Linux-Advocacy Digest #643, Volume #34 Sun, 20 May 01 11:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Lee Sau Dan)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Lee Sau Dan)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (JS\PL)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) ("Gary Hallock")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) ("Gary Hallock")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (JS\PL)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) ("Gary Hallock")
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) ("Gary Hallock")
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) ("Gary Hallock")
Re: How would you port this? (from RTOS to Linux) (Charles Lyttle)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Roy Culley)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Roy Culley)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Lee Sau Dan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: 20 May 2001 21:12:49 +0800
>>>>> "Gary" == Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Gary> Radio waves are light. The speed of light, including radio
Gary> waves, varies depending on the medium. However, usually
Gary> when one refers to the speed of light without specifying the
Gary> medium, the speed of light in a vacuum is assumed. The
Gary> speed of radio waves in a vacuum is the same as light.
Gary> Perhaps the the 88% of c is the speed of radio waves in the
Gary> earth's atmosphere.
It's a bit slower, but not as slow as 0.88c. This speed would mean
that air has a relative refractive index of 1/0.88 = 1.136
w.r.t. vacuum. This is to far away from the measured value of 1.01
(or 1.001? I'm not sure, but it is very very close to 1.0).
--
Lee Sau Dan ���u��(Big5) ~{@nJX6X~}(HZ)
.----------------------------------------------------------------------------.
| http://www.cs.hku.hk/~sdlee e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
`----------------------------------------------------------------------------'
------------------------------
From: Lee Sau Dan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: 20 May 2001 21:18:17 +0800
>>>>> "Edward" == Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Edward> You don't need quantum mechanics to show that light goes
Edward> slower in a non-vacuum, all you need are Maxwell's
Edward> Equations which were developed long before quantum
Edward> mechanics.
Edward> I'm not sure exactly how at the moment, but I'll know
Edward> within 3 weeks since I have an exam on the subject.
c^2 = mu_0 * epsilon_0
where mu_0 is the magnetic force constant in
F = (mu_0/4pi) Mm/r^2
and epsilon_0 is the electric force constant in
F = (1/4pi.epsilon_9) Ee/r^2
--
Lee Sau Dan ���u��(Big5) ~{@nJX6X~}(HZ)
.----------------------------------------------------------------------------.
| http://www.cs.hku.hk/~sdlee e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
`----------------------------------------------------------------------------'
------------------------------
From: JS\PL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 09:51:50 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It's gotta be you scuzzybear! No two people on earth could possible have
the same ignorant style!
------------------------------
From: "Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 10:01:14 +0000
In article <9e83q2$7im$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Yet you claimed it was Linux's fault, not GIMP's fault simply on the
> grounds that it has never happened to you under Windows, so it must be
> the OS's fault (despite many people claiming it did happen under
> windows).
And it wasn't even GIMP's fault. It was a bad default that slipped
through the cracks in one specific distribution - Mandrake 7.2.
Gary
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 14:04:44 GMT
"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Daniel Johnson wrote:
> > I suppose you are trying to exclude
> > Microsoft's Unix and Macintosh apps,
> > and I would too.
> >
> > But I still think it's unreasonable to
> > dub the vast bulk of MS's product line
> > the core of the lineup.
>
> I dont really care what you think. m$'s main business is first its OS,
> then its apps.
Doesn't that work out to at least two main
businesses?
[snip]
> > Actually, it seems to me that you don't seem to
> > mean anything by those terms besides "black magic".
>
> Dont tell me what I think.
I wouldn't even tell you that you think. :D
> You continue to deny that m$ is a predatory
> anti-comeptitive company.
Yes, yes, I do.
> > Besides, Max was saying it was a felonious
> > behavior that did it, and these little antitrust
> > things aren't felonies, and weren't a hundred
> > years ago either. Witchcraft on the otherhand,
> > is a possibility there.
>
> They arent "little" (did that scare you?) ant-trust actions. They just
> may result in the breakup of micro$oft. Doubtful, but possible.
Quite doubtful.
[snip]
> > > Oh, the "failure" of OS/2 didnt have anyhting to do with micro$oft's
> > > FUD? Bull.
> >
> > What Microsoft FUD do you have in mind?
>
> Any/All of it.
I suppose that means you know of no
such FUD, and just assume that MS would
only ever use FUD. Right?
[snip]
> > > I dont know about OS/32. WINE is pretty much useless. And, unless you
> > > regularly try to use it, dont try any of your m$ aplopgist crap. WINE
is
> > > pretty much useless.
> >
> > Sure is. Open32 is too, same way.
> >
> > There's no *point* to developing for a portable
> > subset of Win32. Never was.
>
> Then why should m$ be scared of them? You used them as an example ofm$
> leaving "compeitors alone".
No, I didn't.
I am pointing out that cloning Win32 is not a threat
to MS and isn't viewed as such by MS- they aren't
scared of them.
They are scared of their competitors, as opposed
to Open32 and WINE.
[snip]
> > > > It's Java that scares them, and Java isn't anything
> > > > like a Windows-compatibility layer.
> > >
> > > Any that works scares them.
> >
> > I think you are missing a noun there. Any *what*
> > that works? Any anything?
>
> There noesnt necessarily need an anything there, but that is indeed what
> I meant. I also see that you skipped a reply.
I needed to know what you meant before
I could reply.
That said, you are clearly mistaken. Many things
that work do not scare MS.
[snip]
> > Oh?
> >
> > What makes you think so?
> >
> > I have never heard this accusation against
> > Microsoft before.
>
> You refuse to listen.
Nobody has offered it to me until now;
you might consideder telling me about
this.
[snip]
> > I dunno. You seem quite unreceptive to the
> > facts of development on 8-bit PCs.
>
> You havent provided any clear facts on 8 bit development.
"clear facts"? What would be a "clear" fact
in your view?
> You want to
> argue developers' point of view when the conversation is from the users'
> point of view. in fact, your credibility continues to erode.
How come *you* get to decide that "the conversation" is
from users point of view?
I am trying to communicate an important point to
you, and restricting the discussion to "users point
of view" is simply a way to avoid listening to it.
[snip]
> > > Weird and non-standard from YOUR point of view only.
> >
> > No, not really. Ever seen what a Hypercard
> > stack looks like?
>
> have you?
Yes.
> Habe you not yet figures out I have uses Apple II's?
Sure. You don't have uses that a PC could
not fill, by 1987, that's for sure.
And there *are* things that PCs could do
in '87 that Apple IIs couldn't.
> > [snip]
> > > More context losing snips.
> >
> > I buy them in bulk. :D
>
> Look. Another grinning dolt.
I make those myself! :D
------------------------------
From: "Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 10:03:34 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Pete
Goodwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Linux was around "years ago". Yet IBM chose _not_ to use it.
>
So. You could say the same about Windows. What's your point? You
claimed that the group of computers used by SETI was 10 times faster than
any supercomputer. You were wrong.
Gary
------------------------------
From: JS\PL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 10:12:14 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Rick wrote:
> Duh. When DR-DOS was around, m$ dropped DOS prices and added the
> features that Digiatl included.. After DR-DOS was effectively killed M4
> raised the prices again. becasue of economies of scale, window$ should
> be much cheaper. It isnt.
Why do you care what the price is? Besides 95% of Windows users paid less
than $100.00 for the OS through an OEM purchase. Their upgrades are also
less than $100.00, the lates upgrade (Windows ME) hit the shelves at about
$40.00. It is priced right.
<paste>
The prices of Microsoft�s applications and other packaged software have
fallen sharply over the years. Since 1990 the retail price of Microsoft
Word has dropped by 25 percent, that of Excel by 32 percent, and that of
Office by 50 percent. Since Encarta Encyclopedia was launched in 1993, its
price has declined by 85 percent. "Street" prices -- the discount prices
paid by most consumers -- have dropped even more.
Moreover, Microsoft�s prices routinely have fallen faster than those of its
competitors. Metro Computing, an independent market-research group,
estimates that the typical street price of Microsoft Word has fallen by 47
percent since 1991 (the first year for which Metro Computing made such
comparisons), compared with an 18 percent decline in the street price of
rival Corel�s WordPerfect. The street price of Microsoft Excel has dropped
by 42 percent, compared with a 40 percent decrease in the street price of
Lotus 1-2-3.
The price of most desktop operating systems -- such as Windows -- has
remained low and relatively stable during the 1990s, with the exception of
Unix derivatives such as Sun�s Solaris, IBM�s AIX and SCO�s UnixWare, which
were priced high when they entered the market and still carry premium price
tags. Compared with other desktop operating systems, Windows 98 is good
value. The street price of a Windows 98 upgrade is currently $89, compared
with $110 for the OS/2 Warp 4.0 upgrade and $430 for Sun�s Solaris 2.6.
Apple�s Macintosh OS, has a street price of about $85.
Any comparison of the price of the Windows operating system over time must
take into account that, until the launch of Windows 95, PC users wanting a
graphical user interface had to have DOS on their computers as well as
Windows. Factor in the cost of a DOS upgrade, and the price of Windows has
remained little changed since 1990. But while the price has held steady,
the functionality of Windows has increased immensely. Each new version has
included numerous new features and improvements. Windows 98, for example,
includes the Web-based WebView user interface; a more efficient file
system; faster launching of applications; complete Internet integration;
USB support; self-maintenance; improved reliability and troubleshooting;
support for multiple monitors; better and faster 3D graphics, improved game
support; and Web TV support.
The amount a typical PC user spends on Windows each day compares favorably
with the price of other everyday items. At a typical street price of $89,
and assuming a buyer uses the OS for 3 years, a Windows 98 upgrade will
cost 8 cents per day. For consumers who purchased a PC already equipped
with Windows, the cost is even lower.
</paste>
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 16:14:27 +0100
>> Of course a professional is required to go above and beyond the call of
>> duty.
>
> So in order to use Linux you need to be a professional? In order to use
> Windows you don't need to be. It just works.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
pull the other one. It's got bells on.
-Ed
--
(You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.) (u98ejr)(@)(ecs.ox)(.ac.uk)
/d{def}def/f{/Times-Roman findfont s scalefont setfont}d/s{10}d/r{roll}d f 5 -1
r 230 350 moveto 0 1 179{2 1 r dup show 2 1 r 88 rotate 4 mul 0 rmoveto}for/s{15
}d f/t{240 420 moveto 0 1 3 {4 2 1 r sub -1 r show}for showpage}d pop t
------------------------------
From: "Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 10:13:48 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Pete
Goodwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The Intel one only runs on Windows. They chose it because it's the most
> popular.
>
Are you claiming that SETI will not run on Linux on x86?
Gary
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 16:19:29 +0100
> I'd like to see this - show me the guarantee.
>
> Then show me the complete MORON that would run the same computer
> hardware without a single second of upgrade downtime for 35 years...
That moron would be you. The other S/390 admins would happily upgrade all
the hardware without a single second of downtime.
-Ed
--
(You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.) (u98ejr)(@)(ecs.ox)(.ac.uk)
/d{def}def/f{/Times-Roman findfont s scalefont setfont}d/s{10}d/r{roll}d f 5 -1
r 230 350 moveto 0 1 179{2 1 r dup show 2 1 r 88 rotate 4 mul 0 rmoveto}for/s{15
}d f/t{240 420 moveto 0 1 3 {4 2 1 r sub -1 r show}for showpage}d pop t
------------------------------
From: "Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 10:24:51 +0000
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
In article
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Radio waves are not light! Radio waves have been measured by the NBS at
> 88%.
88% of what? The speed of light? But what light? Visible light?
Infrared? Ultraviolet? Does the speed of light depend on the frequency?
You do realize that is exactly what you are saying, don't you?
> The speed of light has never been measured in a vacuum! It has been
> measured, tho, in space that light without quantum packets travels
> instantaneously. Otherwise, the appearance of distant galaxies would be
> totally distorted beyond recognition.
>
> But this is all irrelavant. Even if the speed of light were 1000 faster
> than what we know... the million light years of distance and time of a
> signal, let alone the attenuation of the inverse square of the distance
> would render any signal unreadable, let alone detectable.
>
> Interstellar space is full of energies... and full of unseen
> gravitational disturbances.
>
Been watching too many cheap sci-fi movies?
Gary
------------------------------
From: "Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 10:28:08 +0000
In article
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> False, the National Bureau of Standards has already conceded this. Even
> NASA has to correct for timing in transmissions to its far roving
> probes.
>
> Electromagnetic waves are slower than light.... very much slower.
What is light? According to what you just said it is not electromagnetic
waves. So what is it?
Gary
------------------------------
From: Charles Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How would you port this? (from RTOS to Linux)
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 14:39:38 GMT
Bill wrote:
>
> I am new to the GNU/Linux world. I have a general system design
> question. I am porting some existing software written for a Real Time
> OS to GNU/Linux. I will give a brief description of my current system,
> hopefully you can give me some design ideas for a GNU/Linux port.
> I have a master program that reads several configuration files.
> These files detail what tasks must started, both sequenced and event
> driven. These tasks handle such things as network I/O, event handling &
>
> logging, system monitoring, subsystem I/O, a text based user interface
> console, and many other algorithms/tasks that interpret input from
> external subsystems and make corresponding requests to these
> subsystems. The master program creates all of these tasks and provides
> an API for all of these other executable modules to run in. The master
> program also provides a round robin scheduler for sequenced tasks. This
>
> architecture has one interface to the user; from the console I am able
> to determine the status of every task that is running, and
> enable/disable run time debugging. The modular design of my system
> allows components to be added and removed from the system by changing a
> configuration file only, there is no need to change source code and
> rebuild.
> The RTOS I am using provides a great API, semaphores, mailboxes,
> shared memory, processes, and threads.
> I would prefer to emulate the same architecture in GNU/Linux, as
> compared to running all of these tasks independently.
> What kind of experiences have you had with this type of
> architecture? Do you recommend any other type of design?
>
> Thanks for any comments and experience you can provide,
> ----Bill Rooney
First, be aware that mainstream Linux is not real-time. There is a
version of real-time Linux under development though.
What RTOS and language is the current application written in? If the
RTOS is a UNIX like one, porting should be straight forward. If the
language is C, you might get by with replacing calls to lowlevel
services and redirecting some function calls to the proper library.
If you care to re-write it, look at using Ada. All the services you
describe are standard in Ada.
--
Russ Lyttle
"World Domination through Penguin Power"
The Universal Automotive Testset Project at
<http://home.earthlink.net/~lyttlec>
------------------------------
From: Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 10:51:15 -0400
Daniel Johnson wrote:
>
> "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Daniel Johnson wrote:
> > > I suppose you are trying to exclude
> > > Microsoft's Unix and Macintosh apps,
> > > and I would too.
> > >
> > > But I still think it's unreasonable to
> > > dub the vast bulk of MS's product line
> > > the core of the lineup.
> >
> > I dont really care what you think. m$'s main business is first its OS,
> > then its apps.
>
> Doesn't that work out to at least two main
> businesses?
>
They are the core business.
> [snip]
> > > Actually, it seems to me that you don't seem to
> > > mean anything by those terms besides "black magic".
> >
> > Dont tell me what I think.
>
> I wouldn't even tell you that you think. :D
>
You try to, regularly.
> > You continue to deny that m$ is a predatory
> > anti-comeptitive company.
>
> Yes, yes, I do.
>
> > > Besides, Max was saying it was a felonious
> > > behavior that did it, and these little antitrust
> > > things aren't felonies, and weren't a hundred
> > > years ago either. Witchcraft on the otherhand,
> > > is a possibility there.
> >
> > They arent "little" (did that scare you?) ant-trust actions. They just
> > may result in the breakup of micro$oft. Doubtful, but possible.
>
> Quite doubtful.
>
But possible.
> [snip]
More context removing snips.
> > > > Oh, the "failure" of OS/2 didnt have anyhting to do with micro$oft's
> > > > FUD? Bull.
> > >
> > > What Microsoft FUD do you have in mind?
> >
> > Any/All of it.
>
> I suppose that means you know of no
> such FUD, and just assume that MS would
> only ever use FUD. Right?
>
You suppose wrong.
> [snip]
More context removing snips.
> > > > I dont know about OS/32. WINE is pretty much useless. And, unless you
> > > > regularly try to use it, dont try any of your m$ aplopgist crap. WINE
> is
> > > > pretty much useless.
> > >
> > > Sure is. Open32 is too, same way.
> > >
> > > There's no *point* to developing for a portable
> > > subset of Win32. Never was.
> >
> > Then why should m$ be scared of them? You used them as an example ofm$
> > leaving "compeitors alone".
>
> No, I didn't.
>
Yes, you did. Your context removing snips removes the evidence.
> I am pointing out that cloning Win32 is not a threat
> to MS and isn't viewed as such by MS- they aren't
> scared of them.
>
> They are scared of their competitors, as opposed
> to Open32 and WINE.
>
They are scared of WINE, becasue WINE doesnt work.
> [snip]
More context removing snips.
> > > > > It's Java that scares them, and Java isn't anything
> > > > > like a Windows-compatibility layer.
> > > >
> > > > Any that works scares them.
> > >
> > > I think you are missing a noun there. Any *what*
> > > that works? Any anything?
> >
> > There noesnt necessarily need an anything there, but that is indeed what
> > I meant. I also see that you skipped a reply.
>
> I needed to know what you meant before
> I could reply.
>
> That said, you are clearly mistaken. Many things
> that work do not scare MS.
>
The only things that work, that dont scare m$, are things m$ isnt
interested in anyway.
> [snip]
More context removing snips.
> > > Oh?
> > >
> > > What makes you think so?
> > >
> > > I have never heard this accusation against
> > > Microsoft before.
> >
> > You refuse to listen.
>
> Nobody has offered it to me until now;
> you might consideder telling me about
> this.
>
This particular thread of converstaion is without context, becaues you
have removed the context with your snips. However, you regularly
disregard facts and quotions provided to you when they harm your
precious m$.
> [snip]
More context removinf snips.
> > > I dunno. You seem quite unreceptive to the
> > > facts of development on 8-bit PCs.
> >
> > You havent provided any clear facts on 8 bit development.
>
> "clear facts"? What would be a "clear" fact
> in your view?
>
> > You want to
> > argue developers' point of view when the conversation is from the users'
> > point of view. in fact, your credibility continues to erode.
>
> How come *you* get to decide that "the conversation" is
> from users point of view?
>
Becasue that is what the conversation started on, and you keep trying to
change it.
> I am trying to communicate an important point to
> you, and restricting the discussion to "users point
> of view" is simply a way to avoid listening to it.
>
Not when it is the user's point of view being discussed.
> [snip]
More context removing snips.
> > > > Weird and non-standard from YOUR point of view only.
> > >
> > > No, not really. Ever seen what a Hypercard
> > > stack looks like?
> >
> > have you?
>
> Yes.
>
> > Habe you not yet figures out I have uses Apple II's?
>
> Sure. You don't have uses that a PC could
> not fill, by 1987, that's for sure.
>
Hmm lets see. 1987. After I got my GS, but before I got my Plus.
> And there *are* things that PCs could do
> in '87 that Apple IIs couldn't.
>
Like...
> > > [snip]
> > > > More context losing snips.
> > >
> > > I buy them in bulk. :D
> >
> > Look. Another grinning dolt.
>
> I make those myself! :D
Look. Another grinning dolt.
--
Rick
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roy Culley)
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 15:30:09 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
>> SETI runs on unix boxes as well. Of course, Windows is more popular, so
>> naturally the majority of them are going to be Windows boxes. This has
>> nothing to do with technical merit.
>
> The Intel one only runs on Windows. They chose it because it's the most
> popular.
What crap. I have been running seti on sparc linux and intel linux for
months.
--
Over 100 security bugs in Microsoft SW last year. An infamous
record. The worst offending piece of SW, by far, IIS. 2001 isn't
looking any better.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roy Culley)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 15:44:34 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Would one of you physicists like to comment garbage below.
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Radio waves are not light! Radio waves have been measured by the NBS at
> 88%.
> The speed of light has never been measured in a vacuum!
> It has been measured, tho, in space that light without quantum packets
> travels instantaneously. Otherwise, the appearance of distant galaxies
> would be totally distorted beyond recognition.
>
> But this is all irrelavant. Even if the speed of light were 1000 faster
> than what we know... the million light years of distance and time of a
> signal, let alone the attenuation of the inverse square of the distance
> would render any signal unreadable, let alone detectable.
>
> Interstellar space is full of energies... and full of unseen
> gravitational disturbances.
>
--
Over 100 security bugs in Microsoft SW last year. An infamous
record. The worst offending piece of SW, by far, IIS. 2001 isn't
looking any better.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
