Linux-Advocacy Digest #665, Volume #33 Tue, 17 Apr 01 13:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Microsoft should be feared and despised ("Scott R. Godin")
Re: Why left-wing communist assholes hate Reagan. (was Re: Communism, Communist
propagandists in the US...still..to this day.) (Gunner �)
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (Chad Everett)
Re: Am I ****? HP Photosmart C500 and Win 2000 ("Todd Morrison")
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Communism, Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day. (silverback)
Re: Impact of Internet ("Grant Z")
Re: Am I ****? HP Photosmart C500 and Win 2000 ("Dreamspinner3")
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (Chad Everett)
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (Roberto Alsina)
Re: IA32, was an advocacy rant (Rick C. Hodgin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Scott R. Godin" <[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: 17 Apr 2001 16:05:21 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip previous post including previous poster's signature which SHOULD
have been snipped by you, but wasn't, which is typical of all
top-posting users and wastes bandwidth by the Kiloton.]
| I top post so you see my response as soon as you open it. I am making
| life easier for the reader. Thats unless you like scrolling down 20
| lines of text before you get to the reply?
then why not follow standard usenet convention and let the REFERENCES
headers point to the previous articles -- if you're responding to the
WHOLE THING with a single paragraph (like I am) there's NO reason
whatsoever to include the ENTIRE PREVIOUS POST *AND* quoted material
from ever more previous posts, when you have references for that VERY
task. Snip like mad and only leave the relevant text, or a single bit of
quote, and let the newsreader leave the reference line in the headers or
as part of the message also (as mine does -- i.e. both).
see this?
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
that's a reference. I don't HAVE to include the whole article. There's
no REASON to. Double-click the reference in any 'aware' newsreader and
it will request that article for you, if it's still on the news server
(and if not, you can get that article reference from the archives.) the
article you posted has 10 references to posts previous in the thread.
Top-posting is a PAIN in the ASS because it utterly FILLS the archives
of usenet posts with (pages and pages and pages of) the SAME MATERIAL
THAT ALREADY EXISTS in the previous REFERENCES.
pluse millions of useless dupes of signatures and little useless dangly
spamverts at the bottom of posts.
top-posting is a BAD thing.
Please do not quote an entire article.
Please do not quote .sigs.
Please see:
http://www.geocities.com/nnqweb/nquote.html
http://www.uwasa.fi/~ts/http/quote.html
http://www.btinternet.com/~chiba/sbox/topposters.html
Thank you.
Jeopardectomy performed.
In a group this high-traffic, waste of bandwidth is definitely to be
avoided.. I already just skip any articles that include so much
previously quoted material you could shim a doorjamb with it, but only
to post a one-line comment? sheesh.. those aren't even worth reading. I
just skip. Why they bother including all the previous articles in the
thread is beyond me -- Usenet does that for them anyway. :P
Stupid gits. :|
--
send mail to webmaster (at) webdragon (dot) net instead of the above address.
this is to prevent spamming. e-mail reply-to's have been altered
to prevent scan software from extracting my address for the purpose
of spamming me, which I hate with a passion bordering on obsession.
------------------------------
From: Gunner � <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles,alt.society.liberalism,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Why left-wing communist assholes hate Reagan. (was Re: Communism,
Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day.)
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 09:10:34 -0700
On Tue, 17 Apr 2001 03:27:39 -0400, "Mysterion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Chad Everett wrote:
>> >
>> > On Mon, 16 Apr 2001 15:13:36 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>> > >Mysterion wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> But who the hell WANTS to live and work in Detroit?
>> > >
>> > >Great money
>> > >Low cost of living.
>> > >
>> >
>> > The same could be said for Saudi Arabia.
>>
>> Very true. Not a bad place for a non-Moslem, but only if you're married.
>
>I'd rather live in Saudi Arabia than Detroit.
>
So... you are willing to do without booze, R rated movies, scantily clad
ladies on the street, etc etc etc? If you dislike Detroit, either move,
or dont move there. I lived there for a bit, have family all over the
area (Troy, Oak Park, Gross Point Shores etc)..
Gunner
""The greatest evil is conceived and ordered (moved, seconded, carried and minuted)
in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices...like the
bureaucracy of a police state or a thoroughly nasty business concern."
C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters
------------------------------
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 11:07:44 -0500
On 17 Apr 2001 15:27:43 GMT, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>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?
>
You have just resorted to the ultimate waffle. I've made up a fantasy
in my head that little purple nerf balls are rolling around on the planet
Pluto. Show me a reference that this is false. If you can't, does
that mean that my fantasy is true? Answer of course is no.
>>>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.
>
Well you'd better define "BETTER" too....but
The questions is nonsensical: The Israelites did not exist in 3000BC.
>> 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?
>
They didn't exist in 3000BC. Is this your real problem?: You're
trying to make claims about the historical aspects of murder, war,
killing, law, and God and yet you have no knowledge of history so,
you just make it up?
>>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.
>
It makes all the difference. Why not change 1300BC to 2001AD?
>Why? Because apparently slaughtering babies was not considered murder.
>
Your claim, not mine.
>>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.
>
OK. SO we have yet another admission that your claim of "In 3000BC,
the standard was massive rape of women of the defeated" was just made
up. Now you want to change the date. The date is important because
it is proof that you just make things up in your head to make your
arguments seem plausible. It seemed true to you, so you threw it
out as fact. Not only that, but you go to great lengths to try and
argue that something that you just made up is true, because you think
it is.
>You seem to believe that a simple wrong date makes the argument
>any different. It doesn't.
>
>--
>Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: "Todd Morrison" <[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 16:37:48 GMT
It's a good thing you have chosen not to reproduce.
Your lack of compassion and responsibility would probably result in your
offspring building pipe bombs to get your attention.
z0ck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:OpZC6.1313$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [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.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
------------------------------
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 16:41:22 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Chad Everett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>They didn't exist in 3000BC. Is this your real problem?: You're
>trying to make claims about the historical aspects of murder, war,
>killing, law, and God and yet you have no knowledge of history so,
>you just make it up?
I have already told you a dozen times, since several posts ago, that
the date in itself was wrong, and that it makes no difference.
>>>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.
>>
>
>It makes all the difference. Why not change 1300BC to 2001AD?
Because the commandments were not given in 2100AD.
The 3000 number was wrong? Ok, let's use 1300.
>>Why? Because apparently slaughtering babies was not considered murder.
>
>Your claim, not mine.
The penalty for slaughtering babies: stay outside the camp one week.
Doesn't look like penalty for breaking a commandment to me.
>>>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.
>
>OK. SO we have yet another admission that your claim of "In 3000BC,
>the standard was massive rape of women of the defeated" was just made
>up.
Or, I just used a wrong date. I was obviously speaking about the
period of Moses (the discussion was about interpretation of
the commandments) and I just used the wrong number.
We can correct that now.
> Now you want to change the date. The date is important because
>it is proof that you just make things up in your head to make your
>arguments seem plausible. It seemed true to you, so you threw it
>out as fact. Not only that, but you go to great lengths to try and
>argue that something that you just made up is true, because you think
>it is.
As soon as you said Moses lived around 1300BC, I said, ok, let's
use 1300BC. Yet you keep on nitpicking.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (silverback)
Crossposted-To:
misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles,alt.society.liberalism,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Communism, Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day.
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 14:45:52 GMT
On Tue, 17 Apr 2001 09:32:53 GMT, "Tom Potter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>"silverback" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Mon, 16 Apr 2001 16:57:07 -0400, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >chrisv wrote:
>> >>
>> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (silverback) wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >just remember we tried that bullshit lazy fairy economic bullshit once
>> >> >in this country. It ended in a spectular failure called the Great
>> >> >Depression.
>> >>
>> >> Learn how to trim posts, Comrad.
>> >
>> >Sliverdick forgets that THE ENTIRE FUCKING PLANET WAS IN A DEPRESSION
>> >(INCLUDING HIS BELOVED SOVIET UNION!!!)
>>
>> gwad damn yer a fucking idfiot. It was the lazy fairy economics of the
>> 20s that produced the depression dipstick.
>
>The depression was brought on by government meddling (The restrictive
>Smooth-Hawley trade bill)
so potter did they finally let you out of the funny farm again?
>in the free market, and Roosevelt inherited a serious recession, and turned it
>into a long depression,
>that was ended when he got America into two wars, and had to turn to the
>business community
>to produce arms.
>
>It is also interesting to note, that Clinton/Reno put a kink in the economy by
>bringing
>a monopoly suit against Microsoft, the engine that was driving force behind
>the economy. One has to wonder if the suit would have been filed if Gates had
>been a large donor
>to Clinton's personal endeavors. (Presidency, NY Senate race, in-laws fortunes,
>Library, etc. )
>
>--
>Tom Potter http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp
>
>
***********************************************
GDY Weasel
emailers remove the spam buster
For those seeking enlightenment visit the White Rose at
http://www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/whiterose.htm
*********************************************
------------------------------
From: "Grant Z" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.arch,comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.object,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.theory,misc.invest.stocks
Subject: Re: Impact of Internet
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 16:48:04 GMT
You are EXACTLY correct. The web is the best communication medium yet to
hit the planet in mass form. I think the reason that nobody has figured out
how to make money on the web is that they are trying to use an independent
communication tool for selling something. Similar to telemarketing. I have
privacy manager and caller ID, so I dont answer the morons trying to sell me
something over the phone. This is why, I think, that TV is still the best
commerce medium. There is no direct selling (yet), but if I am watching
Survivor, I WILL sit thru the 2 minutes of commercials. Captive audience.
However, on the web, I can pick my destination and actions, ignoring the BS.
i.e. If Amazon.com ever sells books with the intent to actually make $$, the
shipping costs would put the books in a higher price range than my local
Borders. Plus, I dont have to wait. I can go to Borders to get my book
NOW. Amazon.com would lose.
Interestingly, there have been thousands of companies that have figured out
how to save money by using the web in the form of portals, intranets,
extranets, etc.
- Grant Zemont
Ionix Inc.
"Alwyn Goodloe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9basei$p5m$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Here's my take on these questions:
>
> The internet, in a short time, has proven to be one of the best
> ways to communicate information ever developed in history. Was
> this why the guys at CERN developed it to begin with. For those of
> us in academic research it has made life much easier. I think within
> ten or fifteen years the most of academic publishing machine (except
> for undergrad textbooks) will have been replaced by web based
publishing.
> Why because everything is costing more and more. Looked at the prices at
> Springer or Elsevir lately?? The folks who actually produce the documents
> make little. Now somehow we will still need editors so the products won't
> be free but my guess is that haveing independent editors and no
publishing
> company will drive down the cost a great deal.
>
>
> There are lots of other examples where the internet can make information
> easier to produce and cheaper to get.
>
> Now here's the kicker, the problem that the hype tried to hide and has
> come back to haunt them. NO ONE HAS FIGURED OUT HOW TO USE THE NET TO MAKE
> MONEY. Now I'm sure that some may rant that somehow this shouldn't be
about
> making money. Sorry, as my old man used to say -"Boy nobody owes you a
living!".
> If it won't make make money it won't be serving too many needs.
>
> So far most people have been willing to buy on the web only those things
that
> they can't get locally or are alot cheaper. So a few botique shops seem to
> thrive but by definition these aren't large and never will be. That leaves
> saving money, the Wall Street Journal and others have been full of stories
> as how difficult it is to sell products alot less than your local retail
store.
> Maybe it isn't possible and then the whole idea of shoping via the web was
> just a marketing fantasy that sounded like a good idea at the time.
Remember
> video phones?
>
>
> That still leaves B2B and other less spectacular applications
>
> Note that people DO use the web. They use it to obtain information,
> say to buy a car. In fact I think I recently read that almost half the
> people who buy a car do research online. But, they won't actually buy it
> until they get in and drive! Also, they aren't willing to pay to get that
> information.
>
> I'm not sure what the web needs is an app as a business model that
> makes money.
>
> I think that the commercial shakeup will continue, most will go bust
> some will merge and survive on small profit margins. A few will even
> thrive, say buying airline tickets. But these will be niche markets.
>
> Now there are some real apps that could use some future net to
> transform society. Say creating a virtual office where everyone works
from
> whereever they are located but meet and work in a virtual office space
everyday.I mean attend meetings, talk face to face, talk about tiger's
latest victory
> all in virtual space yet never leave Iowa or Alabama or whereever.
> Now that would be useful.
>
> Alwyn
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
>
> 2 + 2 ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> : We have seen the rise of the internet, especially beginning with its web
> : phase.
>
> : The tremendous web bubble, now collapsing at least partially, can be
> : attributed to speculation, etc.
>
> : There is no question that, aside from a frenzy to build web sites, the
> : computer industry as a whole ITSELF has converged on the web, making
> : tremendous investments in web-related technologies.
>
> : Now is a time for sober second thoughts.
>
> : In particular, how should the value of the web be analyzed in terms of
> : technology, societal impact, etc.?
>
> : Some points:
> : 1. Hardware. It is interesting to comtemplate that, given the web as
circa
> : 1994-5
>
> : (yes, I'm aware of TCP/IP's history--let the old stinky ready to do that
> : tiresome lecture stand down to begin with--I can hear the gas expiring:
"OH
> : _____!!!" --wouldn't it be interesting for a change to have someone
announce
> : the "code paths" of their knowledge and what they DON'T KNOW ___ ___
about),
>
> : that the first PC, ie low cost, servers using Pentium chips date from
this
> : era. What are the implications of IC chip tech moving its mass market
into
> : the domain of the server?
>
> : 2. Protocols. How do we evaluate HTML/HTTP, especially the hyperlink, in
the
> : scheme of things?
> : Would any run-of-the-mill programmer has invented such an easy,
> : user-clicked, non-programmable thing as the web page with its attendent
rise
> : of web authoring, where specialists (bless all our ______ _____ selves)
are
> : not needed?
>
> : 3. Hype. How do we evaluate the Java phenom against the foregoing (and
> : XML-RPC/SOAP)?
>
> : 4. Killer apps. It's been a long time since the browser hit as a
killer-app.
> : Has the tech brains gone into some kind of Trekkie warp and fossiled,
due to
> : some unknown combination of influences? Why the long hang time to the
NEXT
> : GREAT THING? Is the industry in an intense battle of
infrastructure-building
> : turf, which history will see as insignificant in the prespective of a
30-40
> : year period?
>
> : 5. The dot-com rhetoric has often said this is a New Industrial Age of
> : Communication and/or Information.
> : Is there any substance to this? If we put the present tech crew back
into
> : 1750, would they have missed the invention of the machine? Would those
that
> : could be supported by the non-machine economy be doing fine crafts like
> : programming? Or in the next 30-40 years, will there be some new
programming
> : language and the same high sounding talk about new paradigms?
>
> : 2 + 2
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Dreamspinner3" <[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 11:48:36 -0500
Reply-To: "Dreamspinner3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Why not just killfile the guy and be done with it? Why whine here abou it?
And teaching your kids what is polite language is your responsibility. If
you don't want them exposed to it, watch what they do on the Internet.
Don't expect others to censor themselves for the sake of your kids just
because you don't want to/can't/whatever take the time to watch them on the
Internet.
"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
------------------------------
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 11:34:27 -0500
On 17 Apr 2001 16:41:22 GMT, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Chad Everett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>OK. SO we have yet another admission that your claim of "In 3000BC,
>>the standard was massive rape of women of the defeated" was just made
>>up.
>
>Or, I just used a wrong date. I was obviously speaking about the
>period of Moses (the discussion was about interpretation of
>the commandments) and I just used the wrong number.
>
>We can correct that now.
>
My work here is done. Thank you.
------------------------------
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 16:58:13 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Chad Everett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 17 Apr 2001 16:41:22 GMT, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Chad Everett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>OK. SO we have yet another admission that your claim of "In 3000BC,
>>>the standard was massive rape of women of the defeated" was just made
>>>up.
>>
>>Or, I just used a wrong date. I was obviously speaking about the
>>period of Moses (the discussion was about interpretation of
>>the commandments) and I just used the wrong number.
>>
>>We can correct that now.
>>
>
>My work here is done. Thank you.
You have shown you had no interest in the ongoing discussion, except
to nitpick an insignificant detail. You have proven yourself to be
an asshole. You are welcome.
--
Roberto Alsina (Who wonders if Chad has way too much free time)
------------------------------
From: Rick C. Hodgin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.arch
Subject: Re: IA32, was an advocacy rant
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 12:05:37 -0500
>> > Just like an 8086 addressing >1MB.
>> An 8086 cannot, under any circumstances in an IBM compatible PC address more
>> than 1MB. Ever.
>Yet they routinely did.
They did not. They could access much more memory than 1MB because of
features present on adapter cards that could swap out portions of <=
1MB memory with memory that was logically mapped beyond 1MB. But it
was still addressed within the 1MB region.
- Rick C. Hodgin
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
