Linux-Advocacy Digest #723, Volume #34 Wed, 23 May 01 06:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust! (Dave
Martel)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Kim G. S. OEyhus)
Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust! ("David
Brown")
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) ("Edward Rosten")
Re: XP 'Loctivation' was: Wintroll nonsense (Dave Martel)
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust! ("David
Brown")
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) ("David Brown")
Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust! (Dave
Martel)
Single sign-on authentication for Novell, Windows and Linux? (Flacco)
Re: evolutionary (oh boy) psychology: the short form ("jet")
Re: evolutionary (oh boy) psychology: the short form ("jet")
Re: evolutionary (oh boy) psychology: the short form ("jet")
Re: evolutionary (oh boy) psychology: the short form ("jet")
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) ("David Brown")
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) ("David Brown")
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) ("David Brown")
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Kim G. S. OEyhus)
Re: evolutionary (oh boy) psychology: the short form (Danielle)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Karel Jansens)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Dave Martel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 02:13:18 -0600
On Wed, 23 May 2001 03:09:06 -0400, "JS \\ PL"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>You can't install 99.9% of all programs written for the linux platform in
>one click like you can in Windows.
Most Windows programs do NOT install with one click. There's usually
at least one more to agree to the long boring EULA. Then you have to
enter your registered user name and the umpteen-digit registration
code and click "OK". Then you have to select the install path, which
for half the programs out there seems to default to the root directory
rather than "C:\program files". When you're done, there's the "Reboot
now?" click at the end of the installation, followed about one time
out of twenty-five by Windows crashing on reboot and then lots more
clicks while you fix the registry or whatever.
Unlike Windows, linux does in fact offer true one-button installation.
Select one or hundreds of applications, click "go", sit back and watch
the pretty messages while they all install.
>You can't walk in to any store and buy a
>piece of hardware and assume it will work with your OS.
Typical kiddie-wintroll FUD. Out of my four destops and one laptop
running Slackware, and about 20 SuSE and Slackware installations I've
done for friends on what were formerly Windows systems, only Winmodems
have presented any serious problems.
But then, as the name implies, "Winmodems" were designed specifically
for Windows. Maybe that's why they're so crappy?
>These alone, are time savers that make the price worth it.
Time savers: Not losing my work to frequent OS crashes, not having to
take a few days out in the middle of a project to reinstall Windows
and hundreds of applications because of "software aging", not having
to reboot every time I change something, and when things go wrong not
having to go get Big Brother Billy's permission to reinstall software
that I've already paid for.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kim G. S. OEyhus)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 08:28:37 +0000 (UTC)
In article <9eegcg$8bp$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>For instance, did you know that photons do *not* travel only in a
>>>straight line? In fact, they take a path which is entirely "random,
>>>without meaning", or should I say they take an infinite number of such
>>>paths, between any arbitrary Point A and Point B.
>>
>> I do not know that, because it is wrong. What you present, is a very
>> distorted and misunderstood version of the multiple history calculations
>> of quantumelectrodynamics.
>
>FWIW, I think he's referring to one of the methods used in classical
>mechanics (I can't remember the name)
>where you can consider an object to take any path from A to
>B, no matter how wierd the path.
>
>What he missed was that it is the lowest energy path that is taken.
>
>I think that's what he was referring to, but it is kind of hard to tell.
Yes, that sounds likely.
Kim0
------------------------------
From: "David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 10:23:26 +0200
Does XP allow you to setup a MS "Intellimouse" during installation? The
last windows installation I did (Win98SE) didn't know of their existance -
you needed an extra driver download or disk to set up an MS mouse ! Linux
Mandrake, on the other hand, has supported it for many years.
Chad Myers wrote in message
<3b0ab223$0$2603$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>
>"Brian Langenberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:9eeah6$f9i$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy "JS \\ PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> <drivel snipped>
>>
>> What a headline: "MS-Windows User Enjoys More MS-Windows"
>
>"... because basic usability you expect in an OS is there,
>whereas it isn't in Linux".
>
>Another big shocker =)
>
>
>> : and copy and paste is still much much better between apps, as opposed
to the
>> : hit and miss copy/paste support in Linux.
>>
>> I'm still waiting for Windows to support the middle mouse button for
>> pasting like practically EVERY SINGLE X11 CLIENT EVER WRITTEN.
>
>So just set it up to do that. More than likely you either have an
>MS Intellipoint or a Logitech mouse of some kind, both have the
>ability to configure this.
>
>> Keystrokes for copying/pasting is truly a pain in the ass...
>
>I though you guys hated the mousy-clicky stuff?
>
>-c
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 10:36:45 +0100
>>The pyhsicists have long since sorted out that the speed of light is a
>>constant in free space. Not only that, but it is invariant through
>>relativistic transformations as well.
>
> Yes; physicists seem to split into two convenient groups: those who
> believe something, anything, is invariant, and those who are still
> discovering why this isn't the case at all.
So noe Einstein's wrong too?
-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: Dave Martel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: XP 'Loctivation' was: Wintroll nonsense
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 02:27:17 -0600
On 23 May 2001 07:26:37 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
wrote:
>On Wed, 23 May 2001 00:38:46 -0600,
> Dave Martel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> "The activation mechanism, which locks Office to a particular PC
>> configuration, is expected to help combat casual piracy, such as
>> friends sharing copies of Office or small businesses buying one copy
>> for many PCs. "
>>
>> "We found that the vast majority of piracy is this kind of casual
>> piracy," said Lisa Gurry, a product manager for Office XP. "This
>> Office activation wizard is designed to combat this casual piracy."
One thing I was wondering here is, will making it harder to steal just
turn casual pirates into serious pirates?
>>
>>
>And the web site also said:-
>"It's interesting that Microsoft uses the word 'activation,'
>when it's really locking the code to a particular PC," he said.
>
>"That carries a different connotation, and
> Microsoft knows this."
>
Yeah, as usual MS has a problem telling the simple truth.
I like "Loctivation". Gotta remember that one.
I've been thinking we should start referring to "shared-source" as
"scared-source", because that aptly describes MS's current sense of
desperation.
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 10:41:42 +0100
>> <> Also, using myself as an
>> <>example: I'm heterosexual and have *no* choice in the matter.
>>
>> But you do have a choice in your behavior.
I have no choice. there is nothjing I could do that would make e
homosexual.
-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: "David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 10:33:54 +0200
JS \ PL wrote in message ...
>
>You can't install 99.9% of all programs written for the linux platform in
>one click like you can in Windows. You can't walk in to any store and buy a
>piece of hardware and assume it will work with your OS. These alone, are
>time savers that make the price worth it.
>
If you spend so much time installing programs rather than using them, you
have a wierd way of using a computer. And even if we suppose, for the sake
of silly arguement, that it takes three times as many clicks to install a
program with a Linux desktop (i.e., KDE or Gnome, with the nice GUI package
managers) as it does in Windows - how much time difference is it really,
compared to the actual install time? And how about the time wasted for the
standard reboot after install that we all know and love? (Yes, I know newer
versions of Windows are getting better at avoid reboots, but there are still
plenty of programs that insist on it - try installing MS Excel Viewer).
------------------------------
From: "David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 10:50:46 +0200
T. Max Devlin wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>Said David Brown in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 22 May 2001 09:52:40
>>T. Max Devlin wrote in message ...
> [...]
>>Actually, travelling faster than the speed of light is perfectly
possible -
>>it is just a question of mediums. [...]
>
>Only if you misunderstand the meaning of the 'speed of light'. Or
>pretend that the medium under question is not the medium through which
>one must travel, regardless of what medium that might be. Get it?
>
Let me rephrase very slowly. It is perfectly possible for something (other
than light waves) to travel through a medium (such as air) at a faster speed
than light travels through that same medium. It is unusual to see it
happen - for example, in air light travels at around 98% of c (c being the
speed of light in a vacuum), depending on factors like the density and
composition of the air, so your faster-than-light-through-air particle has
to be going at between 98% and 99.9999..% of c.
------------------------------
From: Dave Martel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 02:45:46 -0600
On Wed, 23 May 2001 10:23:26 +0200, "David Brown"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Does XP allow you to setup a MS "Intellimouse" during installation? The
>last windows installation I did (Win98SE) didn't know of their existance -
>you needed an extra driver download or disk to set up an MS mouse ! Linux
>Mandrake, on the other hand, has supported it for many years.
That's one of the problems with Windows. MS only updates every few
years, and the update is an entirely new product. So for example you
couldn't just buy Windows 98SE a year or two after release with
updated drivers and bugfixes but must instead buy Windows ME (and
shortly XP).
Linux distros, on the other hand, build on their previous base so its
drivers get updated 3-4 times yearly.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 04:56:27 -0400
From: Flacco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.netware.connectivity,comp.os.netware.security
Subject: Single sign-on authentication for Novell, Windows and Linux?
Is it possible to set up an authentication system that will allow
Windows PC users to connect to Linux, Netware 4.11, and NT/Win2K servers
with a single logon, and without having to change passwords on multiple
systems?
Ideally it would allow admins to maintain all user accounts in a single
location as well.
Thanks
------------------------------
From: "jet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.singles,soc.men,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: evolutionary (oh boy) psychology: the short form
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 02:17:37 -0700
Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Danielle wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 22 May 2001 00:23:38 -0700, "jet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >Aaron R. Kakis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >> jackie wrote:
> > >> > amusingly enough if homosexuality is genetic the genes promoting it
may
> > >> > well be more numerous today because homophobia is so universal.
that is
> > >> > to say, by forcing men who would prefer the only the company of men
to
> > >> > marry a beard society has generated more of the very thing that
might
> > >> ^^^^^
> > >> is this a typo?
> > >
> > >LOL! Aaron you have reached levels of ignorance that are shocking even
for
> > >you!
> > >
> > >A beard is a member of the opposite sex a homosexual person gets
married to,
> > >or has a similar kind of relationship with, in order to look straight.
> > >
> > >J
> >
> > I didn't know that either.
>
>
> Apparently, Danielle, it's a black mark if you don't hang out with the
depraved.
>
How is having sex with a member of your own sex any more "depraved" than
having sex with a member of the opposite sex?
J
------------------------------
From: "jet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.singles,soc.men,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: evolutionary (oh boy) psychology: the short form
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 02:18:52 -0700
Richard Thrippleton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <9ed45k$ajv2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, jet wrote:
> >
> >Aaron R. Kakis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> jackie wrote:
> >> > amusingly enough if homosexuality is genetic the genes promoting it
may
> >> > well be more numerous today because homophobia is so universal. that
is
> >> > to say, by forcing men who would prefer the only the company of men
to
> >> > marry a beard society has generated more of the very thing that might
> >> ^^^^^
> >> is this a typo?
> >
> >LOL! Aaron you have reached levels of ignorance that are shocking even
for
> >you!
> >
> >A beard is a member of the opposite sex a homosexual person gets married
to,
> >or has a similar kind of relationship with, in order to look straight.
> Never heard that phrase before. Guess _I'm_ ignorant too....
> You know what felching is?
>
> Richard
Yeah, it's licking the cum off of someones ass after anal sex.
J
------------------------------
From: "jet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.singles,soc.men,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: evolutionary (oh boy) psychology: the short form
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 02:19:41 -0700
Robert W Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Danielle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> <>I didn't know that either.
>
> Neither did I-that makes us, BTW, "homophobes".
No, hating homosexuals makes you a homophobe. Boy, do you have a persecution
complex!
J
------------------------------
From: "jet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.singles,soc.men,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: evolutionary (oh boy) psychology: the short form
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 02:20:58 -0700
Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "You've got MALE.. sex organs!" wrote:
> >
> > Get with it. You can't be a good little right wing bigot if you
> > can't read the program, Aaron.
> >
>
> Did it ever occur to you that I really don't give a fuck about gays...
Imagine how many posts you would make about them if you did! LOL.
> I just want to be able to live without them parading it around in my face.
>
What do you mean by that?
J
------------------------------
From: "David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 11:13:09 +0200
T. Max Devlin wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>Said David Brown in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 22 May 2001 10:23:32
>>GreyCloud wrote in message
>>>Maybe its because you never worked for the gov. at all.
>>>Maybe you spent too much time trying to pass your pyhsics classes
>>>without much thought to original thinking... I can't thing of one
>>>original thinker... Gallileo. Are you by chance a naysayer?
>>>Be being a naysayer, one can't possibly progress.
>>
>>You're reaching the final stages of madness - first you spouted
>>techno-babble, now it's just plain babble.
>
>Fuck 'em, GreyCloud. David and Kim are just being pigheaded; you
>shouldn't be at all concerned whether they understand what you're
>saying, as evidenced by their repeated insistence on trying as hard as
>possible to reduce the discussion to a flame war.
>
I tried hard to avoid it, but the temptation is just to great. I've been in
many discussions with you before, T. Max - you're paranoid, a bad loser, and
witter on far too long about subjects no one else is interested in, but you
do have some good ideas and are not stupid - how on earth can you read
something like GreyCloud's post and not consider it babble?
I have seen some real tripe posted in these groups - it can be entertaining,
and sometimes informative, but this thread takes the biscuit. At least
those who claim that Linux will take over the desktop within the next 6
months, or that XP is provably as reliable as Solaris, are giving debatable
opinions. In this thread, there seems to be three sorts of people. There
are those of us who have a reasonable understanding of physics (I guess
there are plenty in sci.physics with a much better than "reasonable"
understanding) who know the basics, and, far more importantly, know the
limits of our own understanding and that of science. Then there are those
who have some basic ideas, and have read lots more that they don't actually
understand, but regurgitate parts of this without being able to fit it into
a cohesive whole. And thirdly, there are those who are spouting such drivel
that they cannot even write legible sentences.
Remember the old saying, T. Max - a closed mouth gathers no foot.
------------------------------
From: "David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 11:17:11 +0200
Chronos Tachyon wrote in message ...
On Tue 22 May 2001 03:27, David Brown wrote:
[Snip]
>
>> This may come as a surprise to you, but laboratory equipment can produce
>> harder vacuum than outer space. Space is not empty. Even inter-galactic
>> space has particles in it.
>
>Slight correction: laboratory conditions can create a better vacuum than
>interplanetary space. Not sure if we can produce a vacuum better than
>inter-stellar space, but I'm pretty sure we can't yet equal inter-galactic
>space. It's important to qualify what type of vacuum you're dealing with.
>:-)
You are right - I should have been more specific. If anyone could give us
some definite figures, it would be very interesting.
------------------------------
From: "David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 11:24:44 +0200
T. Max Devlin wrote in message ...
>Said David Brown in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 22 May 2001 10:45:58
>>GreyCloud wrote in message
>>>It figures... Eric, get out of your narrow Paradigm! Start doing some
>>>original thinking for yourself instead of letting a professor tell you
>>>how to think! Crap indeed! Even Gallileo is rolling over in his grave.
>>>Tell that crap to the NBS!
>>
>>To paraphrase - "why believe what thousands of scientists have proven
again
>>and again? Be original - make up your own science as you go along."
>
>You say that as if Newton weren't proven incorrect.
It has certainly been proved that Newton's theories were only
approximations, and it will no doubt be proved that many of today's current
physics theories are only approximations. But such new development is done
by scientists with a thorough understanding of current theories.
Occasionally, breakthroughs may be made by amateurs, but I will continue to
trust the opinions of real physists over random outbursts from people who
clearly have no idea what they are talking about.
>
>>One of the American states (Maryland, IIRC) decided that it was too
>>complicated for schools to teach about "pi" being 3.14159..., so they
>>redeclared pi to be 4 and insisted that this be taught in schools.
>>Fortunately, this did not last long. Perhaps GreyCloud is following this
>>philosophy.
>
>...and since this happened (allegedly), pigheaded trolls have been
>trotting it out to try and refute the fact that they are being
>pigheaded. It is as if you were claiming that pi only has as many
>digits as you memorized in grade-school, and then it stops.
>
No, it is as if I were claiming that a state education board is not in a
position to redefine pi, or as if I were claiming that interested but
ignorant amateurs are not in a position to contradict the findings of a
centuary of expert science.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kim G. S. OEyhus)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 10:00:05 +0000 (UTC)
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Said Kim G. S. OEyhus in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 22 May 2001
>>
>>Yes, for me, because as a physicist, I know what his words are supposed
>>to mean.
>
>Apparently not.
You are obviously not competent to make such a judgement.
>>>It made a lot of sense to me, in fact it was rather
>>>fascinating, at least what I could gather given my ignorance of the math
>>>and even some of the terms.
>>
>>The only math there was "80%" of something unspecified, and
>>"1000 faster". And this math, you claim to be ignorant of.
>
>It was 88%, IIRC, of c.
Thats your interpretation.
It is not what was written.
>I don't know what '1000 faster' you're talking
>about.
Then you should read GreyClouds posting again.
>>>I had never considered the issue of how
>>>'particles' of light can 'speed up' after leaving an area of dense
>>>matter.
>>
>>Thats elementary physics.
>
>Elementary physics does not allow things to speed up and slow down of
>their own accord, Mr. Physicist.
I made no stamement for or against that effect.
> [...]
>>As a physicist, I know those terms do not describe math at all,
>>but physical concepts.
>
>If this statement were true, (if you and I both know what it was
>"supposed to mean", we'll say), then I'd have to say you aren't much of
>a physicist. I suspect you are aware that the 'physical concepts' are
>only described in math, in physics, and the terms are just used to
>explain the math.
You are completely wrong. The terms are used to explain more than
math. When physicists and other people use the term "light", they are
referring to the stuff that gives you a sun burn, not just to explain
some math.
Kim0
------------------------------
From: Danielle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.singles,soc.men,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: evolutionary (oh boy) psychology: the short form
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 22:06:36 +1200
On Wed, 23 May 2001 02:18:52 -0700, "jet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Richard Thrippleton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <9ed45k$ajv2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, jet wrote:
>> >
>> >Aaron R. Kakis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> jackie wrote:
>> >> > amusingly enough if homosexuality is genetic the genes promoting it
>may
>> >> > well be more numerous today because homophobia is so universal. that
>is
>> >> > to say, by forcing men who would prefer the only the company of men
>to
>> >> > marry a beard society has generated more of the very thing that might
>> >> ^^^^^
>> >> is this a typo?
>> >
>> >LOL! Aaron you have reached levels of ignorance that are shocking even
>for
>> >you!
>> >
>> >A beard is a member of the opposite sex a homosexual person gets married
>to,
>> >or has a similar kind of relationship with, in order to look straight.
>> Never heard that phrase before. Guess _I'm_ ignorant too....
>> You know what felching is?
>>
>> Richard
>
>Yeah, it's licking the cum off of someones ass after anal sex.
>
>J
Sorry, but ouuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu!!!!!!
------------------------------
From: Karel Jansens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 00:23:35 +0000
GreyCloud wrote:
> Karel Jansens wrote:
>>
>> GreyCloud wrote:
>>
>> > Karel Jansens wrote:
>> >>
>> >> GreyCloud wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >> All electromagnetic waves travel at the same speed, which is the
>> >> >> speed of light in a given medium. Radio waves are electromagnetic
>> >> >> waves end will therefore never be slower than light.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > 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.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Is that the same bureau that decided that pi will be an even 3?
>> >>
>> >> One more time, and then I quit this silly thread: light is a form of
>> >> electromagnetic radiation. All electromagnetic radiation is "carried"
>> >> by photons. Photons can only travel at one speed: the speed of light
>> >> in a given medium. This speed is not always the same, as it depends on
>> >> the medium, but the highest possible speed is the speed of light in
>> >> vacuum (c).
>> >>
>> >
>> > Ever do a smith chart for a radio tower?? Ever hear of the zone of
>> > silence?
>> > A tower when radiating, depending upon its design, will have clover
>> > leaf like nodes.
>> > In between these nodes are less em waves. The difference is the
>> > electric
>> > field that generates the radio waves. Much different than light
>> > waves... like light from a candle for instance. Where's the electric
>> > field here?
>> >
>>
>> (Contradicting my earlier promise but...)
>>
>> Are you trying to prove your silly point by stating that radiowaves are
>> prone to interference?
>>
[sigsnip]
>
> YES! Ever listen to FM radio in a car and all its noisy fluctuations??
> Silly point indeed.
>
... but light can have interference too, oh Confused One!
As a matter of fact, _anything_ that has waves has interference: Sound,
water ripples, football audiences...
--
Regards,
Karel Jansens
===============================================================
Has anybody ever wondered why Microsoft launched Windows 95
with a song that contains the line: "You make a grown man cry"?
Oh, wait...
===============================================================
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
