Linux-Misc Digest #93, Volume #21 Tue, 20 Jul 99 03:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Marx vs. Nozick (Richard Kulisz)
Re: Marx vs. Nozick (Richard Kulisz)
still having mouse prob (John Brashier)
Re: Redirecting output to log file (Ben Short)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Kulisz)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.linux.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Marx vs. Nozick
Date: 20 Jul 1999 05:20:17 GMT
In article <7mslen$ihi$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Stefaan A Eeckels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Harumph. The natural world *does* run on competition, rather
You're dead wrong. Note that the reason the soft sciences are soft
has little to do with the complexity of the human mind and everything
to do with the fact that those sciences are useful and/or dangerous to
those in power. Thus, the elites are very fond of Behaviourism (which
allows them to think of workers as animals) even though psychologists
no longer have any respect for it. An ideology sanctifying Competition
is extremely useful to the elites; so useful that they came up with
Social Darwinism once upon a time.
First of all, most actions can be ascribed to several possible motives.
Since the Earth is a finite-sum game as far as individual animals are
concerned, greed almost always yields the exact same consequences as
"competition". You might as well say that nature runs on selfishness
and greed instead of competition. To prove competition is the motivator,
you have to show cases of net and/or self-destruction. For example, if
you're motivated by greed then getting hurt for the sake of harming some
other animal is braindead, but if you're competitive ...
Second and most important, individual animals is an absolutely idiotic
and braindead way to look at nature and evolution. Looking at individual
animals is like running the Prisoner's Dilemma and telling the players
that whatever they choose, they'll be executed at the end of their turn
in the game. The correct way to look at it is in terms of entire species
or individual *genes*. In the latter case, it's obvious that cooperation
is of the utmost importance. How can a gene that codes for legs propagate
without help from genes for arms, eyes, fingers and gonads?
On the level of species, it seems absurd to me that a species would
wish the destruction of another even to its own detriment. Rather, it's
obvious that species only care about themselves. IOW, greed and not
competition predominates.
>than on cooperation: competition for food and living space,
>both inter and intra species.
>When left alone, nature weeds out the weaker, and the stronger
>get to procreate.
Regurgitated conventional wisdom, nothing more.
There was a marvellous article in Nature last month about the cooperative
relationship of leaf-cutter ants, their mushrooms and a *third* player; a
fungus that provides antibiotics for the mushroom.
>Humankind in the last few centuries is an a-typical species, as
>it seems to evolve towards favouring the weaker elements, and
>has reduced the procreative advantage of the stronger elements.
What bullshit. Are you saying that women favour idiots as partners?
>Getting people to cooperate is *difficult*, because by nature we're
Getting humans to grasp the simplest scientific facts is difficult,
because by nature they're bruttish, braindead psychopathic morons.
>competitive. Humans need to be compelled to cooperate. This
>can be done (unsuccessfully) through force, (successfully) by
>creating/finding a common enemy, or (often successfully) by
>a social structure that allows people to pursue their own
>goals while contributing to "the common good".
>A small example: people who want to exert power over
>others should be capable of doing so, but in controlled
>conditions (the typical, corrupt european politician is
>vastly to be preferred over the absolute monarch).
Expressing anger is *bad*; catharsis has no more respect than Social
Darwininsm among psychiatrists. Suppressing destructive tendencies
entirely is feasible (as is more than amply proved by some cultures
like the Japanese) and the *only* way to go.
>Anybody basing their concept of society on the false
>assumption that humans are by nature cooperative is
>living in cloud-cuckoo land.
When have I done that? Can you point to anything that implies or
suggests I have done such a thing?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Kulisz)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.linux.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Marx vs. Nozick
Date: 20 Jul 1999 05:56:51 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Matthias Warkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>It was the 19 Jul 1999 05:29:54 GMT...
>..and Richard Kulisz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Free market => large-scale competition => large-scale conflict == war
>
>Nonsense. A working free market is always regulated competition, and
>if you argue that even regulated competition is just a scale-down war,
>you could claim that anyone advocating competitive sports is a
>warmonger. The silliness of that argument should be obvious.
In "competitive" sports, there aren't any vultures preying upon the
athletes. In the "free market" such vultures are called consumers.
The reason you don't notice the blood and gutted carcasses (endless
bankruptcies, et cetera) is because nearly all markets *aren't* free
but monopolistic (defined as when the top 5 firms own more than 50%
of the market).
>> The distinguishing characteristic of competition is destruction.
>
>No.
Yes.
A few elementary definitions:
cooperation is increasing joint gain
greed is increasing your own gain
competition is increasing the difference between your gain and another's
the only way to distinguish between greed and competition is in the case
when you hurt yourself because doing so will screw the other guy more than
it does you. IOW, destruction.
>> Bullshit. The key to viable social and political systems is
>> *suppression* of destructive tendencies, the way the Japanese
>> suppress anger.
>
>Oh, the Japanese make a great example of a viable society. LOL.
Their total suppression of anger is just about the only redeeming
feature of their society. Note that all serious psychologists agree
that suppression is the only way to go; catharsis is crap promoted
by quacks. Endless numbers of experiments have been done trying to
test for the effect and the exact opposite occurs; releasing anger
makes you feel *good* but it also makes you more angry.
>> How are you supposed to "integrate" murder
>> into society?? You don't!
>
>I'm talking about accepting the urges themselves, not their
>expressions.
Then use a different bloody word! Acceptance has very clear
and well-known connotations. If you mean mere *understanding*
of urges then say so because right now you're contributing to
propaganda about "expression".
>"No serious psychiatrist believes"... "Rather, it's known"... What a
>great argument based on facts.
Look it up if you doubt me.
>> Destruction can and /must/ be suppressed. Just listen to yourself talk;
>> how appalled would you be if someone advocated letting psychopaths run
>> amock? Well, that's exactly what capitalists are!
>
>Someone's losing their grasp on reality.
Anyone who seeks power should by all possible means be prevented from
doing so. Why do you think that is? Because anyone who wants power over
another human being, which is what any and all capitalists do as a matter
of course, is a psychopath.
In cruder terms: anyone who wants a slave should be shot on sight.
------------------------------
From: John Brashier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: linux.redhat.install,linux.redhat.misc,comp.os.linux.install
Subject: still having mouse prob
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 23:47:12 -0700
I tried mouseconfig, and it still isn't working. I tried all four com
ports and no dice. My mouse is part of a sony vaio system, and I am
pretty sure its MS compatible. Any suggestions? I did have it installed
correctly once, but I recently did a reinstall to correct what I thought
might be corrupted directories, and now.... please help.
Thanks,
Brashier
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ben Short)
Subject: Re: Redirecting output to log file
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 01:29:44 +1000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
says...
> How would I redirect the output of a script to /var/log/messages or
> another log file? I have a small script that echos things to the
> console but I want to have it write to a logfile instead. I don't know
> if I would use cat or a | (pipe).
>
> Also, what exactly do cat and pipe do?
>
> Thanks,
> Warren Bell
>
why not edit syslog.conf and duplicate the line that includes
/var/log/messages, and replace it with your /path/to/filename?
Cheers
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Ben Short http://www.shortboy.dhs.org
Shortboy Productions mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*Remove n0spam to email me*
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
------------------------------
** 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 (and comp.os.linux.misc) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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-Misc Digest
******************************
