Linux-Advocacy Digest #664, Volume #33 Tue, 17 Apr 01 12:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Who votes for Sliverdick to be executed: AYEs:3 NAYS:0 (1 ABSTAIN) (Rob
Robertson)
Re: IA32, was an advocacy rant (cjt & trefoil)
Re: Crimosoft will get off scot-free (Robt. Miller)
Re: Who votes for Sliverdick to be executed: AYEs:4 NAYS:0 (1 ABSTAIN)
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux is for the lazy (Paul Hughett)
Re: Am I fucked? HP Photosmart C500 and Win 2000 (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Linux is for the lazy (Brian Langenberger)
Re: Am I ****? HP Photosmart C500 and Win 2000 ("Big Bob")
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (Chad Everett)
Re: More Mafia$oft incompetance on display.. ("Kelsey Bjarnason")
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Microsoft gets hard (Chad Everett)
Re: Am I fucked? HP Photosmart C500 and Win 2000 ("z0ck")
Re: Am I ****? HP Photosmart C500 and Win 2000 ("z0ck")
Re: Linux + PostgreSQL + Apache + JDBC + Tomcat JSP / Servlets: Ready for prime
time? (Greg Copeland)
Re: Blame it all on Microsoft (andrew harrison)
Re: Why left-wing communist assholes hate Reagan. (was Re: Communism,
Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day.) (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Why left-wing communist assholes hate Reagan. (was Re: Communism,
Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day.) (Donovan Rebbechi)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Rob Robertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles,alt.society.liberalism,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Who votes for Sliverdick to be executed: AYEs:3 NAYS:0 (1 ABSTAIN)
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 10:10:33 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>
> Rob Robertson wrote:
> >
> > Henry Glenworthy wrote:
> > >
> > > "Rob Robertson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Let's take a nice, Glen "Sliverdick" Yeadon style pure-democratic
> > > > vote:
> > >
> > > > All for putting Glen "Sliverdick" Yeadon up against the wall, and
> > > > filling him full of lead, say "AYE!" All opposed, say "NAY"
> > >
> > > > Let's see how much Sliverdick likes democracy now."
> > >
> > > > > AYES:3
> > > > > NAYS:0
> > >
> > > > ABSTAIN:1
> > >
> > > > An example of the dangers of pure democracy is all well and good,
> > > > but I reject pure democracy even if Glen advocates it and wouldn't
> > > > vote either way on the matter; there is no moral justification for
> > > > the action or the mass decision behind it.
> > >
> > > >>>>
> > >
> > > What!? You don't believe in "one person - one vote", even if
> > > the result is the trampling of individual rights? Tsk, tsk. Shouldn't
> > > the easily swayed, fickle general public get to determine the fate
> > > of minorities it has suddenly grown to dislike? Shouldn't people
> > > who drive while using a cell phone and drinking their Starbuck's
> > > latte be shot on the spot?
> >
> > Heavens, no! That's just,... it's immoral, first of all, and entirely
> > incommensurate with the actual crime. What if we just firehosed them,
> > instead?
>
> Should not the murderer be subjected to the loss of his own life?
>
> Therefore, someone (like Sliverdick) who advocates democracy (mob rule),
> should be subjected to mob rule.
I agree completely that Glen should be responsible for his actions, but
I wanted to point out that since *I* don't believe in mob rule and view
it as an abdication of moral responsibility, I'm not voting 'aye' -- I'm
not voting at all on the question.
> --
> Aaron R. Kulkis
> Unix Systems Engineer
> DNRC Minister of all I survey
> ICQ # 3056642
_
Rob Robertson
------------------------------
From: cjt & trefoil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.arch
Subject: Re: IA32, was an advocacy rant
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 09:14:03 -0500
Yet they routinely did.
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "Peter da Silva" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:9bgnkk$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <u4PC6.4121$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Each process can't address more than 4GB at a time. With VLM extensions
> a
> > > process can address up to 64GB.
> >
> > Just like an 8086 addressing >1MB.
>
> An 8086 cannot, under any circumstances in an IBM compatible PC address more
> than 1MB. Ever.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.microsoft.sucks
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Robt. Miller)
Subject: Re: Crimosoft will get off scot-free
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 11:00:56 GMT
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - William Shakespeare
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>Tim Hanson wrote:
>> --
>> "Why isn't there a special name for the tops of your feet?"
>> -- Lily Tomlin
>
>I am absolutely certain that in some language there is. Actually in
>multiple languages, no doubt. That is one of the things that is sad
>about losing so many languages, as we are in the process of doing.
>BTW, I have a Master's in Linguistics...
One would think you'd use real sentences.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles,alt.society.liberalism,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Who votes for Sliverdick to be executed: AYEs:4 NAYS:0 (1 ABSTAIN)
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 07:39:17 -0700
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> "David L. Moffitt" wrote:
> >
> > %%%% AYE!!!!
> >
> > "Rob Robertson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > Re:
> > >
> > > "Let's take a nice, Glen "Sliverdick" Yeadon style pure-democratic
> > > vote:
> > >
> > > All for putting Glen "Sliverdick" Yeadon up against the wall, and
> > > filling him full of lead, say "AYE!" All opposed, say "NAY"
> > >
> > > Let's see how much Sliverdick likes democracy now."
> > >
> > > > AYES:3
> > > > NAYS:0
> > >
> > > ABSTAIN:1
> > >
> > > An example of the dangers of pure democracy is all well and good,
> > > but I reject pure democracy even if Glen advocates it and wouldn't
> > > vote either way on the matter; there is no moral justification for
> > > the action or the mass decision behind it.
> > >
> > > _
> > > Rob Robertson
>
> AYE: 4
> NAY: 0
> ABSTAIN: 1
>
> Doesn't ANYBODY like Sliverdick?
>
> Hey, Sliverdick...not even your body Scott Erb will vote in your
> favor? Or maybe he doesn't want to get on the bad side of the
> majority in this little democratic society.
>
> Hehehehhehe
I'm not registered to vote in this precinct, but since I'm a registered
Democrat does that matter? <G>
Sue (who voted for Bush and didn't vote for Feinstein)
------------------------------
From: Paul Hughett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is for the lazy
Date: 17 Apr 2001 14:42:18 GMT
Brian Langenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: After some deliberation, I've come to the conclusion that Linux
: (and Unices in general) are built by the lazy, for the lazy.
: As proof of this, let's look through the whole gamut of
: UI tools.
: [examples deleted]
You forget to consider all the effort that went into developing those
tools. The better formulation--which is already well known--is that
Unix was built by people who would rather spend 8 hours building a
interesting tool than 2 hours doing a boring task without the tool.
Paul Hughett
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Crossposted-To: rec.photo.digital,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Am I fucked? HP Photosmart C500 and Win 2000
Date: 17 Apr 2001 14:43:11 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 17 Apr 2001 14:37:46 GMT, Igor3489 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I bought an HP Photosmart C500 digital camera. I have Linux and Win2000.
>
>Guess what, the stupid camera does not work with Win2000 because HP did
>not write a driver for it.
>
>It appears that the camera supports TWAIN.
>
>I have two questions:
>
>1) Is there another TWAIN driver/app that would support my camera, without
>the need for HP drivers?
TWAIN doesn't make the driver go away, it just puts a layer on top of it.
So, if I understand it right (I haven't used windows in 5 years or so),
the answer to that is probably no.
>2) Can I use the camera with linux? That would be preferred as I do use
>linux much more than win2000.
No. Or at least, it's not listed as supported. However, the C200 C30 and C20
are, and maybe the driver will work with the C500 (stranger things happen ;-)
Check out www.gphoto.net
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: Brian Langenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is for the lazy
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 14:56:56 +0000 (UTC)
Paul Hughett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip!>
: You forget to consider all the effort that went into developing those
: tools. The better formulation--which is already well known--is that
: Unix was built by people who would rather spend 8 hours building a
: interesting tool than 2 hours doing a boring task without the tool.
Or, perhaps more precisely, 8 hours building an interesting tool to
do a task in 10 seconds rather than actually performing the 1 hour
task by hand. After said task is performed enough times, the
benefits for laziness are immense :)
------------------------------
From: "Big Bob" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: rec.photo.digital,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Am I ****? HP Photosmart C500 and Win 2000
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 08:09:27 -0700
Am I tacky would be have been a better question (Hint: answer begins with a
'Y'). That's 2 fresh new entries to the blocked senders list, possibly more
to come. Nothing like telling your kids they should use polite language,
then clicking on a newsgroup....digital photography no less...and finding
people with so little regard for others that they can't even ask a three
word question without displaying their tackiness in the subject line. And
then of course the 'guilt by association' of replying with subject line
intact.
Kindly restrict your cross posting to newsgroups that appreciate your
tackiness...photographers in general tend to have a bit more class than
that.
Big Bob
"Andy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On 17 Apr 2001 12:31:28 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> (Igor3489) wrote:
> If it has TWAIN drivers it should scan the image straight into a
> program like Compupic or Photoshop...
> Try a demo version and see if they solve the prob
> >I bought an HP Photosmart C500 digital camera. I have Linux and Win2000.
> >
> >Guess what, the stupid camera does not work with Win2000 because HP did
> >not write a driver for it.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 17 Apr 2001 09:53:09 -0500
On 17 Apr 2001 13:33:43 GMT, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Chad Everett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On 17 Apr 2001 00:10:57 GMT, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>Chad Everett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>On 16 Apr 2001 22:46:11 GMT, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>Chad Everett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>>Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That there was no standard in 3000BC of massive rape of women of the defeated.
>>>>>
>>>>>I am not conceding that yet. Let's work a little more in that.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Either you can support that assertion or you can't. Here we are about 20
>>>>ridiculous posts later and you still have not to come up with ANY shred
>>>>of evidence that your assertion is not an absurd fact that you just made
>>>>up in your head.
>>>>
>>>>Either provide some evidence or give it up.
>>>
>>
>>Won't provide a single shred of evidence...again. You made it up in your
>>head cause it sounded good and you thought it would help you argument.
>
>Excuse me, but why are you replying to yourself?
>
>>>Well, I had something going on above, but you deleted it.
>>>Recapitulating: you agree that at 1300BC, the israelites did rape the women
>>>of the defeated?
>>>
>>
>>Nope. Never agreed to that. Yet another "fact" that you've made up in your
>>head.
>
>I am not SAYING you agreed, I am ASKING if you agreed.
>You apparently believe that the prisoners, after every man and infant,
>and every non-virgin woman was savagely murdered, were kept for marriage.
>
>I say that's a way more unlikely idea than saying they were kept for rape
>and enslavement. And I see nothing in the bible going one way or the other.
>
>Why is your guess better than mine?
>
Still no evidence or facts on your "in 3000BC, the standard was of massive
rape of the women of the defeated". Of course, the reason you keep ignoring
this simple request for some shred of evidence to back up your wild
assertions with fact is because you can't. See how simple that is?
Either you can support that claim or you can't.
Well, we finally have an admission that you're guessing. Hallelujah! And,
of course, we have absolutely no reason to heed anything that you say, because
just as with your bizzare "3000BC" claim, they are the fantasies of your own
making.
>>Still no facts or evidence from you. It's really very simple. You can
>>either support your claim or you can't. Talking about Moses has nothing
>>whatsoever to do with some "standard" of warfare from 3000BC that you've
>>fabricated in your head.
>
>Well, you apparently dodge this once and agin:
>
I am not dodging anything, but of course, you are. I simply want the
facts to back up your blatantly false assertion that "In 3000BC, the
standard was the massive rape of the women of the defeated". It's
really a very simple request.
>If they were savage bloody murderous barbarians in 1300BC, were they
>actually BETTER 1700 years earlier?
>
>Every time I ask that, you delete it. Why?
>
Can't answer that because you don't indicate who "they" is. It is
completely bizarre that you bring up an account of Moses and the
Israelites from 1300BC-1200BC when asked to back up some wild
claim you made about a standard of rape of the defeated in 3000BC.
Remember this was in the context of some adburd claims you were
making about God, war, killing, murder, and law.
You are dodging and obfuscating the very simple fact that you don't
have a shred of fact about your claim of a "standard" of warfare in
3000BC. You made the claim, not me. I have just been patiently
trying to get you to answer that one request.
------------------------------
From: "Kelsey Bjarnason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: More Mafia$oft incompetance on display..
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 15:14:58 GMT
> "Roy Culley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Kelsey Bjarnason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > "The home page"? Just how many servers have they converted? If I'm
> > reading what they're saying correctly, we're talking 5,000 servers to be
> > converted over. 4 years? That's about 3 servers per day, ignoring any
> > actual time spent planning, testing, etc.
>
> They have only replaced the frontend web servers. The real work is
> still handled by Unix
>
> > Okay, smart boy, how long would it take _you_ to roll out a conversion
of
> > 5,000 servers from, say, IIS+Win2K to Apache + Linux, while maintaining
> > service for 100 million users? Let's see your deployment strategy.
>
> You wouldn't need 5,000 Unix servers. You wouldn't need 500 for goodness
> sake. It says a lot about NT/W2K.
Not really, but it says a lot about Linux. According to you, one wouldn't
need even 500 servers. Can we say, maybe, 100? Let's go with that. As I
read the article, those existing 5,000 servers are FreeBSD-based, being
converted to Win2K. This means that the inefficiency was caused by FreeBSD;
Win2K is simply coping with the existing mess. However, it also means that
Linux is 50 times more efficient than FreeBSD.
Are you really trying to tell us that FreeBSD is such crap that Linux
outdoes it 50:1?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Date: 17 Apr 2001 15:27:43 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Chad Everett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>>Still no facts or evidence from you. It's really very simple. You can
>>>either support your claim or you can't. Talking about Moses has nothing
>>>whatsoever to do with some "standard" of warfare from 3000BC that you've
>>>fabricated in your head.
>>
>>Well, you apparently dodge this once and agin:
>>
>
>I am not dodging anything, but of course, you are. I simply want the
>facts to back up your blatantly false assertion that "In 3000BC, the
>standard was the massive rape of the women of the defeated". It's
>really a very simple request.
Ok, let's go piece by piece: even if I couldn't prove it (don't think
I have even made a half serious attempt at proving it, either), that
wouldn't prove it is "blatantly false", only unproven.
If you say it's blatantly false, perhaps you can show a reference
to backup that?
>>If they were savage bloody murderous barbarians in 1300BC, were they
>>actually BETTER 1700 years earlier?
>>
>>Every time I ask that, you delete it. Why?
>>
>
>Can't answer that because you don't indicate who "they" is.
At least twice I have formulated that question using "israelites"
instead of "they" yet you answered none.
> It is
>completely bizarre that you bring up an account of Moses and the
>Israelites from 1300BC-1200BC when asked to back up some wild
>claim you made about a standard of rape of the defeated in 3000BC.
Why? I see a clear connection: it was the same civilization. Perhaps
you are saying they became more barbaric in the meantime?
Civilizations evolve, usually towards, well, civilization. If
even in dates as late as 1300BC the israelites were savage murderous
barbarians, what were they in 3000BC?
>Remember this was in the context of some adburd claims you were
>making about God, war, killing, murder, and law.
Well, keep the context indeed. You see, the point was under what
context should the term "murder" as used in the commandments be
interpreted. I used 3000BC because I believed (wrongly, it seems,
although you have shown no evidence to backup your claim that
Moses lived in 1300BC, or that he even lived!, a little research
shows dates for this as early as 2000BC and as late as 1000BC).
If you replace 3000BC with 1300BC, it makes absolutely no difference,
since the important thing was that it is understood that the term
murder did not mean the same thing then as it does now.
Why? Because apparently slaughtering babies was not considered murder.
>You are dodging and obfuscating the very simple fact that you don't
>have a shred of fact about your claim of a "standard" of warfare in
>3000BC. You made the claim, not me. I have just been patiently
>trying to get you to answer that one request.
Forget 3000BC, use 1300BC. Now lets go back to the original question.
You seem to believe that a simple wrong date makes the argument
any different. It doesn't.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Crossposted-To:
comp.arch,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.linux.hardware
Subject: Re: Microsoft gets hard
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 17 Apr 2001 10:13:04 -0500
On Tue, 17 Apr 2001 13:56:26 GMT, David Ehrens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"JS PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>...
>> Since you actually are or "were" classified as a Microsoft Business
>Partner,
>> I can safely assume that your now "extinct" like the other 32,000 that
>he
>> claims are now extinct, since all business partners of Microsoft are
>> supposedly EXTINCT? Or could it be that there are really NO business
>
>Jeez. You've really got to cut back on your coffee! What I was saying is
>that Microsoft's claims of x zillion business partners really don't mean
>much since many, like me, found the programs to be worthless. I'm sure
>there are many out there that did not bail (as we did). I was not
>talking about extinction and, if you reread what I wrote, I doubt you
>will even find the word there.
>
>Got that?
>
Don't be too hard on JS PL. He tends to make really stupid statements
that show his poor judgement and lack of maturity. He has a real tendency
to call names and say bad words too. This has caused him to get passed up
by people who are choosing who to do business with.
------------------------------
From: "z0ck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: rec.photo.digital,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Am I fucked? HP Photosmart C500 and Win 2000
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 15:29:29 GMT
Try using the Win98 drivers. I've done that with a few other items
(Scanners and printers, mostly) and that seems to work fairly well.
Igor3489 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I bought an HP Photosmart C500 digital camera. I have Linux and Win2000.
>
> Guess what, the stupid camera does not work with Win2000 because HP did
> not write a driver for it.
>
> It appears that the camera supports TWAIN.
>
> I have two questions:
>
> 1) Is there another TWAIN driver/app that would support my camera, without
> the need for HP drivers?
>
> 2) Can I use the camera with linux? That would be preferred as I do use
> linux much more than win2000.
>
> Thank you!
------------------------------
From: "z0ck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: rec.photo.digital,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Am I ****? HP Photosmart C500 and Win 2000
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 15:36:14 GMT
[posted and mailed]
Next time, just kill-file the guy and don't complain about it. I don't want
to hear it. Raising your kids is your problem.
I swear WAY too much. Its a personality flaw that I try very hard to
correct. You will notice that I don't post profanity. However, whenever
someone else does, don't you think that's THEIR problem?
I don't have kids because I don't want to deal with that stuff. I certainly
don't want to hear you whine about how hard it is.
Big Bob <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Am I tacky would be have been a better question (Hint: answer begins with
a
> 'Y'). That's 2 fresh new entries to the blocked senders list, possibly
more
> to come. Nothing like telling your kids they should use polite language,
> then clicking on a newsgroup....digital photography no less...and finding
> people with so little regard for others that they can't even ask a three
> word question without displaying their tackiness in the subject line. And
> then of course the 'guilt by association' of replying with subject line
> intact.
>
> Kindly restrict your cross posting to newsgroups that appreciate your
> tackiness...photographers in general tend to have a bit more class than
> that.
>
> Big Bob
> "Andy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > On 17 Apr 2001 12:31:28 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > (Igor3489) wrote:
> > If it has TWAIN drivers it should scan the image straight into a
> > program like Compupic or Photoshop...
> > Try a demo version and see if they solve the prob
> > >I bought an HP Photosmart C500 digital camera. I have Linux and
Win2000.
> > >
> > >Guess what, the stupid camera does not work with Win2000 because HP did
> > >not write a driver for it.
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux + PostgreSQL + Apache + JDBC + Tomcat JSP / Servlets: Ready for
prime time?
From: Greg Copeland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 17 Apr 2001 10:40:34 -0500
That's it. I have no idea why I can't remember that, but that be the one!
Thanks.
Greg
Karl Brodowsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In comp.lang.java.advocacy Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
>
> | Do you mean Paradox as "`that Borland DB"'?
>
> I think it's Interbase.
>
> --
> Karl Brodowsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> http://home.pages.de/~bk1/
--
Greg Copeland, Principal Consultant
Copeland Computer Consulting
==================================================
PGP/GPG Key at http://www.keyserver.net
DE5E 6F1D 0B51 6758 A5D7 7DFE D785 A386 BD11 4FCD
==================================================
------------------------------
From: andrew harrison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Blame it all on Microsoft
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 16:34:04 +0100
Phlip wrote:
>
> Proclaimed mlw from the mountaintops:
>
> > Jonas wrote:
> >> MS Office offer alot that no one else offer. The overall interaction
> >> between Microsoft products is the strenght of the company.
> >
> > Name one feature in MS Office that isn't offered in Star Office or Applix.
>
> Do they have a macro language?
>
StarOffice does can't say for applix
Regards
Andrew Harrison
Enterprise IT Architect
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: Why left-wing communist assholes hate Reagan. (was Re: Communism,
Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day.)
Date: 17 Apr 2001 15:56:15 GMT
On Tue, 17 Apr 2001 03:37:54 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
> Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>> > Very true. Not a bad place for a non-Moslem, but only if you're married.
>>
>> I thought you were a fan of "freedom". Do they have any of that in Saudi
>> Arabia ?
>
> More than you would think.
http://www.state.gov/www/global/human_rights/1997_hrp_report/saudiara.html
I agree, it is better than you would think. Contrary to what you
suggest, they don't stone people (execution is by beheading or firing
squad)
Note I've tried to find a
relatively impartial source (not a human rights lobby page). It seems
their system is less corrupt than many others. However, there are some
points worthy of mention (especially since you're so fond of "freedom":)
On free press:
----
The Government severely limits freedom of speech and of the press. The
authorities do not countenance criticism of Islam, the ruling family, or the
Government. Persons whose criticisms align them with an organized political
opposition are subject to arrest and detention until they confess their crime
or sign a statement promising not to resume such criticisms, which is
tantamount to a confession.
...
...
Newspapers typically publish news on sensitive subjects, such as crime or
terrorism, only after it has been released by the SPA or when it has been
authorized by a senior government official
...
The Government tightly restricts the entry of foreign journalists into the
Kingdom.
...
Academic freedom is restricted. The authorities prohibit the study of
evolution, Freud, Marx, Western music, and Western philosophy.
----
On Women's rights:
It's amusing that you suggest that women there are treated better -- they can't
drive, and can't go anywhere without a mans permission. THey can't pursue
a career of choice. Read it and weep ...
----
Government policy permits women to attend cultural and social events at
diplomatic chanceries and residences only if they are accompanied by a father,
brother, or husband.
...
The Government restricts the travel of Saudi women, who must obtain written
permission from their closest male relative before the authorities will allow
them to board public transportation between different parts of the country or
travel abroad
...
Women, including foreigners, may not legally drive motor vehicles and are
restricted in their use of public facilities when men are present. Women must
enter city buses by separate rear entrances and sit in specially designated
Sections. Women risk arrest by the Mutawwa'in for riding in a vehicle driven
by a male who is not an employee or a close male relative. Women are not
admitted to a hospital for medical treatment without the consent of a male
relative.
...
Women have access to free, but segregated, education through the university
level. They constitute 55 percent of all university graduates but are excluded
from studying subjects such as engineering, journalism, and architecture. Men
may study overseas; women may do so only if accompanied by a spouse or an
immediate male relative.
----
On democracy:
---
Citizens do not have the right to change their government. There are no formal
democratic institutions, and only a few citizens have a voice in the choice of
leaders or in changing the political system.
---
On Freedom of religion
---
Freedom of religion does not exist. Islam is the official religion, and all
citizens must be Muslims. The Government prohibits the public practice of
other religions.
Conversion by a Muslim to another religion is considered apostasy. Public
apostasy is a crime under Shari'a law and punishable by death
---
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: Why left-wing communist assholes hate Reagan. (was Re: Communism,
Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day.)
Date: 17 Apr 2001 16:01:12 GMT
On Tue, 17 Apr 2001 03:38:28 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
> Lady Veteran wrote:
>>
> Females are treated MUCH better in Saudi Arabia than in the US.
They may not drive, they may not study their degree of choice, they
may not attend public events or even visit a hospital without
permission of their spouse or closest male relative. They may not
pursue their career of choice.
I think you'd have a hard time convincing American women that giving up these
freedoms is in their best interest.
http://www.state.gov/www/global/human_rights/1997_hrp_report/saudiara.html
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
