Linux-Misc Digest #120, Volume #27 Thu, 15 Feb 01 18:13:02 EST
Contents:
Linux cache control for performance ("P Heist")
Re: DPT SmartRAID VI on BIG server (Trevor Hemsley)
Re: exec hangs from .bash_profile ("Harlan Grove")
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else ("Peter T. Breuer")
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else (Robert Surenko)
Re: need a app to erase a cdrw (Bill Unruh)
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else (Robert Surenko)
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else (Robert Surenko)
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else ("Peter T. Breuer")
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else ("Peter T. Breuer")
Re: safe rm ("Peter T. Breuer")
Re: Configuring Telnet ("Ian Ellis")
Problems with a CM8738 built in sound!!! NEED HELP!!! (Keith Campbell)
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else (Dan Mercer)
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else (Dan Mercer)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "P Heist" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Linux cache control for performance
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 14:08:52 -0500
This may sound ridiculous, but does anyone know if there's a way to disable
caching for individual files on a Linux filesystem? That would allow you to
drastically improve the performance of a CVS server for example. You could
disable caching on large files which would keep the smaller, more often used
files in the cache.
We notice that when our entire source tree is in the cache the CVS server is
blazingly fast (go figure). But when you have large binary files that eat up
the cache it drastically slows down the performance for everyone. Potential
solutions are to either get a lot more RAM or, if there were a way to do it,
disable caching on certain files.
Pete
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Trevor Hemsley)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.hardware
Subject: Re: DPT SmartRAID VI on BIG server
Date: 15 Feb 2001 21:33:28 GMT
On Thu, 15 Feb 2001 13:30:35, "Doug Forbush" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : That is very strange. At what point does initialization fail, as you put it ?
> : Do you
> : actually see 'DPT RAIDx' ( where x is the raid number ) on the DPT
> : banner ( in place of the brand name and model number of the
> : your SCSI drives ) when you boot the machine ? How did you build the array ?
> : When I
> put the
> append="mem=2048M"
> (or anything higher than 960) line in lilo.conf and run lilo, I get a non
> descriptive 'i2o init failure' msg, then since there's no drive/fs's, I
> get the 'fix your fs's' prompt and it stops the rest of the startup
> scripts & dumps me to the prompt..
Does your kernel have big memory support?
--
Trevor Hemsley, Brighton, UK.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Harlan Grove" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: exec hangs from .bash_profile
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 21:48:17 GMT
Mark Winsor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:yXRi6.520$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>I have it working that way but it does waste a process. It is just that
>every other Unix like OS I have used (AIX, Solaris, SVr4, SCO, Unixware,
>Xenix, etc) using sh or ksh allowed this and I was wondering why bash
under
>Linux doesn't.
...
Have you tried this with ash or ksh under linux? Maybe the problem is
specifically with bash.
------------------------------
From: "Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 21:56:13 GMT
In comp.os.linux.misc Robert Surenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.misc Johan Kullstam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan Mercer) writes:
> Or how about this one...
> Little fairies manipulate scientific experiments for their infinite
> amusment and joy. These little fairies are from the 5th dimension
> and feel their greatest acomplishment is that they have faked out the
> humans who now believe that all objects fall at the same rate.
> All smart little fairies know that heavy things fall faster.
> Prove it.
We don't have to. The burden of proof is on you. You'll find it
rather hard, mind you, because your theory has no testable
consequences that I can see. You can believe it if you like, but
it's a nontheory; its predictive power is nil.
> We are all asleep in little pods. We are hooked to a virtual reality
> program called the Matrix...
Ditto. If you can think of a test for this, fine, propose it, and test
it.
> My point is that Science is based on some fudemental principles
> that can not be proven, such as the belief that repeatability
> means something.
Uh, repeatability is the basic minimum required for anything to be worth
troubling with. If you can't repeat your bug, I'm not going to
bother with it (unless it is a really disastrous bug). COme back when
you can, but until you can, I'm going to call you a charlatan, and it's
up to you to prove me wrong.
Peter
------------------------------
From: Robert Surenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 22:00:09 GMT
In comp.os.linux.misc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Feb 2001 20:38:45 GMT, Robert Surenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>In comp.os.linux.misc Johan Kullstam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan Mercer) writes:
>>
> The only problem with your tirade is the fact that the
> only reason you even exist now is because of such
> "religious" beliefs.
Perhaps, although humankind existed for 100,000 years without
formal science... 3 or 4 hundred years is probably not enough time
to see if this science stuff is better for the species.
By the way, tirade is defined as a "long haranging speech". It is
a word usually used by a person who avoids the question.
I proposed several hypothesis as to why the Scientific Method
appears to work. No speach... just some questions.
>>Science comes up with stuff that works... but it does not lead to
>>truth.
> No one with any clue claims that it does. It suffices that
> it works remarkably better than following church doctrine.
It appears so, for matters of the five senses.
It fails miserable when it comes to ethics or phylosophy
or religion.
That's where I came in... Discussions about the existance of
God cannot be rationally disscused using the 5 senses.
> However, being a process that allows for self-correction at
> least holds out the hope that you will progress to something
> that more resembles the true nature of the universe.
I personally have this faith also. It's why I study Science.
All I'm saying is that it is of kind with other faiths.
> [deletia]
> "truth" is unecessary.
> However, those that can abandon the truth of yesterday for
> the truth of tomorrow will more likely get to it. If your
> faith is wrong, it will always be wrong. The nature of
> faith is adverse to improvement.
Exactly! This is what I've been trying to show. Blind faith in
Materialism may be incorrect. Keep your mind open.
Remember, faith is a belief that is not based on proof and
faith in Materialism could be wrong. "If your faith is
wrong, it will always be wrong."
I dissagree however, that faith is adverse to improvement.
I try (and often fail) to improve my understand of things seen
and unseen.
> Personally, this is why I abandoned faith. Those that advocated
> it most strongly were actively opposed to any attempt to apply
> the intellect to the persuit of enlightenment.
I think you mean you abandon a faith based on the belief in God.
I've shown that you do have many "faiths" ... beliefs in things not
proven.
Secondly, I've spent my life attempting to apply the intellect to the
persuit of enlightenment. All the time understanding it's limitations.
Many great scientists are both people of great faith and great
intellect.
Please do not judge us by the "Moral Majority". In my opinion
they are neither.
> --
> Freedom != Anarchy.
>
> Some must be "opressed" in order for their
> actions not to oppress the rest of us.
>
> |||
> / | \
--
=============================================================================
- Bob Surenko [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- http://www.fred.net/surenko/
=============================================================================
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bill Unruh)
Subject: Re: need a app to erase a cdrw
Date: 15 Feb 2001 22:00:35 GMT
The latest versions are cdrecord 1.9, xcdroast .98
Get them.
Then set up your idescsi properly (read the cdrecord docs.)
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Glitch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
]Bill Unruh wrote:
]> In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Glitch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
]>
]>
]>> Any apps available to erase CDRW discs? I got xcdroast and cdrdao but
]>> neither let me erase a disc....anything else I can try?
]>
]>
]> ?? Yes, they do. At least if you have the latest xcdroast, or more particularly
]cdrecord (
]> which is what xcdroast actually uses.)
]>
]> man cdrecord
]> See the blank= option.
]ok, i tried that
]I get 'cdrecrod: Bad file descript, Cannot open SCSI driver'.
]I tried the mmc_cdr and scsi2_cd driver but both gave same error.
]cdrecord -scanbus provides the following:
] 0,4,0 4) 'PLEXTOR ' 'CD-R PX-W124TS' '1.01' Removable CD-ROM
]Xcdroast could use it fine but i think i must hav an old version b/c i
]dont see the place for erasing a disc but if cdrecord by itself won't
]work i dont know why Xcdroast would.
]Using Xcdroast .96e, which includes cdrecord 1.6.1
] standalone cdrecord (from commandline) shows I'm using version 1.8a30
]Any ideas what causes that error above?
]thanks
------------------------------
From: Robert Surenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 22:01:53 GMT
In comp.os.linux.misc S P Arif Sahari Wibowo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 15 Feb 2001, Johan Kullstam wrote:
>>science is based upon *repeatability*. that which cannot be repeated
>>is not science.
> This not accurate. Science is based on *consistency*. A theory need not to
> be repeatable to be considered science, but it need to be consistent with
> other theory and observations.
> Therefore having an idea of god is not only Ok, but even scientific, as
> long as that idea is proven to have no inconsistency with all other
> scientific theory and observations. :-)
Good point.
> Thanks for reading.
> --
> S P Arif Sahari Wibowo
> _____ _____ _____ _____
> /____ /____/ /____/ /____ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> _____/ / / / _____/ http://www.arifsaha.com/
--
=============================================================================
- Bob Surenko [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- http://www.fred.net/surenko/
=============================================================================
------------------------------
From: Robert Surenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 22:14:07 GMT
In comp.os.linux.misc John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bob Surenko writes:
>> Is this what you are saying?
> With the addition of animal psychology (both theoretical and practical) and
> math, yes. I guess I must be a behavioral sophist.
Then sir, we have something to disscuss!
After reading "Zen and the Art of Motocycle Maintainance" and
"lila" I relilize it is difficult to disscuss the "true" nature
of things with a sophist. After all, he would say, truth is ilrelevent,
what matters is quality (what works).
But the matter of consistancy has always bother me about sophistry.
Why do diverge populations tend to have the same ideas at the same
time. Now this line of reasoning can't be used to argue against
sophistry, but it bugs me that most cultures tend to belive simmilar
things.
How do you think this works?
> --
> John Hasler
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Dancing Horse Hill
> Elmwood, Wisconsin
--
=============================================================================
- Bob Surenko [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- http://www.fred.net/surenko/
=============================================================================
------------------------------
From: "Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 22:52:22 +0100
In comp.os.linux.misc S P Arif Sahari Wibowo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 15 Feb 2001, Johan Kullstam wrote:
>>science is based upon *repeatability*. that which cannot be repeated
>>is not science.
> This not accurate. Science is based on *consistency*. A theory need not to
> be repeatable to be considered science, but it need to be consistent with
> other theory and observations.
> For example, the Big Bang theory, obviously not repeatable, but consistent
> with existing theory and observation.
Theories are NOT "repeatable"! Experiments are. The big bang theory has
testable consequences. For example, it predicts that the universe will
be saturated with background radiation: the cooled bang. And it is.
It also predicts the ratio of hydrogen to helium in the universe, and
by golly it gets it righti, as far as we can measure.
> In math and logic, there is only 3 state of any statement: consistent /
> absolutely true, inconsistent / absolutely false, or unproven.
Well, there are more subtle distinctions too! You forgot to say
"relative to what".
> In natural sciences, a hypothesis will considered a theory when it shown
> consistent with some theory and observation. As more observation and
No. A theory has predictive power and testable consequences. A
hypothethis in itself requires the framework of a theory in order to
make sense and be testable. If it tests OK, and refutations fail,
then its a fair enough approximation to truth for the moment.
> Therefore having an idea of god is not only Ok, but even scientific, as
> long as that idea is proven to have no inconsistency with all other
> scientific theory and observations. :-)
Well, this is true. It's a theory with no testable consequences. I.e.
it's consistent with the rest of our theories (which doesn't make it
true! Both the continuum hypothesis and the negation of the continuum
hypythesis can be shown consistent with all of the rest of set theory,
for crissake).
Peter
------------------------------
From: "Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 23:01:32 +0100
In comp.os.linux.misc Robert Surenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.misc Peter T. Breuer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Then, to your mind the blind should not believe in light, nor the
>>> deaf ins sound?
>> They have good evidence for the existence of light. They can perform
>> experiments to verify its existence. For example, they can get two
>> seeing friends to stand 100 yards apart. They can whisper to one
>> and ask him to raise a handkerchief, or drop it to the ground. They can
>> then walk the 100 yards to the other friend, and ask him if they
>> had whispered the command to raise or drop to the other friend. Repeat
>> to taste.
>> Then try it when the two friends are separated by a tall building.
> How does he know that all his friends are not really voices in his
> head?
He doesn't. That is a separate theory that requires separate testing.
> What is the difference between a "fixpoint theorem" and a "faith
> in a belief"?
Fixpoint theorems can be proved purely formally, without any recourse to
semantics. "every contraction mapping in a locally compact metric space
has a fixed point". "Every increasing continuous functional in a
distributive lattice has a fixed point", etc. etc. For the locally
compact metric space take R3 and you get the "hairy ball theorem" (comb
a ball and there is a bald patch - actually an even more interesting
pair of points too). For the lattice take the sentences of an axiom
system, connected by the entailment relation, and for the functional
take the provability operator, and you find that there's an interesting
sentence ...
Peter
------------------------------
From: "Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux,linux.redhat.misc
Subject: Re: safe rm
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 23:05:17 +0100
In comp.os.linux.misc S P Arif Sahari Wibowo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Feb 2001, Peter T. Breuer wrote:
>>> Do you know a program that replace the ordinary rm with 'safe rm' that
>>Your shell. Define an alias.
>>> move the objects into a 'trash folder' instead of delete it right away?
> Well, when I count it the time for make the script for each shell, and
eh? You only have one shell, and alias rm mv !$ .save/!$ (or whatever
it is in your shell) would be the trick, possibly preceded by a
mkdir -p .save.
> then the time to make the trash management script, well I guess is wort it
> to see if somebody already make the package.
Aren't you exaggerating the (trivial) difficulty somewhat?
> Also, I want to know if somebody have a program that works in lower level,
> so even the deletion is called from other program (not shell), it still
> goes to the trash can. Maybe some kind of module that change the file
> system functions?
You can do this. The easist way is to preload a library that intercepts
the unlink() call.
Peter
------------------------------
From: "Ian Ellis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Configuring Telnet
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 22:20:22 -0000
I get the problem on the console and in xterms. Sadly, you can't "echo
$TERM" on an ICL mainframe - but I don't think the mainframe is the
problem - I think it's either the VAX or the Linux box. I've been able to
fix the problem when using the PC Reflections telnet suite, on machines at
my client's site (they also use Rumba, but I can't get the lines to page
correctly on that either).
Ian
"Dances With Crows" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Mon, 12 Feb 2001 14:32:17 -0000, Ian Ellis staggered into the Black
> Sun and said:
> >I use my Linux box to access an ICL mainframe, via a VAX box, using
telnet.
> >
> >ICL mainframes use 25 line. My telnet connection squashes the screen to
24
> >lines. The 25 lines are still available, I just have to move the cursor
out
> >of the window, but this is a faff.
> >
> >Does anyone know how I can setup my telnet connection to use 25 lines
(e.g.
> >by setting TERM, altering termcap etc.)?
>
> Is this via the text console, or an xterm? The generic VGA text console
> for Linux is 80x25 at least, while you can resize an xterm to whatever
> size you want. If this doesn't work, then the problem is most likely on
> the other end. What does "echo $TERM" return on the mainframe? What
> should it return? Or do the applications you're using get their info
> from other environment variables like LINES and COLS ? Or could there
> be a problem with the VAX intermediary here?
>
> I'd say at the moment there are too many unknowns.
>
> --
> Matt G|There is no Darkness in Eternity/But only Light too dim for us to
see
> Brainbench MVP for Linux Admin / Workin' in a code mine, hittin' Ctrl-Alt
> http://www.brainbench.com / Workin' in a code mine, whoops!
> -----------------------------/ I hit a seg fault....
------------------------------
From: Keith Campbell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Problems with a CM8738 built in sound!!! NEED HELP!!!
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 22:30:04 -0000
I currenlty have Linux Mandrake 7.2 installed and I can not get the sound
to work. Linux will detect the card just fine in the sndconfig program,
but I still get no sound. Would there be another way of getting the
sound to work in Linux?
--
Posted via CNET Help.com
http://www.help.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan Mercer)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Date: 15 Feb 2001 22:05:23 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Johan Kullstam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan Mercer) writes:
>
>> Their is certainly a strong element of faith in science. We
>> accept the existence of that we have no direct knowledge (muons,
>> for instance) based upon the assurances of people we have no
>> direct knowledge. Is it really that far a stretch to believe
>> Christ existed based on the works of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John
>> than to believe black holes exist.
>
> science is based upon *repeatability*. that which cannot be repeated
> is not science.
The Big Bang is not science? Surely not all of science is based
on experimental repeatability. Much else is dependent upon
observation - surely paleontology and paleogeology. But none of this
really addresses the question of faith in science - the degree to
which the scientist must rely on the observations and experiments
of others, on others' experiences. People who know any science
at all believe in electrons, yet few have done the experiments
that, for instance, determine the mass of an electron (I have)
yet accept the values posted for those.
>
>> Just as the religious rely on the collective experiences of those
>> who have gone before, so does science. You certainly do not
>> perform experiments to prove every article of science you encounter,
>> you rely on faith that your predecessors performed their experiments
>> correctly.
>
> science is a method. you give a hypothesis. you do an experiment to
> show that the hypothesis holds.
No, that's the scientific method which is not applicable to all
branches of science.
you give people enough information to
> reconstruct the experiment. if others can reproduce it, you begin to
> accept the hypothesis may be true. if enough other experiments based
> on extrapolation of the hypothesis prove to work, then you start to
> trust it more and more.
The point is, you accept far more things than you have ever seen
the evidence for. You do that on trust, if not faith.
>
>> Following the cold fusion debate, you can witness the
>> uproar tha ensues when experiments appear to challenge the preheld
>> beliefs. The reaction of physicists is to deny and attack the new
>> evidence just as fundamentalists attack evolution.
>
> they also tried to repeat the cold fusion experiment and could not get
> the same results. if they had been able to duplicate the results,
> then the physicists would have accepted it and gone on to revise their
> textbooks.
>
If you believe that, you didn't follow the debate closely enough.
Physicists immediately attacked the results simply because the
Pons and Fleischmann weren't physicists (their experiment wasn't
looking for excess heat, they just noticed it and tried to
explain it). Many of the failed experiments did not use a setup
similar to P&F.
>> If cold fusion yet proves out and is not the likely result of poorly
>> conducted experimentation, the howls from physicists will equal the
>> howls of those who originally shouted down the germ theory of
>> Pasteur or the works of Charles Darwin.
>
> somehow i doubt this. if cold fusion is shown to work (by a
> repeatable experiment), it would merely *reinforce* the value of the
> scientific method. if you destroyed the scientific method, then yes,
> maybe there would be consternation. but your example doesn't do
> that.
>
> plus, it'd be great fodder for the pubilications -- tenure for the
> professors, theses for the graduate students. what's not to like?
>
It won't do wonders for hot fusionists and their funding.
> einstein fixed newtons theory and the scientific world did not
> collapse. quantum theory is certainly weird and the scientific world
> did not collapse. of course there were always a few resistors, but
> their protests only make the theory stronger should it survive.
>
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> "Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > In comp.os.linux.misc John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> Robert Surenko writes:
>> >>> It also takes faith to believe the Universe is as appears to the 5
>> >>> senses.
>> >
>> >> I don't.
>>
>> But the universe isn't as our senses report it. For instance,
>> you and I and a European bee may look at flower and think it is black.
>> The European bee, in fact, will ignore it. But an African or Africanized
>> bee sees a wider spectrum than either humans or their European
>> counterparts. So the African bee will visit that flower.
>>
>> There are those who can "hear" radio waves - they hear the Northern
>> Lights as waves booming onto the shore - which may explain the
>> large number of people who began having problems hearing a background
>> noise after the ELF arrays began their work. Their are additional
>> senses we do not have (the electric field sense shared by electric eels
>> and some sharks, echolocation) and some (orientation) which may be
>> shared by only a percentage of humans (in experiments in which people
>> were blindfolded and soundproofed, then driven around in circles
>> to deliberately disorient them. They were then asked to point to their
>> point of origin. Most pointed in random directions. But s significant
>> minority were able to point in the correct direction better than 80%
>> of the time).
>>
>> >
>> > Well, there are issues of sanity involved here. Doubting the evidence of
>> > your own senses leaves you in a difficult position.
>>
>> Then, to your mind the blind should not believe in light, nor the
>> deaf in sound?
>>
>> Insanity is a
>> > probable outcome (although that is a sane response to the predicament).
>> >
>> >>> Because of this it also takes great faith to not believe ( or believe
>> >>> not) in God.
>> >
>> >> Nonsense.
>> >
>> >>> Science and logic are a religion.
>> >
>> >> More nonsense.
>> >
>> > Agreed. It is after all, very difficult to program a computer using
>> > religious beliefs as a basis for your programming.
>>
>> Faith is essential in programming a computer. Unless you are actually
>> programming the microcode of the CPU, you rely upon the belief that
>> what you write will do what you want, a belief that is all to often
>> shaken. Eveen the assemby writer must interact with other people's
>> work if only the BIOS, and must have faith that the work they did
>> was correct. Quite simply, we cannot confirm every postulate
>> we use in life. We cannot even confirm that ever postulate is ultimately
>> confirmable.
>>
>> I tend to view that
>> > as evidence that scientific belief is qualitatively different, since
>> > believing in scientific principles like observation, no-interpretation,
>> > experiment, hypothesiis formation and refutation, does help you program
>> > a computer.
>> >
>> > On the other hand, so does alcohol and coffee.
>> >
>> > Peter
>>
>> --
>> Dan Mercer
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>
>>
>> Opinions expressed herein are my own and may not represent those of my employer.
>>
>
For an interesting take on the five senses, I think it was HG Wells
who wrote a short story expounding on the old axiom - in the land of the
blind the one eyed man is king. In his story, the two eyed man who
stumbles on a sightless tribe is helpless. They completely dismiss
his "ravings" about vision and color. They sleep in the day when it is
hot and work the fields in the cool of the night. The sighted man
is totally helpless.
--
Dan Mercer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Opinions expressed herein are my own and may not represent those of my employer.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan Mercer)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Date: 15 Feb 2001 22:11:23 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Dan Mercer writes:
>> So, if you had personal experience of something inexplicable by science,
>> would you be more likely to believe that Science doesn't have the answers
>> for everything?
>
> I have found that experiences of "something inexplicable by science" are
> generally explicable by common sense. And I already know that science
> (note the absence of capitalization) doesn't have the answers for
> everything.
>
>> I know that there are at least 3 incidents in my life that can't be
>> explained by any Physical laws I know.
>
> There are a number of incidents in my life such that were I to assume that
> they actually occurred as I recall them I would conclude could not be
> explained by the laws of physics. The preponderance of evidence, however,
> supports my fallibility over the existence of the tooth fairy.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, Wisconsin
Well, the tooth fairy notwithstanding, if you directly observed something
inexplicable by science, you would rather disbelieve your observation
than what you were told was true. And yet you don't believe you are
religious?
--
Dan Mercer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Opinions expressed herein are my own and may not represent those of my employer.
------------------------------
** 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.misc.
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
******************************
