Linux-Advocacy Digest #745, Volume #34 Thu, 24 May 01 03:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust! (Peter
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=)
Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust! (T. Max
Devlin)
Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust! (T. Max
Devlin)
Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust! (T. Max
Devlin)
Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust! (T. Max
Devlin)
Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust! (T. Max
Devlin)
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux posts #1 TPC-H result (W2K still better) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?= <[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: Thu, 24 May 2001 07:54:09 +0200
Johan Kullstam wrote:
> "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >
>> In other words, UNIX is network native.
>
> no. i think unix existed for several years before networking even
> existed. that networking works well with unix is more do to
> 1) folks at berzerkely having kernel source &c being able to add
> networking
> 2) unix is multitasking and multiuser which lets you easily have
> non-human agents handle networking tasks such daemons.
>
Nope, Networking was *much* earlier. Honeywell did networking in the
early sixties already, in the seventies MULTICS was developed.
To get *some* of the features of MULTICS on small computers, later
UNIX was written. At that time, networking was very common.
But sure, UNIX could network from day one, whereas Windows is now
slowly making its first steps in this world, still stumbling quite often on
simple tasks.
Peter
--
Microsoft's Product Strategy: "It compiles, let's ship it!"
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 06:12:02 GMT
Said Chad Myers in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 23 May 2001 13:40:52
[...]
>> So Chad, why doesn't Microsoft make IE for Linux? What are they
>> afraid of?
>
>They're not afraid of anything. No one would use IE on Linux, not to mention
>that even if every Linux user did, it still wouldn't amount to a hill of beans.
Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha!
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 06:12:03 GMT
Said Chad Myers in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 23 May 2001 13:43:22
>"David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:9efs03$9ar$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> 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.
>
>Um, Win98 supports the intellimouse. There are updated drivers which you
>can get from Microsoft.com, but last time I used Win98 it found my
>intellimouse just fine.
Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha!
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 06:12:04 GMT
Said JS \ PL in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 23 May 2001 00:57:33
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Chad Myers in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 22 May 2001 17:49:25
>> >"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> "JS \\ PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >>
>> >> > Internet connection stays when switching users!
>> >>
>> >> Wow. Welcome to Slackware 1.0.
>> >
>> >And NT 3.51.
>>
>> Yea; *now* you know that. <*Smirk*>
>>
>> >> > And get this - Applications even stay open and are there (still
>> >> > open) when returning to that user.
>> >>
>> >> And to GNOME 1.0.
>> >
>> >Really? How do you exit GNOME as one use, log on as another,
>> >then log back in as the first and have all apps still running?
>>
>> What do you mean "still"? Why would you want to exit GNOME just to log
>> on as another user?
>
>I find myself going back and forth to root quite often. It's nice to know
>there is a way to keep open programs up without having to re-open them.
??? I find myself wondering if you are being purposefully stupid or
accidentally ignorant; you don't need to "log out" to use the root
account; no need to even *think* about closing programs or re-opening
them. Have you NEVER used Unix?
>Except with XP there isn't a need to save the session. It just does it.
I suppose that means the fucking OS will decided when its going to do
it, and we're supposed to trust that MS will "get it right"? You can't
even turn the damn thing off reliably.
>BTW
>the other users remain logged on until they officially log off, so switching
>back to another user is almost instant once he is logged on.
Wow. Kinda like Unix THIRTY YEARS AGO! Nice to see MS is moving
forward with their "emulate a real OS, no matter how badly it is
emulated" idea, trying to get Windows to support multiple simultaneous
users. Still nothing more than a silly array of hacks, it seems.
>> It is obvious from JS PL's brief description of XP's gentle benefits
>> that it is going to be such a hugely pathetic joke, and will be so
>> unable to work correctly and reliably, that nobody but sock puppets and
>> naive victims are ever going to consider it any more of a worthwhile OS
>> than DOS 2.0.
>
>That's more of a Devlin pipe dream. WindowsXP even in beta form, is AS
>stable as Linux, [...]
That's just a sock puppet lie, and we know it, dipshit.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 06:12:06 GMT
Said JS \ PL in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 23 May 2001 03:09:06
>"Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>> If Linux on par stability wise, why spend $800 on a piece of software whose
>> equvilant has a price tag of $0. I can do everything on Linux that I would
>> do on Windows. I have YET to find something I can't do.
>
>You can't install 99.9% of all programs written for the linux platform in
>one click like you can in Windows. You can't walk in to any store and buy a
>piece of hardware and assume it will work with your OS. These alone, are
>time savers that make the price worth it.
And, once again JS PL proves that his failure to understand the term
"monopoly" is a lie. Apparently, he understands the outlawed behavior,
and why it was outlawed, perfectly well.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 06:12:07 GMT
Said Aaron R. Kulkis in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 23 May 2001
>JS \\ PL wrote:
>>
>> I have to say, Linux Mandrake 8 was looking real damn good. Support for all
>> my hardware (for once) easy set-up, even seting up networking and connection
>> sharing was painless. Good newsreader - Knode, pretty stable OS. I even
>> liked the fact that it stayed connected to the Internet when switching users
>
>this has been a fact of Unix family operating systems since they were
>first networked (i.e. 1970's)
The fact is, the very idea that a network connection would be broken
because a user logged out (pardon me; because THE user logged out) is a
Windowsism to begin with.
>> (unlike Win2K)
>
>Another admission that Mafia$oft is over 30 years behind in basic technology.
More than that. Microsoft says XP will have it; nobody really knows if
it is ever going to actually work.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 06:12:10 GMT
Said JS \ PL in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 23 May 2001 03:07:03
[...]
>> Another admission that Mafia$oft is over 30 years behind in basic
>technology.
>
>I was wrong. It's a post install regedit in WINNT that I didn't know about.
Neither did anyone else. Was the sock puppet handler one of the recent
executive refugees? You guys seem to be falling behind.
Given the lack of any knowledge of this regedit key that supposedly
allows applications to 'keep running when the user logs out' (no telling
if this is the case, or if NT/2K/XP is just re-starting and reloading,
as Unix desktops have been doing for decades), I would suggest that the
chances are very likely that the damn thing doesn't work very well to
begin with. Letting everybody know you can try it would just prove the
point.
MS has a lot of this kind of stuff in their monopoly crapware. Can
anybody think of any reason they would not inform people these features
are available, besides the fact that they are even worse than things
like the Registry itself or the PPP dialer in Windows. These things
still fail, routinely, but in a way which still provides for the blame
to be diverted to anyone but MS. It becomes pretty clear where the real
fault for monopoly crapware lies, though, when MS lies about its own
feature set. There's no way to obfuscate why the tab completion or the
'persistent desktop' would fail, so MS simply turns them off and does
not inform anyone they are there.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 06:12:11 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 23 May 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 22 May 2001
>> [...]
>> >There shouldn't *be* an unexpected value, period.
>> [...]
>>
>> I'm not even a software programmer. But I can tell a novice software
>> programmer when I see one.
>
>No, you can't. I've been programming for over 7 years now.
Forgive me for speculating that you can't have been doing so very
competently, given your statement.
>> Basing your software engineering on wishful thinking is not a sign of
>> great competency, Ayende.
>
>No, it's not wishful thinking.
>It's called "Validating input".
Indeed; bringing us back to the fact that if there is an unexpected
value, causing an app to fail, it was because of bad programming.
Microsoft's bad programming, in this case, since we are dealing with IIS
choking on "unexpected values".
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux posts #1 TPC-H result (W2K still better)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 06:12:12 GMT
Said Ian Davey in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 23 May 2001 12:54:55
GMT;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Donal K. Fellows"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Not that I've noticed. That airtime seems to be occupied with ads
>>for HP instead...
>
>The only Microsoft ads we get are cheesy ones for MSN that tuck the MS logo
>discretely in the corner. They're intensely irritating and remind me of
>certain scenes from the '80's film version of Orwell's 1984.
Well let me tell you guys, you are fucking missing out on some of the
greatest comedy since Bill Murray left the original Saturday Night Live
cast.
"Enterprise Software from Microsoft. Never 'needy', 'plays well with
others', 'ever-youthful'...." Blah, blah blah. The "ever youthful is a
real kick in the head. Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha! "Never confused or
unsure." Another good one.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 06:12:13 GMT
Said Stephen Cornell in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 23 May 2001 11:31:00
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> But QED cannot possibly be entirely consistent with both quantum and
>> relativistic theories.
>
>There is an inconsistency between *general* relativity and quantum
>field theory, but *special* relativity does fine. This is plenty good
>enough for terrestrial experiments.
I really could care less about experiments; I'm not even a *theoretical*
physicist, but even if I were, I would be one of those guys who couldn't
care less about experiments.
>> To claim "it is the most accurate and best-tested scientific theory"
>> sounds real cool, and impresses non-scientists
>
>It should impress most scientists, too; QED makes quantitative
>predictions which have been verified to an accuracy of about 1 part in
>10^10 (the resolution of the experiment); you can only get this kind
>of accuracy in experiments on light, so other physical phenomena can
>typically not be tested to this kind of accuracy.
I guess that's what happens when you can reduce everything to almost
'pure math' constructs.
>> I guess, but it kind of spoils it if you already know that we are
>> well aware that, despite its strong correlation with experimental
>> results, it is fatally flawed, logically.
>
>It's not a complete theory, because it doesn't explain all known
>phenomena. Any more complete theory will have to contain QED (or
>something that agrees with QED to an astonishing degree of accuracy)
>as an asymptotic limit. On the other hand, QED isn't flawed *as a
>theory* - it's perfectly consistent internally.
I see what you are saying. And, yes, that is what I meant by "fatally
flawed, logically"; it is only internally consistent. If it is not also
consistent with everything externally, it is logically flawed. It
isn't, I would say, at all *illogical*, though.
>> Perhaps I mispoke myself and should have said "explanation of the
>> entire universe" in my previous post. Would that bring me closer to
>> "broadly correct"?
>
>An heuristic description is never going to be better than `broadly
>correct', because it's never going to contain all the details that a
>mathematical theory can.
I asked about "closer to", not "better than". I understand your point;
please understand I have no need for any of the details that require
math. These are images in my mind; I manipulate and play with them for
entertainment and to feel awe at the wonder of existence. I would like
them to be, so far as my knowledge and more importantly my intuition is
concerned, accurate, consistent, and practical, but my point isn't to
eradicate the contradictions found in the theories, but to celebrate
them.
>> Isn't the only "problem with quantum gravity" the
>> fact that we have no clue if it really exists at all to begin with?
>
>It certainly doesn't help that there's a paucity of experiments.
[...]
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 06:12:14 GMT
Said Kim G. S. OEyhus in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 23 May 2001
>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.
Nor are you. They were his words; he determines what they are supposed
to mean, not you. You could say that you are familiar with the terms,
and he seems to be using them differently than a physicist would. No
shocker there; he is not a physicist. Treating that like a character
defect is a character defect not uncommon to physicists, I guess, but
for the rest of us, we don't pretend his words are false because they
are misunderstood. Also, he was in fact using words correctly; you
misunderstood their context, and so you misinterpreted them.
>>>>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.
Not in the post you started your knee-jerk reaction on, no; I noticed
that. The notation 'c' was left off, and he just said ".88". However,
that is not "my interpretation", but what "the words are supposed to
mean".
>>I don't know what '1000 faster' you're talking
>>about.
>
>Then you should read GreyClouds posting again.
I would have to care, first.
>>>>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.
So what was "thats elementary physics" supposed to mean? You didn't
make much of a statement concerning anything, it seems.
>> [...]
>>>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.
Know this, sir. I do not give a rip how educated you are, or how
bloated your head has become, or what kind of accomplished scientist you
may be. I am *never* completely wrong. I am frequently entirely
mistaken. You, however, can be completely confused, and I can be
completely insulted by your attempts to blame it on me. If you will
refrain from telling me I am 'wrong', I will try to refrain from
presuming I am not mistaken.
>The terms are used to explain more than
>math.
The terms are used to explain the math, to physicists. The explanations
better damn well be recognized as putatively false teleologies to
explain "why" the math describes the physical world, or none of these
physicists should be allowed to consider themselves scientists. Only
the math describes the physical world; the terms are used to teach the
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.
I thought that was "ultraviolet light". I thought physicists recognized
the need for precision. I thought when physicists use the term 'light'
they are talking about 'photons', and when they were talking about 'emr'
they usually were discussing 'waves'. I though physicists understood
that not all light causes sun burn, but only waves of a certain
frequency.
When physicists use the term 'light', they may or may not be using the
same word as "other people". Do not forget that, and you will not be
considered an overbearing nerd when trying to discuss physics with
non-physicists. It is the "other people" which determine what light
(the term) "means", whether the physicists know the math to explain what
light (the effect) "is" or not.
You could help me out, here, by trying to explain how physicists
consider the 'frequency of a photon'. I'm not sure if the term actually
translates at all.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 06:12:16 GMT
Said David Brown in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 23 May 2001 11:13:09
>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?
Since you are reasonable enough to believe I might occasionally have
some good ideas, I will forego furthering the flames as much as I can.
But I must point out that I am not even slightly paranoid, and don't
ever consider anything in terms of 'winning or losing'. The charge of
writing far too long is true beyond any reasonable doubt, of course.
>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.
The third group is a mirage caused by your inability to understand
someone else's reason. This leaves us with two groups; one who is sure
they know the answers because they learned them in school, and one who
is unsure if the answers they learned in school are worth anything more
than the dogma of buddhism in terms of "actually" explaining the world.
The first group gets incensed by free inquiry, and seeks to berate
"regular people" who even try to make sense without having math as the
basis of their teleology (an explanation 'why' something is as it is).
They tell people they are using words WRONG, rather than trying to
figure out how the mistake could be considered reasonable, and further
trying to figure out how it *makes perfect sense and is correct*, being
the most accurate, consistent, and practical word the speaker knew at
the time.
Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to correct their words,
not "prove them wrong". NOTHING can be proven by words alone (outside
of a courtroom); anything else requires MATH to merit any consideration
of "proof", and therefore have any ability to be "wrong", rather than
merely mistaken.
>Remember the old saying, T. Max - a closed mouth gathers no foot.
I have something of a foot fetish, I'm afraid.
So far as I can tell, GreyCloud is mistaken about several things, but he
isn't "wrong" at all in explaining his considerations, and even his
conclusions. Just as I am not 'wrong' (or even, to my mind, mistaken at
all) in describing the 'sum-over-paths' mechanism as still being a valid
lingual translation of *current* physics theory, even though it has been
abandoned as a *mathematical* mechanism within physics itself.
Admittedly, there is a fine line between what constitutes free inquiry
and what constitutes pseudo-science. Presuming you can tell the
difference a priori is just begging the question, though. If you claim
you are on the side of the scientists, you must therefore reject it as a
logical fallacy. Only the pseudo-scientist would insist that no
statements contradictory to theory will be considered.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
