Linux-Advocacy Digest #667, Volume #33 Tue, 17 Apr 01 15:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Crimosoft will get off scot-free (William Shakespeare)
Re: Am I ****? HP Photosmart C500 and Win 2000 ("z0ck")
Re: Am I ****? HP Photosmart C500 and Win 2000 ("z0ck")
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (Chad Everett)
Perl and Tcl/Tk: How important are they? ("Bryant Charleston, MCSE")
Re: Am I ****? HP Photosmart C500 and Win 2000 ("z0ck")
Re: Am I ****? HP Photosmart C500 and Win 2000 ("Big Bob")
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Am I ****? HP Photosmart C500 and Win 2000 ("z0ck")
Re: To Eric FunkenBush (Chronos Tachyon)
Re: Communism, Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day. (The Ghost In
The Machine)
Re: To Eric FunkenBush (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Am I ****? HP Photosmart C500 and Win 2000 ("Gary")
Re: IA32, was an advocacy rant (Rick C. Hodgin)
Re: Communism, Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day. (The Ghost In
The Machine)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: William Shakespeare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.microsoft.sucks
Subject: Re: Crimosoft will get off scot-free
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 11:17:09 -0700
"Robt. Miller" wrote:
>
> 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.
Internet shorthand. Anyway, linguists study languages; it doesn't
mean they are very good writers. It is perfectly possibly to be a
linguist and be a poor writer. It is not the same thing as a degree
in English or Journalism.
--
Bill
"The second thing we do, let's kill all the editors." Edited out of
Henry IV, Part I.
------------------------------
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 18:19:52 GMT
Well then aren't you glad that there aren't "F... this" and "F... that"
messages all over the place?
Stuart Binns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:r5%C6.12487$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> The difference is that you wouldnt expect to see profanity on this
newsgroup
> my kids have digital cameras and I wouldnt want them to see f... this and
> f... that all over the place
>
> Dont get me wrong I can swear with the best of them but there are places
> more appropriate than this group
>
>
<SNIP>
------------------------------
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 18:21:50 GMT
Yay DREAMSPINNER!
Dreamspinner3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9bhuv4$917ce$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Did you see me swearing at all? Hmmm???? Yes, I know what this group is
> about. Yes, I agree with you (suprise!!) such language as he used is
> unpleasant. However, why whine about it? And you're the one who
mentioned
> your children.... He has a right to post here. I just ignore and/or
> killfile people I don't like. I don't whine about it or try to impress my
> morals upon them. I guess that is where we differ.
>
<SNIP>
------------------------------
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 13:15:14 -0500
On 17 Apr 2001 17:25:32 GMT, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Chad Everett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On 12 Apr 2001 01:19:48 GMT, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>billh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>"Roberto Alsina" <
>>>>
>>>>> If "murder" means "unlawful kill", then since the laws of aramaic tribes
>>>>> in 2000BC are not at all like today's, the distinction is meaningless.
>>>>
>>>>It doesn't surprise me at all that you are unclear of what is murder.
>>>
>>>It doesn't surprise me at all that you are unclear that murder now and
>>>murder three thousand years ago don't mean the same thing.
>>
>>And it now doesn't surprise any of us that you have absolutely no clue
>>about the meaning of "murder three thousand years ago". Your ideas
>>about history are such a jumbled mess that it is incredible you're
>>trying to reinforce your arguments about murder and killing by
>>referring to history.
>
>I need to refer to history because the commandment makes no sense
>if you don't.
>
>Now, perhaps you can enlighten me in what "murder" means, when it is
>said to an aramaic tribe around 1300BC (notice the change in date,
>don't bother arguing it).
>
>Unless you can answer that, trying to apply the commandment to today's
>actions is an exercise in stupidity.
>
Well, your questions seem a bit vague, but I'll try to tell you
what I think:
I have no idea what the command: "you will not murder" meant to the
aramaic tribes in 2000BC.
God's commandment: "you will not murder" means the same today as when
it was given. The meaning God intended has not changed.
The true meaning and Man's interpretation are different things.
Moses and the Israelites did commit murder more than once. History is
full of Man blatantly violating God's law. Violation of the law does
not imply there is something wrong with the law.
God never ordered murder, but God did on several occasions command men
to go to war. The numbers 31 account has God ordering war and Moses
ordering murder.
Is killing as an act of war murder? no Can murder be commited during
war?: yes
>And no, I need not know what exactly murder meant at 1300BC to know
>that it makes no sense to use the word in the current meaning, all
>I need is a reasonable doubt about the meaning being the same.
>
>--
>Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: "Bryant Charleston, MCSE" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Perl and Tcl/Tk: How important are they?
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 18:34:32 GMT
Hey folks,
I'm a Linux newbie and I'm reading through a few books and practicing
hands-on to learn Linux -- then Unix. A couple of the books spend quite a
bit of time addressing scripting languages like Perl and Tcl/Tk. As a newbie
to Linux, I'd like to get some feedback on how important these (or any
other) scripting languages are in the real world.
1) Should I skip these and continue to learn and master the basic CLI
commands FIRST, or learn them along w/the CLI?
2) Which of these scripting languages are the most important?
3) Are there other important scripting languages that are also widely used
that I should be aware of?
Thanks for the feedback!
--
...................................................
Bryant Charleston
A+ Network + MCSE (NT4)
Linux (RedHat 7) Enthusiast
....................................................
------------------------------
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 18:34:53 GMT
Actually, I chose not to have kids primarily because there are too many
people in this world already, who, I suspect like you, somehow feel
compelled to crank out the kids as fast as they possibly can. These same
people then expect the rest of the world to deal with the fact that they
have 87 kids by coughing up large sums of money so they can feed their kids.
They expect the rest of us to toe the line on what THEY feel is "right" or
"wrong". They do all that and then hide behind their children with epithets
like "Its all about the KIDS!" or "We need to do 'X' for the KIDS!".
Hogwash. You pumped out the kids, you deal with them. They are your
problem.
By the way, If you think I lack compassion because I expect people to deal
with their own problems, particularly when those problems are
self-inflicted, maybe you should look at yourself and decide if the world
REALLY needs another kid.
Todd Morrison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:wj_C6.14156$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 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.
>
>
<SNIP>
------------------------------
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 11:34:25 -0700
"Dreamspinner3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9bhu2c$8m4uk$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Get real. Not everyone cares to hear about your kids, or what you're
> teaching them. The world does not revolve around your children, or anyone
> else's children for that matter! Again, you're responsible for your kids,
> not us. Deal with it!
>
To put this as simply as possible, you (or anyone else) are entitled to use
whatever language you wish while standing in your own living room. And you
can stand there naked and paint yourself purple for all I care. However, go
to a public park, restaurant, street corner, and try it, and you'll find
that you no longer have that right...try it and find out. When you get out,
let us know if you still think that. This is a public newsgroup.
Big Bob
------------------------------
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 18:38:42 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Chad Everett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 17 Apr 2001 17:25:32 GMT, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Chad Everett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>On 12 Apr 2001 01:19:48 GMT, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>billh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>"Roberto Alsina" <
>>>>>
>>>>>> If "murder" means "unlawful kill", then since the laws of aramaic tribes
>>>>>> in 2000BC are not at all like today's, the distinction is meaningless.
>>>>>
>>>>>It doesn't surprise me at all that you are unclear of what is murder.
>>>>
>>>>It doesn't surprise me at all that you are unclear that murder now and
>>>>murder three thousand years ago don't mean the same thing.
>>>
>>>And it now doesn't surprise any of us that you have absolutely no clue
>>>about the meaning of "murder three thousand years ago". Your ideas
>>>about history are such a jumbled mess that it is incredible you're
>>>trying to reinforce your arguments about murder and killing by
>>>referring to history.
>>
>>I need to refer to history because the commandment makes no sense
>>if you don't.
>>
>>Now, perhaps you can enlighten me in what "murder" means, when it is
>>said to an aramaic tribe around 1300BC (notice the change in date,
>>don't bother arguing it).
>>
>>Unless you can answer that, trying to apply the commandment to today's
>>actions is an exercise in stupidity.
>>
>
>Well, your questions seem a bit vague, but I'll try to tell you
>what I think:
>
>I have no idea what the command: "you will not murder" meant to the
>aramaic tribes in 2000BC.
>
>God's commandment: "you will not murder" means the same today as when
>it was given. The meaning God intended has not changed.
That makes no sense.
After all "if the trumpet does not sound a clear call, who will get
ready for battle?"
>The true meaning and Man's interpretation are different things.
Since we can not know the true meaning, the commandment means
anything we want?
>Moses and the Israelites did commit murder more than once. History is
>full of Man blatantly violating God's law. Violation of the law does
>not imply there is something wrong with the law.
If the law in incomprehensible, there is something wrong with the
law. If we don't know what god meant by "murder", how could
we follow the law?
>God never ordered murder, but God did on several occasions command men
>to go to war. The numbers 31 account has God ordering war and Moses
>ordering murder.
>
>Is killing as an act of war murder? no
How can you tell? You say the meaning of the word murder as used in the
commandment is not known, only our interpreatation of it.
If I interpreted "murder" in the commandment to mean "killing
asparagus", I would be free to kill men with a clear conscience.
Just as, apparently, you claim that killing men at war is not
murder, because you interpret the commandment not to include
acts of war. You are using circular logic.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
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 18:39:46 GMT
You're ABSOLUTELY right! This IS a public newsgroup.
That means that I don't own it, you don't own it and neither does anyone
else.
To put it shortly, why don't you police yourself, I'll police myself and we
can all collectively kill-file the idiots who CAN'T police themselves? That
way, there will be peace and happiness and the "little people will rejoice"
and all that. And no one will be left whining about why they don't like
something someone else wrote. We'd never hear about it, because people
would use "Common Sense" to killfile people, posts and threads that they
disagreed with.
How's that sound?
Big Bob <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Dreamspinner3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:9bhu2c$8m4uk$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Get real. Not everyone cares to hear about your kids, or what you're
> > teaching them. The world does not revolve around your children, or
anyone
> > else's children for that matter! Again, you're responsible for your
kids,
> > not us. Deal with it!
> >
>
> To put this as simply as possible, you (or anyone else) are entitled to
use
> whatever language you wish while standing in your own living room. And
you
> can stand there naked and paint yourself purple for all I care. However,
go
> to a public park, restaurant, street corner, and try it, and you'll find
> that you no longer have that right...try it and find out. When you get
out,
> let us know if you still think that. This is a public newsgroup.
>
> Big Bob
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: Chronos Tachyon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: To Eric FunkenBush
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 18:49:21 GMT
On Mon 16 Apr 2001 10:58, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> "Chronos Tachyon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> message news:SVKC6.28287$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[Snip]
>>
>> Wrong, I'm afraid. It *is* defined by the language. Surely you're not
>> implying that it's possible to write a C++ compiler (targeted to a much
>> larger and more [mis-]feature rich language) that can compile code as
>> efficently as a C compiler, are you?
>
> If you're compiling a program that doesn't use C++, but only C, yes. Even
> while compiling it AS C++.
>
OK, let me get this straight. You're arguing that the only reason a
printf-style "Hello, World!" compiled by a C++ compiler is so much larger
is that it uses stdio instead of iostream? *groan*
Here, I tried a little experiment:
-rwx------ ... 3108 Apr 17 12:22 oldc++-std # stdio
-rwx------ ... 11564 Apr 17 12:22 oldc++-opt
-rwx------ ... 3028 Apr 17 12:22 oldc++-xpt
-rwx------ ... 65116 Apr 17 12:22 purec++-std # iostream
-rwx------ ... 65084 Apr 17 12:22 purec++-opt
-rwx------ ... 65036 Apr 17 12:22 purec++-xpt
[Snip]
>>
>> This conveniently skirts the fact that, in C, an #include is usually
>> harmless both to compile time and binary size.
>
> Not true. Put 3000 #includes in your program and see if it takes the same
> amount of time to compile as without them.
>
I said "usually harmless", and I don't consider multiplying by two orders
of magnitude to be a situation covered by "usually". Nobody seriously
considered the idea of having pre-compiled headers until C++ was invented,
because it's wasn't worth it before then.
An interesting note: I did some experiments on a 2.4 ramfs filesystem, and
it seems that g++ is actually more efficient at parsing C headers than gcc.
I would attribute this to the necessity of having an efficient parser for a
complex language like C++; something tells me that two different teams
wrote the C and C++ parsers in GCC. g++ seems to be roughly O(n log n) in
number of lines when parsing C code, whereas gcc approaches O(n^2). Yech,
bad algorithms.
# hdrs | 250 | 500 | 750 |
=======+=======+=======+=======+
gcc | 0:09s | 0:40s | 1:36s |
g++ | 0:06s | 0:18s | 0:37s |
[Snip]
>>
>> It's certainly the case with g++. The problem is language bloat,
>> especially exception handling.
>
> Which can be turned off.
>
Yes, exception handling specifically cannot be turned off. You can't turn
off C++, however, and that's my problem with the idea of merging C and C++
compilers.
[Snip]
>> > Yes, it's that big. Remember, it includes all of QT as well.
>>
>> No, it doesn't. Qt is already compiled as a shared library. You don't
>> recompile MSVCRT40.DLL every time you write a Windoze app, do you?
>
> But you include the headers, which have to be compiled as well.
>
Yes, I know. That's why C++'s compile times suck. In C, a header is
nothing more than a bunch of declarations. It can define preprocessor
macros, create new types, and declare new functions and variables exported
by some other chunk of source code; none of those is terribly difficult to
parse. In C++, classes, templates, and inline code can also be declared,
and structs are just a special type of class.
[Snip]
>>
>> Specifically, I refer to the K5 story about the changes that C99 brings:
>> <http://www.kuro5hin.org/?op=displaystory&sid=2001/2/23/194544/139>
>>
>> A, D, K, L, M: Useful.
>> B, C, I, J, O: Syntactic sugar.
>> E, F, G, H, N: Pure language bloat.
>>
>> Although only G, H, K, and N seem to have the potential to bloat code
>> size (with K and N mostly confined to the runtime library), most of these
>> features will make C99 a notably more complex language to parse, which
>> will slow down compile times and make my life as a programmer suck more.
>
> Since the parser is entirely in the realm of the implementation, there is
> nothing preventing an implementation from giving extra weight to commonly
> used features. This would likely increase the compile time for less
> commonly used features, but it would seem like a good compromise.
>
> ie, putting the commonly parsed features at the beginning of the search
> tree.
>
I think you're missing the forest for the trees here. My point is that
it's a symptom of growing language bloat. Surely N, for instance, is
unbefitting of a language that's meant to be little more than a glorified
portable assembler.
--
Chronos Tachyon
Guardian of Eristic Paraphernalia
Gatekeeper of the Region of Thud
[Reply instructions: My real domain is "echo <address> | cut -d. -f6,7"]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
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 18:49:28 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, silverback
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Sun, 15 Apr 2001 00:12:12 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>On Sat, 14 Apr 2001 20:19:39 -0400, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>silverback wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sat, 14 Apr 2001 02:33:42 -0400, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
[snip for brevity]
>>> >Oh, you mean like PG&E, which went bankrupt because they were forced to
>>> >operate under a Marxist economic model......
>>>
>>> oh you mean they couldn't cut it in a free market asshole. Remember
>>> asshole it was fools like you that deregulated the market.
>>
>>Was PG&E forced to operate under price-control regulation?
>>a) no
>>B) YES
>
>nope
I do wonder. Presumably, if PG&E didn't like it, they could have
declared Chapter 7, liquidated, and gone into some other line of work.
But that's a long and complex process -- "hey buddy, did ya wanna
buy a spare transmission tower or generator?" :-)
(I believe they're operating under Chapter 11 at the moment. I'd
have to check, but that's what most businesses filing bankruptcy do AFAIK.)
Another possibility is for PG&E to file suit charging unfair pricing
practices by the PUC, the state's regulatory authority for electricity
pricing (amongst other things). This makes it by default a quasi-socialistic
concept -- the regulation of the electricity price for the common good.
Only in this case it backfired badly, and now we'll have to suffer
all summer.
Note that the regulation of electricity prices started in 1996; this means
that the 46% increase already granted (which is not enough, BTW) translates
to about 7.9% a year over 5 years. Had the PUC granted those increases,
we might have had a few shiny new power plants by now.
Of course TURN would have a fit -- and I can't blame them too much.
But all this is electrons through the transmission wire. :-)
[rest snipped]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 0d:10h:30m actually running Linux.
This is not a .sig.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Subject: Re: To Eric FunkenBush
Date: 17 Apr 2001 18:52:52 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Chronos Tachyon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Mon 16 Apr 2001 10:58, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
>> "Chronos Tachyon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
>> message news:SVKC6.28287$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [Snip]
>>>
>>> Wrong, I'm afraid. It *is* defined by the language. Surely you're not
>>> implying that it's possible to write a C++ compiler (targeted to a much
>>> larger and more [mis-]feature rich language) that can compile code as
>>> efficently as a C compiler, are you?
>>
>> If you're compiling a program that doesn't use C++, but only C, yes. Even
>> while compiling it AS C++.
>>
>
>OK, let me get this straight. You're arguing that the only reason a
>printf-style "Hello, World!" compiled by a C++ compiler is so much larger
>is that it uses stdio instead of iostream? *groan*
By default, if you link using g++, it links in iostreams.
--
Roberto Alsina (who wonders why people take this hello world stuff
so seriously)
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Gary" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Gary" <[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 11:53:38 -0700
Hey Bob, we need pictures of the nekkid purple guy! This *is* digital
photography after all :) Just please, for heaven's sake, don't post the
binary in here - there's little ones that could be scarred for life :D
--
Best regards,
Gary
GL1 Photography
"Big Bob" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Dreamspinner3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:9bhu2c$8m4uk$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Get real. Not everyone cares to hear about your kids, or what you're
> > teaching them. The world does not revolve around your children, or
anyone
> > else's children for that matter! Again, you're responsible for your
kids,
> > not us. Deal with it!
> >
>
> To put this as simply as possible, you (or anyone else) are entitled to
use
> whatever language you wish while standing in your own living room. And
you
> can stand there naked and paint yourself purple for all I care. However,
go
> to a public park, restaurant, street corner, and try it, and you'll find
> that you no longer have that right...try it and find out. When you get
out,
> let us know if you still think that. This is a public newsgroup.
>
> Big Bob
>
>
>
------------------------------
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 13:54:18 -0500
>> >> 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.
>
>Which was exactly Peter da Silva's point.
I'm glad I could illustrate it so exactly.
- Rick C. Hodgin
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
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 18:55:04 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Aaron R. Kulkis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Sun, 15 Apr 2001 03:53:00 -0400
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Mathew wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 14 Apr 2001, Jim Richardson wrote:
>>
>> > On Tue, 10 Apr 2001 03:51:42 GMT,
>> > silverback, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> > brought forth the following words...:
>> >
>> > >On Tue, 10 Apr 2001 01:24:34 -0400, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
>> > ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >>Goldhammer wrote:
>> > >>>
>> > >>> On Mon, 09 Apr 2001 13:33:15 -0400,
>> > >>> Rob Robertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > >>>
>> > >>> > Right. Fascism is characterized by the *state-directed* control of
>> > >>> >the economy,
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Hmm. Sounds like communism.
>> > >>
>> > >>Precisely.
>> > >>
>> > >>Communism and Fascism are merely different sides of the same coin.
>> > >
>> > >bullshit you lying sack of shit. Fascism is the polar opposite of
>> > >communism. They have nothing in common.
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> > Fascicsm=control by a ruling oligarchy that murders it's population.
>> > Communism=control by a ruling oligarchy that murders it's population.
>>
>> What about Capitalist Fascist dictatorships like the
>> Philippines,particulary under Marcos.
>
>Capitalism and Fascism are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE TERMS,
>you goddmned fucking moron.
As I understand it, capitalism is an economic system, fascism is
a political one. Therefore, the two terms are mostly independent.
A similar dichotomy exists for communism and socialism. In fact,
the Red Chinese are becoming the Green Chinese -- green as in
capitalist money, as opposd to their old communist system.
Whether they'll succeed under their current authoritarian political
system isn't very clear yet but at least they've had the sense to
keep their hands off (mostly) the Hong Kong economy, which is of
course already capitalist.
I suspect that they'll want to at some point do the equivalent of
the Rural Electrification and the Interstate Highway projects, though.
(They might do the same thing as Vietnam, though, and go all-cellular.
Whatever works, I guess. :-) )
[rest snipped]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 0d:11h:41m actually running Linux.
The US gov't spends about $54,000/second. I wish I could.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
