Linux-Advocacy Digest #360, Volume #35 Mon, 18 Jun 01 12:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux inheriting "DLL Hell" (Craig Kelley)
Re: Getting used to Linux ("Donal K. Fellows")
Re: More microsoft innovation (Sandman)
Re: More micro$oft "customer service" (Macman)
Re: Why homosexuals are no threat to heterosexuals (SSunbird)
Re: Why homosexuals are no threat to heterosexuals (SSunbird)
Re: New BSD Advocacy site! ("Bracy")
Re: Linux inheriting "DLL Hell" ("Se�n � Donnchadha")
Re: Why homosexuals are no threat to heterosexuals ("Rich Soyack")
Linux on the Desktop ("tom")
Microsoft and open source (Jason Bowen)
Re: More microsoft innovation (Macman)
Re: Antitrust DVD ("tom")
Linux on the Desktop ("tom")
Re: What language are use to program Linux stuff? ("Donal K. Fellows")
Re: PC power switch wont shut down Windows ("Donal K. Fellows")
Re: PC power switch wont shut down Windows ("Donal K. Fellows")
Re: New BSD Advocacy site! ("Bracy")
Re: Where is American pride?... (was Re: European arrogance (Thaddius Maximus)
Re: New BSD Advocacy site! (.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux inheriting "DLL Hell"
Date: 18 Jun 2001 09:12:48 -0600
"Se�n � Donnchadha" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > >
> > > The Unix scenario is exactly the same, except that it wastes disk space
> on
> > > no-longer-used minor library revisions. It doesn't matter how many
> versions
> > > of libfoo.so.1.* are on the disk, because the libfoo.so.1 symbolic link
> can
> > > only point at one of them.
> >
> > So? An application can link against minor revisions.
> >
>
> Well yeah, except they never do, because the whole point of using
> shared libraries is to allow your app to inherit library bug fixes
> in the field. If you're going to link against a minor revision, you
> might as well link statically.
... unless there are a whole suite of programs using said minor
version (ahem, like ORBit with GNOME perhaps?).
> > > No offense Craig, but you really don't understand the problem, so I
> suggest
> > > you drop the attitude.
> >
> > No offense, Mr. Anonymous, but I've been developing under UNIX for the
> > last 10 years -- I fully understand the problem.
>
> Not if you come up with suggestions like "an application can link
> against minor revisions".
It happens all the time; especiall with pre-1.0 libraries. Open your
eyes (unless you don't actually *use* UNIX, which it is sounding more
and more the case...).
> > > Again, it doesn't matter if both are on the disk, since the symbolic
> link
> > > through which apps load the library can only point at one of them.
> >
> > I must be crazy then, because I did this exact same thing with libc
> > just last week to install Oracle 8.1.7 on our new ten-thousand dollar
> > box.
>
> Did what?
I Installed an earlier minor revision of glibc to make Oracle happy
under RedHat 7.0 (which has a known buggy glibc). Go to
otn.oracle.com and start reading if you're curious.
> > > Sure, Linux doesn't have it, so it's gotta be fascist, a kludge, etc.
> And
> > > yet when asked what to do about DLL Hell, most Windows bashers say,
> "It's
> > > simple; let the system files be modifiable only by OS service packs."
> >
> > Exactly.
>
> Strange response.
>
>
--
It won't be long before the CPU is a card in a slot on your ATX videoboard
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: "Donal K. Fellows" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Getting used to Linux
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 16:06:39 +0100
drsquare wrote:
> You DO realise that you are condemned to burning in hell for
> blaspheming against the great Ic*wm?
You DO realise that you are condemned to burning in hell for not
understanding that Icewm (and its clones) are johnny-come-latelies on the
WM scene and are thus doomed to be looked down upon in all eternity by
those people who can remember when fvwm was still not much more than a
twinkle in its creator's eye.
Learn about RTL (and the Standard Unix Editor) before replying.
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- Maybe we should do cultural exchange and rename those languages _Smltk and
ThirdLetterOfAlphabet. -- Mark van Gulik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: Sandman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More microsoft innovation
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 17:14:09 +0200
In article <TPoX6.5672$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > That's EXACTLY the kind of thing I consider evil about Smart tags. Not
> > > only do they deface the web site, it could entirely change the overall
> > > meaning.
> >
> > And furthermore, as I stated in another reply in this thread, Smart Tags
> > makes my IE do a connection to a MS server for -every- page I surf (or so
> > I've understood it) to collect data about the SmartTags on the page I am
> > surfing on. I imagined a connection like that could look like
> > "http://www.mysite.com/index.html Chrysler Apple Donuts Linux" that gets
> > sent to and MS server. Now, by that request, amongst the others my IE has
> > done, MS has actually a total record of what sites I have surfed and what
> > they contained.
>
> What's your source for this?
Nowhere, these are all my logic assumptions. Perhaps I should have stated
that more clearly. I know almost nothing about the Smart Tags technology,
but I assume, and you have to agree with me I think, that my IE needs to
connect to a MS server to get the information the Smart Tags provide,
right? It's not logical to assume that all the information is already in
the browser, right?
> No description of SmartTags I've yet seen
> has implied it. It's the sort of thing that MS bashers
> will believe if you tell it to them, but I'd like
> to know if you have any reason to believe it
> yourself.
No, nothing but plain logic. As I see it's either:
A. IE keeps a database of words that it should enable Smart Tags with
and when finding those words on a web page, connects to a MS server
and downloads the relevant information
B. IE keeps a database of all information of all SmartTags words locally
on the HD and updates it once in a while with a MS server.
In order to "serve the public need for Information" and basically "Catalog
your surfing", I believe MS is going for option A. But that is my logical
assumption of course.
> > This is, of course, evil. I am not interested in getting my surfhabits
> > logged at MS.
>
> Nobody is. Nor is it obvious what MS would
> gain by doing such a thing.
Obvious? No. Possible? Yes. :)
--
Sandman[.net]
------------------------------
From: Macman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More micro$oft "customer service"
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 15:16:15 GMT
In article <4NoX6.5665$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Woofbert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article
> > <lYaX6.85755$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Daniel
> > Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > But if you do permit him to view the page,
> > > you do not thereby gain any rights over his
> > > computer.
> >
> > I don't pretend to be a lawyer. Nor do I pretend to understand how
> > current copyright, intellectual property, or property law affect
> > SmartTags.
> >
> > What I understand is this: SmartTags change the content of my web sites
> > in ways I cannot control. I don't like that. I don't know what legal
> > remedies I have or would want to exercise.
>
> You have a real easy one- you can refuse to serve
> your pages to IE 6 users. You have no rights over
> his computer, or mine, but you have rights over
> yours, and we do not have any right to be given
> your pages just because we want them.
Why should I have to make extra effort and go out of my way to prevent
Microsoft from defacing my pages?
Intellectual property rights should exist without the author having to
go out of his way to prevent others from stealing them.
Your recommendation is akin to saying that if I don't want someone to
steal my printed intellectual property, I should only do it on a medium
which can't be copied.
------------------------------
From: SSunbird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why homosexuals are no threat to heterosexuals
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 10:13:43 -0500
Rich Soyack wrote:
> Really? Methods used to study the transmission of other STDs don't work
> with AIDS? Why is that?
what methods are those?
> Which acts carry with it the most chances of getting AIDS?
acts of stupidity
ssunbird
------------------------------
From: SSunbird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why homosexuals are no threat to heterosexuals
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 10:14:04 -0500
Rich Soyack wrote:
> Really? Methods used to study the transmission of other STDs don't work
> with AIDS? Why is that?
what methods are those?
> Which acts carry with it the most chances of getting AIDS?
acts of stupidity
ssunbird
------------------------------
From: "Bracy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: New BSD Advocacy site!
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 15:04:14 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Richard Thrippleton"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Oh dear.... an RMS fanatic. The BSD license is also 'free', in that
> it has all the freedoms of the GPL, but isn't quite so restrictive (or
> 'viral' as some say). You can incorporate BSD code into anything, as
> long as author credits are preserved. That sounds like free to me.
> As to the MS 'stealing' code, under the terms of the BSD license
> it's called 'using'. I happen to think that MS using BSD code is a good
> thing, as at least _some_ of their OS doesn't stink.
>
> Richard
All Microsoft has ever done is steal technology. Every time I hear of a
company entering into a "joint development" agreement with Microsoft, I
wonder how stupid the other company must be. Microsoft only enters into
"joint development agreements" in order to get their slimey hands on the
other company's technology, and then come out with a competing product.
BSD gives Microsoft an entire operating system to steal from -- and they
do.
Bracy
------------------------------
From: "Se�n � Donnchadha" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux inheriting "DLL Hell"
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 11:23:17 -0400
"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> > Actually, Microsoft's OS provides versioning support for all
> > executables, including shared libraries. See the VS_VERSIONINFO
> > resource. But again, that doesn't solve the problem. See below.
>
> It does little good if visual studio supports versioning (it's a good
> thing it does, though) -- the convention is to overwrite the filename
> with the same filename and to link against filenames.
>
First of all, it isn't DevStudio that supports versioning; it's the OS. The
OS provides file installation APIs that check the aforementioned version
resources when installing files. The OS also provides an extremely
comprehensive standard installation system (Windows Installer) that also
works with these resources. Second, the convention is to overwrite only when
the revision is minor, and to create a new filename when the revision is
major. This is almost exactly the same as the Unix convention, except that
the Unix symbolic link allows the older minor revision to remain on the
disk, unused.
> >
> > Not only do you not know anything about Windows (see above), but
> > you're also sadly mistaken to think that versioning solves the
> > problem. It doesn't. It doesn't even come close. The simple example
> > is as follows. You install libfoo-1.1. You install appfoo, which
> > requires libfoo-1.1 and inadvertently relies on a bug therein. You
> > then get appbar, which requires libfoo-1.2. You install libfoo-1.2,
> > which fixes the aforementioned bug. You install appbar and
> > everything seems fine. Then you run appfoo, and it breaks. Don't
> > tell me it's appfoo's author's fault, because blame is
> > irrelevant. This kind of shit happens in the real world. The point
> > is that versioning is not a silver bullet by any stretch.
>
> No, but it does solve the *more common* case that goes like this:
>
> o Install appfoo which uses libbar-1.1
> o Install appmoo which uses libbar-2.0
>
> They both co-exist just fine. I never said UNIX version was perfect,
> I'm just saying that its *better than what Windows offers*.
>
Then, again, you don't know what you're talking about. Windows works exactly
the same way. Wordpad requires MFC 3.x. Some other app requires MFC 4.x.
They both co-exist just fine. This isn't due to some all-powerful versioning
scheme. Just like Unix, it works simply because major revisions get
different filenames (MFC30.DLL vs MFC40.DLL).
------------------------------
From: "Rich Soyack" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why homosexuals are no threat to heterosexuals
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 15:24:51 GMT
"SSunbird" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Rich Soyack wrote:
>
> > Really? Methods used to study the transmission of other STDs don't work
> > with AIDS? Why is that?
>
> what methods are those?
>
> > Which acts carry with it the most chances of getting AIDS?
>
> acts of stupidity
Ah yes. 20 years of research and this is what you think they've come up
with?
Rich Soyack
------------------------------
From: "tom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Linux on the Desktop
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 01:28:07 +1000
I still use windows for MS Office, because well it is a damn good suite
of software.(well Outlook and Word are anyhow, theres plenty of crap in
their too but adding plenty of crap is Microsofts Motto it seems) .
I think as a server linux kicks ass. But are their good alternatives to
Outlook and Word on Linux? (I guess are there arent too many good
alternatives on Windows too).
a variation of Linux is still the server of choice.
Tom
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jason Bowen)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Microsoft and open source
Date: 18 Jun 2001 15:22:58 GMT
http://public.wsj.com/news/hmc/sb992819157437237260.htm
------------------------------
From: Macman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More microsoft innovation
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 15:30:45 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Sandman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <TPoX6.5672$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > That's EXACTLY the kind of thing I consider evil about Smart tags. Not
> > > > only do they deface the web site, it could entirely change the overall
> > > > meaning.
> > >
> > > And furthermore, as I stated in another reply in this thread, Smart Tags
> > > makes my IE do a connection to a MS server for -every- page I surf (or so
> > > I've understood it) to collect data about the SmartTags on the page I am
> > > surfing on. I imagined a connection like that could look like
> > > "http://www.mysite.com/index.html Chrysler Apple Donuts Linux" that gets
> > > sent to and MS server. Now, by that request, amongst the others my IE has
> > > done, MS has actually a total record of what sites I have surfed and what
> > > they contained.
> >
> > What's your source for this?
>
> Nowhere, these are all my logic assumptions. Perhaps I should have stated
> that more clearly. I know almost nothing about the Smart Tags technology,
> but I assume, and you have to agree with me I think, that my IE needs to
> connect to a MS server to get the information the Smart Tags provide,
> right? It's not logical to assume that all the information is already in
> the browser, right?
Actually, you _seem_ to be wrong. As far as I've heard, the Smart Tags
are there when the browser has shipped. I haven't seen any reports that
the browser updates its smart tags.
Of course, I'd be willing to bet that your Windows Update feature will
allow new smart tags to be added (or old ones changed). And since this
feature will (IIRC) become automatic in XP, there is the potential for
what you're describing to occur.
It is, however, purely speculation. No one has actually seen it.
>
> > No description of SmartTags I've yet seen
> > has implied it. It's the sort of thing that MS bashers
> > will believe if you tell it to them, but I'd like
> > to know if you have any reason to believe it
> > yourself.
>
> No, nothing but plain logic. As I see it's either:
>
> A. IE keeps a database of words that it should enable Smart Tags with
> and when finding those words on a web page, connects to a MS server
> and downloads the relevant information
>
> B. IE keeps a database of all information of all SmartTags words locally
> on the HD and updates it once in a while with a MS server.
>
> In order to "serve the public need for Information" and basically "Catalog
> your surfing", I believe MS is going for option A. But that is my logical
> assumption of course.
"B" appears to be the case. That does not, however, preclude updates
when doing a Windows Update.
>
> > > This is, of course, evil. I am not interested in getting my surfhabits
> > > logged at MS.
> >
> > Nobody is. Nor is it obvious what MS would
> > gain by doing such a thing.
>
> Obvious? No. Possible? Yes. :)
Of course it's obvious. They gain the same thing they gained by giving
MSIE away for free -- greater control over the computing world.
------------------------------
From: "tom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Antitrust DVD
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 01:33:29 +1000
I saw a Divx of it, thought it was a pretty average movie. I guess it wakes
up the general public as too the problems with Microsoft's monoploy.
Aside, you sure it's not going to be shown in Australia?
I think it's due to arrive here pretty soon(August maybe?). Some movies we
get straight after the states, others much later. Or the good ones(Chopper)
we get months early ; )
Tom
"Piers Bray" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:3b2c942d$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
: Great send up of Microsoft. Interesting that this film recieved 1 and a
: half weeks cinema screen time in the US and we in Australia got nothing.
: Luckily we have access to US DVD's or else I would never have seen it.
You
: guys will love it and the message it has to put forward about proprietry
: software.
:
: Piers.
:
:
------------------------------
From: "tom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Linux on the Desktop
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 01:40:49 +1000
I still use windows for MS Office, because well it is a damn good suite
of software.(well Outlook and Word are anyhow, theres plenty of crap in
their too but adding plenty of crap is Microsofts Motto it seems) .
I think as a server linux kicks ass. But are their good alternatives to
Outlook and Word on Linux? (I guess are there arent too many good
alternatives on Windows too).
a variation of Linux is still the server of choice.
Tom
------------------------------
From: "Donal K. Fellows" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What language are use to program Linux stuff?
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 16:43:32 +0100
Greg Cox wrote:
> Hey guys, do me a big favor when putting code in a message, even if it
> is just demo code, and check the return value from malloc() for errors
> before using the result. You made my nose skid on the keyboard as I was
> scanning the message. ;^)
That's usually done with a macro. Why write the NULL-check out each
time you malloc()? That gets old fast... :^)
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- Maybe we should do cultural exchange and rename those languages _Smltk and
ThirdLetterOfAlphabet. -- Mark van Gulik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: "Donal K. Fellows" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: PC power switch wont shut down Windows
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 16:32:51 +0100
green wrote:
> "GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> If you had a clue about electronics you'd realize that if I put a switch
>> in series with the main power line before the power supply I can cut off
>> all power to the computer regardless of what the software is doing.
>
> and void the warenty :)
Not necessarily. Get one of those extension cables with a switch on it
and plug the computer into that. Instant non-software-overridable
switch and no screwdriver needed.
> don't do it unless your a electrician ( qualified)
> else you may be up for criminal charges
Mind you, it's not exactly difficult to wire up a switch yourself. If
you look at some of the people who become electricians, you'll soon
realise that whatever they can do, you can do without thinking hard at
all. The time when you want to take care is when you start pulling the
wall apart...
WTF would anyone bring criminal charges against you for putting a
switch in your own cable? Or is there a country/state out there where
the elecricians have managed to get a cushy restrictive-practises
number and stop the ordinary citizen from offering them competition?
(Now, natural gas fitting is another matter, but electricity isn't
explosive!)
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- Maybe we should do cultural exchange and rename those languages _Smltk and
ThirdLetterOfAlphabet. -- Mark van Gulik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: "Donal K. Fellows" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: PC power switch wont shut down Windows
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 16:39:03 +0100
drsquare wrote:
> Just pull the plug.
Or don't pay the Electricity Bill and those nice friendly people from
the utility company will close your computer down for you using their
cunning Big Brother remote-control device, whether or not your Microsoft
applications approve. Amazing...
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- Maybe we should do cultural exchange and rename those languages _Smltk and
ThirdLetterOfAlphabet. -- Mark van Gulik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: "Bracy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: New BSD Advocacy site!
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 15:31:32 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Ed Cogburn"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Its a difference of opinion, some people aren't bothered by that
> possibility, some are.
It would seem that even the FreeBSD developers are bothered by that:
"But Microsoft's statements Friday suggest the company has itself been
taking advantage of the very technology it has insisted would bring dire
consequences to others. "I am appalled at the way Microsoft bashes
open source on the one hand, while depending on it for its business on
the other," said Marshall Kirk McKusick, a leader of the FreeBSD
development team."
http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2776342,00.html?chkpt=zdnn_tp_
Bracy
------------------------------
From: Thaddius Maximus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Where is American pride?... (was Re: European arrogance
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 16:47:19 +0100
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> "Thaddius Maximus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Chad Myers wrote:
> > >
> > > "Thaddius Maximus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > Rotten168 wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Thaddius Maximus wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Edward Rosten wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > *sigh* Obviously for you the devil is in the details. Please
> > > > > > > > read the following over and over and over until it sinks in.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > *huff*
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > http://www.chrononhotonthologos.com/lawnotes/repvsdem.htm
> > > > > > > > http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2000/tst121200.htm
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Our elected representatives make decisions for the people based
> on
> > > what
> > > > > > > > they believe is in our best interest (republic), they do not tally
> up
> > > > > > > > our opinion on each matter and then decide accordingly
> (democracy).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yes: I didn't say it was a democracy...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > As for your statement that we "democratically elect the
> > > > > > > > representatives," I have no idea what that means. We do elect
> > > > > > > > representatives.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ...it is a *representative* democracy.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You vote for representatives. This part is a democratic process. the
> > > > > > > representatives are selected in a democratic manner.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You DEMOCRATICALLY select people to represent you. They are then
> free to
> > > > > > > pass laws within certain limits, but not based of further
> referendum.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > That is what a *REPRSENTATIVE* democracy is.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > As you can probably see a country (eg the US) can be both a republic
> and
> > > > > > > a *representative* democracy at the SAME time.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Just because it is not written in the constitution, does not make it
> > > > > > > false.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -Ed
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ed, Ed, Ed.... *sigh* In a "representative democracy" the people
> exercise
> > > > > > sovereign power through their representatives. WE DON'T HAVE THAT
> HERE
> > > > > > IN THE USA!
> > > > >
> > > > > We don't? So why am I casting votes for representation then?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Look, in a represenative democracy the people exercise sovereign
> > > > power THROUGH a represenative.
> > > >
> > > > In a republic the people delegate their sovereign power to a
> > > > represenative.
> > >
> > > Says who?
> > >
> >
> > The US Constitution. Representatives vote on bills with our
> > best interest in mind.
>
> As opposed to a Representative Democracy where the representatives...?
>
We have a representative government which is a Republican
government. Why is it that as soon as you see the word
representative, you have to tag the word democracy to it?
"Government; Republican government. One in which the powers of
sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the
people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by
the people, to whome those powers are specially delegated."
Please read the Federalists Papers #10.
....
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: New BSD Advocacy site!
Date: 18 Jun 2001 15:48:59 GMT
Bracy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <9gkd87$8lg$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> I see you dont actually work with either one.
> I see you don't bother to read message headers.
I said "work", dipshit, I didnt say "play with".
=====.
--
"George Dubya Bush---the best presidency money can buy"
---obviously some Godless commie heathen faggot bastard
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
