit in a
priviledged position - outside the fray - when it's non-symmetric...BUT this
doesn't actually happen in reality because everyone automatically assumes
they're right and assumes that this means they are "better" than the other
person...hence non-symmetric...the basic problem here is that no-one is
"better" in these cases and it _is_ a symmetrical thing...
"Oh no it's not"
"Oh yes it is"
"Oh no it's not"
"Oh yes it is"
"Oh no it's not"
"Oh yes it is"
blah-blah-blah...
ad inifinitum...ad absurdum...
> Note that it becomes very hard to tell,
> when the issue isn't ideological, between the fascists and those who say
> their opponents are wrong.
Exactly; So let's take pains to make it clear...let's do this thing right,
as well as believe the right things ;)
> Fascists simply believe they don't need any
> reasoning or consensus in order to support their belief. Other than
> that, they're only as evil as anyone else blinded by prejudice. In some
> respects, better a fascist than a Kulkis. Kulkis pretends his opinions
> are based on reason, while a fascist does not (philosophically;
> obviously they believe their philosophy has a basis on reason, but the
> results of the philosophy are arbitrarily "correct" and any different
> opinion is automatically "wrong".)
Maybe "better a fascist than a Kulkis" (not a very nice thing to say,
though, is it? Odd how your compassion runs out all of a sudden, once
someone disagrees with you, eh?
> >Note: The above also applies to Aaron, to an extent...drawing lines and
> >taking sides makes sense in a war but not in a debate...a discussion
cannot
> >function properly without giving respect and room to speak for your
> >"opponents"...
>
> Aaron's not really a special case; there's lots of people like him on
> Usenet.
True.
> Drawing lines and taking sides, I'll point out, is even more
> necessary in a debate than in a war.
Completely false; A debate is a discussion to attempt a conclusion to some
matter...often, a comprimise will be struck...it most certainly _isn't_ a
battle or a war...in fact, the word "debate" comes from the Roman:
"desbattere" which is literally "de-battle" (source: Oxford Concise
dictionary + Chambers word origins ;)...that is, _anti-fighting_...it is the
act of laying down your stubborn lines in order to secure the need NOT to
fight...
Of course, many people abuse the notion and just turn a debate into a verbal
battle BUT they are NOT really debating...they are just twisting things to
their cause...they are doing it all wrong...as it is exactly the act of
laying down your weapons and attempting to "undo" an enemy into a friend...
Drawing lines and taking sides, I'll point out, is the exact opposite of
what a debate is all about...don't confuse the popular abuse of them as
merely places to wage verbal warfare as being actually what they are...they
are literally the exact opposite of this...the very word "debate" literally
says: "stop fighting!!!" :)
> Usenet is not a debate, though it often pretends to be.
USENET is a forum; But if some form of disagreement occurs (as inevitably it
does) and "war" is staged...then, rightly, USENET should hold debate...it
should facilitate the means by which the disagreement - the battle - can be
diffused...
So, yes, USENET is NOT a debate BUT it does not "pretend" anything...at
times, there is a need to diffuse argument and, at such times, USENET's
place _is_ to facilitate debate...
I'm going by the actual definitions of the words here, as well as by reason
and logic and what happens in practice...a moderate and accurate enough
response for you? ;)
Beth :)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Subject: Re: So IE5/Outlook/Outlook Express will all execute attachments
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 4 Apr 2001 09:57:26 -0500
Check out the way Microsoft says "Yes" to the following question:
-----------
Would IE always execute the attachment?
No. IE would only execute the attachment if File Downloads were enabled
in the Security Zone that the e-mail was opened in. However, File
Downloads are enabled in all zones by default.
-----------
On Wed, 4 Apr 2001 20:19:16 +1200, Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Well, even though a lot of people give Netscape alot of flak, when was the
>last time you heard an exploit this bad for Netscape?
>
>Matthew Gardiner
>
>"mmnnoo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:_o1x6.524053$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> This really does sound bad, even by Microsoft's own admission.
>> If you run an email client that renders messages with
>> MSIE 5.01 or 5.5, anyone in the world can run any
>> program they like on your system, simply by sending you an
>> email. You don't need to open any attachment or OK
>> anything. Just click on the email and your system is toast,
>> even if you only clicked on it to delete it.
>>
>> Exploitation of this vulnerability could easily give real teeth to
>> the next melissa - type virus (of which there have already been
>> several in the past year).
>>
>> The "Security Bulletin" (bug report) plainly states that this bug
>> allows the attacker to "run code of attacker's choice"
>> (arbitrary code). At least Microsoft was politically correct
>> enough to consistently refer to the attacker as female.
>>
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Adam
>> Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> > I think this tops the buffer overflow in Outlook/Outlook Express where
>> > arbitrary code can be run on an unpatched Windows machine just by
>> > sending someone a plain text email.
>> >
>> <snip>
>> > Check it out:
>> > http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/MS01-020.asp
>> >
>> <snip>
>
>
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft should be feared and despised
Date: 04 Apr 2001 09:06:23 -0600
"Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thats unless they pay another republican off to let Microsoft do what ever
> it pleases, just as it did last election.
Excuse me?
The whole Microsoft anti-trust trial was brought to you by
republicans, for republicans. The judge, the states' attourney
generals, the senators -- take a closer look.
--
It won't be long before the CPU is a card in a slot on your ATX videoboard
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: Alexis Cousein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.arch
Subject: IA32, was an advocacy rant
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 17:01:23 +0200
Craig Kelley wrote:
> Too bad IA32 chips run faster than Alphas now. :)
Too bad they're IA*32*, though, and can't address more than 4GB.
--
Alexis Cousein Senior Systems Engineer
SGI Belgium and Luxemburg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft should be feared and despised
Date: 04 Apr 2001 09:09:23 -0600
Ray Chason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> ><sigh> Do you guys ever think for youself?
> >
> >Do you think that any such terms would ever stand up in court?
> >Of course not.
> >
> >Just because it's in a license agreement does not mean it's instantly
> >law.
>
> Ah, someone who still thinks that our court system is interested in
> justice. HELLO?! Microsoft has money. I don't. That means "sued"
> is, in practice, equivalent to "liable."
Amen to that.
--
It won't be long before the CPU is a card in a slot on your ATX videoboard
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Subject: Re: I'm so happy!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 4 Apr 2001 10:01:58 -0500
On Wed, 04 Apr 2001 03:38:39 -0400, Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Martigan wrote:
>
>> What makes me happy is what I can do with linux, windoze dreams about!
>> You know what I did? I typed $ info cp . Thats it and got all the info on
>> options and envocations. ;-)
>
>Actually, you can do this on Windows, too, if you install Cygwin 32.
>There are ports in that package for both man and info. Also, Cygwin is
>great, because I was able to compile XEmacs and Vim. The bad part about
>Cygwin, though, is its monumental slowness, and its ability to crash
>Windows ME.
>
>See, different operating systems have foundations in different cultures,
>philosophies, and religions. I'm the type of person who eschews word
>processors in favor of LaTeX. Years ago, when Word 2.0 was my mainstay
>for all my word processing needs, I wished I knew how to write
>impressive-looking documents with (La)TeX. Now, it's just the
>opposite: I can't use Word, because the dang thing is so bloated with
>consumer-pleasing features, but I find LaTeX is the only thing out there
>that's usable for typesetting documents.
>
>
Then why the heck are you suggesting that the same thing can be done "in
Windows, too, if you install Cygwin 32" and stand on one foot while keep
one arm pointed south with one eye closed. Sheesh! How about something
simpler......don't run Windows!
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
