From owner-freebsd-chat Sun Aug 25 1:58: 8 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19C7937B400 for ; Sun, 25 Aug 2002 01:58:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.uninterruptible.net (ns1.uninterruptible.net [216.7.46.11]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B440143E81 for ; Sun, 25 Aug 2002 01:58:06 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from kris@catonic.net) Received: from Spaz.Catonic.NET (tnt6-216-180-4-109.dialup.HiWAAY.net [216.180.4.109]) by mail.uninterruptible.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A98205002E for ; Sun, 25 Aug 2002 08:57:41 +0000 (GMT) Received: by Spaz.Catonic.NET (Postfix, from userid 1002) id 2B6D03352; Sun, 25 Aug 2002 08:57:05 +0000 (GMT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by Spaz.Catonic.NET (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2A774C56 for ; Sun, 25 Aug 2002 08:57:04 +0000 (GMT) Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 08:57:04 +0000 (GMT) From: Kris Kirby To: chat@freebsd.org Subject: Troll Humor Message-ID: X-Mailer: !/bin/sh MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Suddenly it hits me... Help! Help! Here Come The Trolls! ... :-) -- Kris Kirby, KE4AHR TGIFreeBSD IM: 'KrisBSD' "BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU!" This message brought to you by the US Department of Homeland Security To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Aug 26 21:26:47 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E260537B400 for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 21:26:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp2.san.rr.com (smtp2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.39]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F17943E65 for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 21:26:45 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Hostmaster@Video2Video.Com) Received: from 24-161-161-120.san.rr.com (24-161-161-120.san.rr.com [24.161.161.120]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id g7R4Qdv18632; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 21:26:44 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 21:26:39 -0700 (PDT) From: Peter Leftwich X-X-Sender: root@dhcp-402-55.san.rr.com To: FreeBSD Chat LIST Subject: Mac OS X != i386 Message-ID: <20020826212431.W829-100000@dhcp-402-55.san.rr.com> Organization: Video2Video Services - http://Www.Video2Video.Com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org You know, I got to thinking today... How is Mac OSX "based" on FreeBSD?! I wasn't aware that FreeBSD could run on alpha, i386 *and* Apple's hardware/architecture. -- Peter Leftwich President & Founder Video2Video Services Box 13692, La Jolla, CA, 92039 USA +1-413-403-9555 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Aug 26 21:58: 1 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E93937B400 for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 21:57:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from odin.ac.hmc.edu (Odin.AC.HMC.Edu [134.173.32.75]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92CAA43E4A for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 21:57:57 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from brdavis@odin.ac.hmc.edu) Received: from odin.ac.hmc.edu (IDENT:brdavis@localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by odin.ac.hmc.edu (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id g7R4vtwu026033; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 21:57:55 -0700 Received: (from brdavis@localhost) by odin.ac.hmc.edu (8.12.3/8.12.3/Submit) id g7R4vtQl026032; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 21:57:55 -0700 Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 21:57:55 -0700 From: Brooks Davis To: Peter Leftwich Cc: FreeBSD Chat LIST Subject: Re: Mac OS X != i386 Message-ID: <20020826215755.A25067@Odin.AC.HMC.Edu> References: <20020826212431.W829-100000@dhcp-402-55.san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-md5; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="LQksG6bCIzRHxTLp" Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <20020826212431.W829-100000@dhcp-402-55.san.rr.com>; from Hostmaster@Video2Video.Com on Mon, Aug 26, 2002 at 09:26:39PM -0700 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-milter (http://amavis.org/) on odin.ac.hmc.edu Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org --LQksG6bCIzRHxTLp Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Aug 26, 2002 at 09:26:39PM -0700, Peter Leftwich wrote: > You know, I got to thinking today... >=20 > How is Mac OSX "based" on FreeBSD?! I wasn't aware that FreeBSD could run > on alpha, i386 *and* Apple's hardware/architecture. Much of the userland and some of the kernel code is shared. Much of this code (especialy the userland portion) is architecture independed except for endian related bugs. Those are currently being fixed in the main line, largly due to the sparc64 port. Additionaly, FreeBSD is being ported to PowerPC (specificaly pci power macs). Claiming that MacOS X is based on FreeBSD might be a bit strong, especialy since it's got a Mach kernel, but they do share quite a bit of code and the pure unix interface is very similar. -- Brooks --=20 Any statement of the form "X is the one, true Y" is FALSE. PGP fingerprint 655D 519C 26A7 82E7 2529 9BF0 5D8E 8BE9 F238 1AD4 --LQksG6bCIzRHxTLp Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE9awbSXY6L6fI4GtQRAjMCAJ9lj0tRh1/awJZ9Ia1OvNy9TvXrQwCfdUOR M47iQJ/9uuk+9UeyYt/VyMI= =8qOA -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --LQksG6bCIzRHxTLp-- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Aug 27 3:21:49 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0536D37B400 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 03:21:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org [64.239.180.8]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E4BE43E77 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 03:21:46 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@jetcafe.org) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7RALj190436 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 03:21:46 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org) Message-Id: <200208271021.g7RALj190436@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 03:21:40 -0700 From: Dave Hayes Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org George Reid writes: > How nice it must be to life in a world so simple that you can obtain > self-gratification simply by masturbating your own ego when people > read and are incensed by your posts. ... > Self-awareness is usually only a feature of evolved life forms. Self-awareness is -rarely- found in any human organization or community. It's like finding ice cubes in boiling water; it's fairly oxymoronic to be self-aware and be a "member" of a normal human community. Those who are self-aware (and others-aware, who said awareness should be limited to the self?) know that "trolls" are a natural phenomena associated with "communities". Both are drawn together in the dance of "community" that passes for normal human endeavor these days, like particle and anti-particle, dancing to annihilate one another in the shifting arena of worldview expression. "Trolls" are merely the anti-particle to the "Contributors" particle. To see trolls as a bad thing is to ignore what brings communities together in the first place. Balance is part of nature. It is not a bad thing. It is not a good thing. It merely is. ------ Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<< Mind is the faculty, phenomena are the data; both are like scratches in a mirror. When there are no scratches or dust, the clarity of the mirror shows. When mind and phenomena are both forgotten, then your nature is real. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Aug 27 4:34:28 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CE4637B400; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 04:34:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from omta02.mta.everyone.net (sitemail3.everyone.net [216.200.145.37]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCC4E43E75; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 04:34:24 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from boumerola@somd.net) Received: from sitemail.everyone.net (dsnat [216.200.145.62]) by omta02.mta.everyone.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E23EA1C7BC3; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 04:33:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: by sitemail.everyone.net (Postfix, from userid 99) id B787A3951; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 04:33:50 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 5.41 (Entity 5.404) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 04:33:50 -0700 (PDT) From: Phil Boumerola To: hackers@freebsd.org Cc: chat@freebsd.org Subject: The current status of FreeBSD Reply-To: boumerola@somd.net X-Originating-Ip: [211.78.164.242] Message-Id: <20020827113350.B787A3951@sitemail.everyone.net> Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Gentlemen, FreeBSD is a sinking ship for the true hackers among us. Perhaps due to bad politics, perhaps due to envy on Linux' success and hype, FreeBSD had no resemblance of what it once was. It's now 'yet another Linux distro'/'commercial unix wannabe'. In the wise words of Chris G Demetriou (NetBSD core): "When i think of "politics," i think of Jordan Hubbard, flat out lying about what's in, or going to be in, FreeBSD, or what the system can do, or what's wrong with the system. (worth noting: I've come to understand Kolstad, even see him as a reasonable person. I see jordan as a _liar_, period.) _that's_ not the game that we, or i, play." Unfortunately, it's not its only problem. Constant flamage and hypocrisy between developers has resulted in a system that is mediocre at best. Too much time spent in flames and useless politics has resulted in a system that has to copy from others to survive (NetBSD's RAIDFrame, rcng and a dozen userland tools), and that is constantly playing catchup, with Linux in the hype area, with NetBSD in the technical area. Do yourselves a favor and download the latest SuSE ISO. Thank you. _____________________________________________________________ Sign up for FREE email from Southern Maryland Online at http://somd.com _____________________________________________________________ Promote your group and strengthen ties to your members with email@yourgroup.org by Everyone.net http://www.everyone.net/?btn=tag To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Aug 27 6: 6:48 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF80237B401 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 06:06:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rhadamanth.submonkey.net (pc1-cdif1-6-cust12.cdf.cable.ntl.com [80.3.230.12]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 644EE43E81 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 06:06:46 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from setantae@submonkey.net) Received: from setantae by rhadamanth.submonkey.net with local (Exim 3.36 #1) id 17jg3O-0002EA-00; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 14:06:42 +0100 Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 14:06:42 +0100 From: Ceri Davies To: Dave Hayes Cc: chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-ID: <20020827130642.GB8264@submonkey.net> Mail-Followup-To: Ceri Davies , Dave Hayes , chat@freebsd.org References: <200208271021.g7RALj190436@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200208271021.g7RALj190436@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> X-message-flag: All your linuxconf-configured redhat are belong to us. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Tue, Aug 27, 2002 at 03:21:40AM -0700, Dave Hayes wrote: > "Trolls" are merely the > anti-particle to the "Contributors" particle. In that case, maybe we should add a Trolls section to the handbook... ;) Ceri -- you can't see when light's so strong you can't see when light is gone To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Aug 27 7:23:16 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2998637B400; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 07:23:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.uk.alink.co.za (mail.uk.alink.co.za [213.253.1.230]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB29443E77; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 07:23:10 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from george@alink.co.za) Received: from [195.8.70.199] (helo=spoem) by mail.uk.alink.co.za with smtp (Exim 3.36 #4) id 17jhF2-0000D5-00; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 15:22:48 +0100 Message-ID: <014901c24dd4$e3958e30$c74608c3@spoem> From: "George Barnett" To: , Cc: References: <20020827113350.B787A3951@sitemail.everyone.net> Subject: Re: The current status of FreeBSD Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 15:20:26 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4910.0300 Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Iwank Regularly posted: > Do yourselves a favor and download the latest SuSE ISO. SuSE is available as an ISO? heh.. I was under the impression the only ISO you got was a trial "live system" one, and you had to fiddle with an FTP install or buy a full copy? Has this changed? --george To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Aug 27 8:29:37 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9403B37B400 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 08:29:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailsrv.otenet.gr (mailsrv.otenet.gr [195.170.0.5]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 954D143E3B for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 08:29:34 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from keramida@ceid.upatras.gr) Received: from hades.hell.gr (patr530-b138.otenet.gr [212.205.244.146]) by mailsrv.otenet.gr (8.12.4/8.12.4) with ESMTP id g7RFTSJf016720 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 18:29:32 +0300 (EEST) Received: from hades.hell.gr (hades [127.0.0.1]) by hades.hell.gr (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g7RF3V3I005947 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 18:03:31 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from keramida@ceid.upatras.gr) Received: (from charon@localhost) by hades.hell.gr (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) id g7RF3UGf005946; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 18:03:30 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from keramida@ceid.upatras.gr) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 18:03:30 +0300 From: Giorgos Keramidas To: Ceri Davies Cc: Dave Hayes , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-ID: <20020827150330.GO780@hades.hell.gr> References: <200208271021.g7RALj190436@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> <20020827130642.GB8264@submonkey.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20020827130642.GB8264@submonkey.net> X-PGP-Fingerprint: C1EB 0653 DB8B A557 3829 00F9 D60F 941A 3186 03B6 X-Phone: +30-944-116520 Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On 2002-08-27 14:06 +0000, Ceri Davies wrote: > On Tue, Aug 27, 2002 at 03:21:40AM -0700, Dave Hayes wrote: > > "Trolls" are merely the anti-particle to the "Contributors" > > particle. > > In that case, maybe we should add a Trolls section to the handbook... ;) As long as they agree to tell us their real name & email-address, so we can have a name address list, that's a great idea! :P -- FreeBSD: The Power to Serve -- http://www.FreeBSD.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Aug 27 8:34:25 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AAB237B400 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 08:34:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.comcast.net (smtp.comcast.net [24.153.64.2]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F51543E3B for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 08:34:21 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from lomifeh@earthlink.net) Received: from [68.39.204.200] (bgp587257bgs.jdover01.nj.comcast.net [68.39.204.200]) by mtaout05.icomcast.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 HotFix 0.8 (built May 13 2002)) with ESMTP id <0H1I00C9CDX8TF@mtaout05.icomcast.net> for chat@freebsd.org; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 11:34:20 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 11:34:19 -0400 From: Lawrence Sica Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-reply-to: <20020827150330.GO780@hades.hell.gr> To: Giorgos Keramidas , Ceri Davies Cc: Dave Hayes , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/10.1.0.2006 Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On 08/27/02 11:03 AM, "Giorgos Keramidas" wrote: > On 2002-08-27 14:06 +0000, Ceri Davies wrote: >> On Tue, Aug 27, 2002 at 03:21:40AM -0700, Dave Hayes wrote: >>> "Trolls" are merely the anti-particle to the "Contributors" >>> particle. >>=20 >> In that case, maybe we should add a Trolls section to the handbook... ;) >=20 > As long as they agree to tell us their real name & email-address, > so we can have a name address list, > that's a great idea! :P Then we would know where trollville is. One needs a zen approach to trolls= . If a troll trolls to a list and no on reads it is it still a troll? What is the sound of one hand typing? I think we need to begin to classify the various troll species though.. You have the slashtroll - who posts trolls on slashdot and is usually 15 . There is the bsd troll who feels the need s to insult *BSD in order to promote the superiority for their own favorite os for various reasons. There is the usenet troll - many kinds here, pr0n trolls, crosspost trolls, etc etc... Maybe its time to begin the great Troll Classification Project=81. ;) --Larry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Aug 27 8:45:21 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40DD437B400 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 08:45:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp-send.myrealbox.com (smtp-send.myrealbox.com [192.108.102.143]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1AE643E6A for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 08:45:03 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from casd@myrealbox.com) Received: from myrealbox.com casd@smtp-send.myrealbox.com [213.58.35.33] by smtp-send.myrealbox.com with NetMail SMTP Agent $Revision: 3.11 $ on Novell NetWare; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 09:45:06 -0600 Message-ID: <3D6B9E78.6060407@myrealbox.com> Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 16:44:56 +0100 From: Santos User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.1) Gecko/20020824 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: chat@freebsd.org Subject: Is this still actual? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org http://www.samag.com/documents/s=1148/sam0107a/0107a.htm and http://www.samag.com/documents/s=1147/sam0108q/0108q.htm Even with FreeBSD tuned, it only has similar performance comparing to the others untuned OSes, including Windows 2000! I thought FreeBSD was the fastest on x86. They used their MailEngine software but still.. Maybe using a diferent MTA would show other favorably results? So, why people say FreeBSD is the fastest, when benchmarks prove the contrary? What has changed, perfomance-wise since that article (july 2001)? Santos To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Aug 27 8:59:36 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E79437B4C3 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 08:59:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.comcast.net (smtp.comcast.net [24.153.64.2]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18D0C43E77 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 08:59:29 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from lomifeh@earthlink.net) Received: from [68.39.204.200] (bgp587257bgs.jdover01.nj.comcast.net [68.39.204.200]) by mtaout05.icomcast.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 HotFix 0.8 (built May 13 2002)) with ESMTP id <0H1I00DOOF1VC8@mtaout05.icomcast.net> for chat@freebsd.org; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 11:58:43 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 11:58:42 -0400 From: Lawrence Sica Subject: Re: Is this still actual? In-reply-to: <3D6B9E78.6060407@myrealbox.com> To: Santos , chat@freebsd.org Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/10.1.0.2006 Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On 08/27/02 11:44 AM, "Santos" wrote: > http://www.samag.com/documents/s=1148/sam0107a/0107a.htm and > http://www.samag.com/documents/s=1147/sam0108q/0108q.htm > > Even with FreeBSD tuned, it only has similar performance comparing to > the others untuned OSes, including Windows 2000! I thought FreeBSD was > the fastest on x86. They used their MailEngine software but still.. > Maybe using a diferent MTA would show other favorably results? > So, why people say FreeBSD is the fastest, when benchmarks prove the > contrary? What has changed, perfomance-wise since that article (july 2001)? > Well remember first of all this is a benchmark of their application on FreeBSD. This is not a general FreeBSD benchmark. Also, imho, benchmarks are extremely subjective. The people running the benchmark are the biggest variable, their expertise and their agenda. IIRC they had in fact not simply used and untuned box but had mistuned the implementations. My benchmarks have always been personal experience. Now FreeBSD isn't the best tool for every job. But as a mail server it has never failed me. I've used primarily Sendmail or postfix and FreeBSD screams with those two when setup properly. HTH, Larry > > Santos > > > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Aug 27 9: 9:28 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42A7737B400 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 09:09:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from obsecurity.dyndns.org (adsl-64-165-226-84.dsl.lsan03.pacbell.net [64.165.226.84]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAAA543E3B for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 09:09:25 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from kris@obsecurity.org) Received: by obsecurity.dyndns.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 0652166F2C; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 09:09:24 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 09:09:24 -0700 From: Kris Kennaway To: George Barnett Cc: chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: The current status of FreeBSD Message-ID: <20020827160924.GA78790@xor.obsecurity.org> References: <20020827113350.B787A3951@sitemail.everyone.net> <014901c24dd4$e3958e30$c74608c3@spoem> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="BXVAT5kNtrzKuDFl" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <014901c24dd4$e3958e30$c74608c3@spoem> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org --BXVAT5kNtrzKuDFl Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Aug 27, 2002 at 03:20:26PM +0100, George Barnett wrote: > Iwank Regularly posted: >=20 > > Do yourselves a favor and download the latest SuSE ISO. >=20 > SuSE is available as an ISO? heh.. I was under the impression the only ISO > you got was a trial "live system" one, and you had to fiddle with an FTP > install or buy a full copy? >=20 > Has this changed? Please do not feed the trolls. Kris --BXVAT5kNtrzKuDFl Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQE9a6QzWry0BWjoQKURAhupAJsH59vGgvpwRmjJgOyPajajsDWVgwCgu2jr e1lGHI4SLtlJNsATBZLg9R8= =Y7yN -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --BXVAT5kNtrzKuDFl-- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Aug 27 9:36: 8 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5541E37B400 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 09:36:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.uk.alink.co.za (mail.uk.alink.co.za [213.253.1.230]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7147943E42 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 09:36:03 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from george@alink.co.za) Received: from [195.8.70.199] (helo=spoem) by mail.uk.alink.co.za with smtp (Exim 3.36 #4) id 17jjJv-0000Hh-00; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 17:35:59 +0100 Message-ID: <01c001c24de7$7e668fb0$c74608c3@spoem> From: "George Barnett" To: "Kris Kennaway" Cc: References: <20020827113350.B787A3951@sitemail.everyone.net> <014901c24dd4$e3958e30$c74608c3@spoem> <20020827160924.GA78790@xor.obsecurity.org> Subject: Re: How to read (was The current status of FreeBSD) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 17:33:37 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4910.0300 Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org From: "Kris Kennaway" : >> SuSE is available as an ISO? heh.. I was under the impression the only ISO >> you got was a trial "live system" one, and you had to fiddle with an FTP >> install or buy a full copy? >> >> Has this changed? > >Please do not feed the trolls. How about, instead of all rushing to say "don't feed the trolls", you answer my question? I really fail to see how asking a question about SuSE Linux being available in ISO format feeds any trolls, perhaps we should all stop posting in that case on the off chance something somebody says "feeds the trolls". *sigh* Actually.. Nevermind about answering the question, I no longer care all that much. --george To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Aug 27 13:39:35 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2ABB37B400 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 13:39:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org [64.239.180.8]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3AA2043E4A for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 13:39:30 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@jetcafe.org) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7RKcc194633; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 13:38:38 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org) Message-Id: <200208272038.g7RKcc194633@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Lawrence Sica Cc: Giorgos Keramidas , Ceri Davies , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 13:38:33 -0700 From: Dave Hayes Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Lawrence Sica writes: > One needs a zen approach to trolls. The only zen you need is the zen you think about. ------ Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<< Advice is priceless; when it becomes interference it is preposterous. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Aug 27 14:35:30 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6275337B400 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 14:35:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from albatross.prod.itd.earthlink.net (albatross.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.120]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05CC043E3B for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 14:35:28 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0470.cvx21-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([209.179.193.215] helo=mindspring.com) by albatross.prod.itd.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17jnz0-000610-00; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 14:34:42 -0700 Message-ID: <3D6BF026.D7A055CD@mindspring.com> Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 14:33:27 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dave Hayes Cc: Lawrence Sica , Giorgos Keramidas , Ceri Davies , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? References: <200208272038.g7RKcc194633@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Dave Hayes wrote: > Lawrence Sica writes: > > One needs a zen approach to trolls. > > The only zen you need is the zen you think about. A strange sentiment, for someone who quotes Ch'an Master Yangqui, does not attribute the quote, and yet claims that there exists a ying/yang relationship between communities and trolls. The freedom to speak is not a guarantee of an audience, nor is life zero-sum, such that one must tolerate fools gladly in order to walk the eightfold path. It seems to me that trolls are people who believe in zero-sum games being the norm, to the point that they believe that for their advocated position to win, all other positions must lose. This is a mistake, and they need to lose their Ayn Rand inspired Objectivist philosophy of the inherent selfishness of humanity, and, for lack of a better metaphor, "grow up". Tell Bill and Thomas "Hi", and "No thanks". -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Aug 27 14:48:23 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8268137B400 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 14:48:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org [64.239.180.8]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1754243E65 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 14:48:19 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@jetcafe.org) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7RLkF195761; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 14:46:15 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org) Message-Id: <200208272146.g7RLkF195761@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Terry Lambert Cc: Lawrence Sica , Giorgos Keramidas , Ceri Davies , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 14:46:10 -0700 From: Dave Hayes Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Terry Lambert writes: > Dave Hayes wrote: >> The only zen you need is the zen you think about. > A strange sentiment, Sentiments are only strange in reference to a standard of normalcy. To which standard do you refer? > for someone who quotes Ch'an Master Yangqui, Who? > does not attribute the quote, I apologize to your ego for not doing a complete search on what I had to say, lest my ego be embarassed that someone else said it before I did. =) Did you want to continue assuming that knowledge must be attributed to a source, or did you want to examine the knowledge itself? > and yet claims that there exists a ying/yang relationship between > communities and trolls. By the use of "claims", I see you mean to drag me into a logical argument about what is not logical. If you want to do this dance, I shall, but since I recognize it is ultimately futile and you have a chance of seeing this...can we not do this? ;) > The freedom to speak is not a guarantee of an audience, The freedom to speak is the freedom to speak. It implies or follows nothing about itself other than itself. It is something most every human has, regardless of those who wish to assert to the contrary. If the human has a brain, a mouth, and fingers...they are generally capable of speaking, writing, or typing. There is nothing you can really do about this. Most audiences generally presume that they are forced to listen; if you'll examine your mail reader closely you'll find that is not the case at all. =) > nor is life zero-sum, such that one must tolerate fools gladly in > order to walk the eightfold path. It is not possible to walk the eightfold path if you are carrying a fool in this manner. You will exhaust yourself. > It seems to me that trolls are people who believe in zero-sum > games being the norm, to the point that they believe that for > their advocated position to win, all other positions must lose. Can you not see that this is true of most of the community as well? ------ Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<< In a dream, Nasrudin saw himself being counted out coins. When there were nine silver pieces in his hand, the invisible donor stopped giving them. Nasrudin shouted, "I must have ten!" so loudly that he woke himself up. Finding all the money gone he closed his eyes again and said. "All right, then, give them back. I'll take the nine." To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Aug 27 15:30:52 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61C4F37B400 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 15:30:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from carver.gumbysoft.com (carver.gumbysoft.com [66.220.23.50]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6107E43E6A for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 15:30:50 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dwhite@gumbysoft.com) Received: by carver.gumbysoft.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 0D59C72FC5; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 15:28:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by carver.gumbysoft.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0953C72D9E; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 15:28:55 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 15:28:55 -0700 (PDT) From: Doug White To: Santos Cc: chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Is this still actual? In-Reply-To: <3D6B9E78.6060407@myrealbox.com> Message-ID: <20020827152738.F68343-100000@carver.gumbysoft.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Tue, 27 Aug 2002, Santos wrote: > http://www.samag.com/documents/s=1148/sam0107a/0107a.htm and > http://www.samag.com/documents/s=1147/sam0108q/0108q.htm These benchmarks are not to be trusted. SysAdmin Magazine has refused to provide sufficient information to reconstruct their benchmarks externally for verification, which is the first step in publishing even a semi-scientific benchmark. Pretty much everyone, even the Windows folks, has deridied SysAdmin about these articles -- search around. -- Doug White | FreeBSD: The Power to Serve dwhite@gumbysoft.com | www.FreeBSD.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Aug 27 15:32:13 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE1EE37B400 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 15:32:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from avocet.mail.pas.earthlink.net (avocet.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.50]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75D8E43E75 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 15:32:08 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0053.cvx40-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([216.244.42.53] helo=mindspring.com) by avocet.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17jory-0001lE-00; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 15:31:30 -0700 Message-ID: <3D6BFD52.72E15626@mindspring.com> Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 15:29:38 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dave Hayes Cc: Lawrence Sica , Giorgos Keramidas , Ceri Davies , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? References: <200208272146.g7RLkF195761@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Dave Hayes wrote: > >> The only zen you need is the zen you think about. > > A strange sentiment, > > Sentiments are only strange in reference to a standard of normalcy. > To which standard do you refer? The Zen. > > for someone who quotes Ch'an Master Yangqui, > > Who? Dave Hayes wrote: | Mind is the faculty, phenomena are the data; both are like | scratches in a mirror. When there are no scratches or dust, | the clarity of the mirror shows. When mind and phenomena are | both forgotten, then your nature is real. -- Ch'an Master Yangqui(992-1049) > > does not attribute the quote, > > I apologize to your ego for not doing a complete search on what I had > to say, lest my ego be embarassed that someone else said it before I > did. =) > > Did you want to continue assuming that knowledge must be attributed > to a source, or did you want to examine the knowledge itself? On the contrary, your lack of recognition of the source of the quote in your own signature informs me of where you obtained it, as well as your actual level of familiarity with your subject. > > and yet claims that there exists a ying/yang relationship between > > communities and trolls. > > By the use of "claims", I see you mean to drag me into a logical > argument about what is not logical. If you want to do this dance, > I shall, but since I recognize it is ultimately futile and you have > a chance of seeing this...can we not do this? ;) It's you who's ascribing the Aristotilian mean to the issue of trolls as "anti-contributors", rather than allowing for the possibility of an excluded middle category... wherein trolls are neither "contributors" or "anti-contributors", but are instead some third thing. > > The freedom to speak is not a guarantee of an audience, > > The freedom to speak is the freedom to speak. It implies or > follows nothing about itself other than itself. It is something > most every human has, regardless of those who wish to assert to the > contrary. If the human has a brain, a mouth, and fingers...they are > generally capable of speaking, writing, or typing. > > There is nothing you can really do about this. Sure there is. You can always close the valve at the source. Texas, to take one example, has a long and glorious history of dealing with anti-social behaviour that way. The state may terminate the speaker, thus terminating his speech. > Most audiences generally presume that they are forced to listen; if > you'll examine your mail reader closely you'll find that is not the > case at all. =) > > nor is life zero-sum, such that one must tolerate fools gladly in > > order to walk the eightfold path. > > It is not possible to walk the eightfold path if you are carrying a > fool in this manner. You will exhaust yourself. The word "nor" negates the statement; the use of the comma was as a conjunction. You are merely repeating what I have already said. > > It seems to me that trolls are people who believe in zero-sum > > games being the norm, to the point that they believe that for > > their advocated position to win, all other positions must lose. > > Can you not see that this is true of most of the community as well? "Majority makes right". It is the function of any socity to be normative. If you dislike this idea, do not elect yourself a member of a society whose norms you hold against. Admittedly, this is rather difficult, with each society trying to grab as much territory as possible. Perhaps you can buy a decommissioned oil rig in the North Atlantic. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Aug 27 16:13:46 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3483C37B400 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 16:13:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org [64.239.180.8]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD1CA43E3B for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 16:13:36 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@jetcafe.org) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7RNBk196449; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 16:11:46 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org) Message-Id: <200208272311.g7RNBk196449@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Terry Lambert Cc: Lawrence Sica , Giorgos Keramidas , Ceri Davies , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 16:11:41 -0700 From: Dave Hayes Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Terry Lambert writes: > Dave Hayes wrote: >> >> The only zen you need is the zen you think about. >> > A strange sentiment, >> Sentiments are only strange in reference to a standard of normalcy. >> To which standard do you refer? > The Zen. If this were truly your standard, you wouldn't be referring to "strange" and "normal" as opposites that mattered. >> > for someone who quotes Ch'an Master Yangqui, >> Who? > Dave Hayes wrote: > | Mind is the faculty, phenomena are the data; both are like > | scratches in a mirror. When there are no scratches or dust, > | the clarity of the mirror shows. When mind and phenomena are > | both forgotten, then your nature is real. > -- Ch'an Master Yangqui(992-1049) Ah. I wondered who originally said this, and I am still left to wonder as there is no way to verify the attribution. >> I apologize to your ego for not doing a complete search on what I had >> to say, lest my ego be embarassed that someone else said it before I >> did. =) >> >> Did you want to continue assuming that knowledge must be attributed >> to a source, or did you want to examine the knowledge itself? > > On the contrary, How is this contrary to what I said? Contrary would be something like: "You don't understand why attribution to a source is imporant" or "Of course the source is important" or something similar. Not: > your lack of recognition of the source of the quote in your own > signature informs me of where you obtained it, as well as your > actual level of familiarity with your subject. ...a comment which highlights your academic familiarity but betrays your lack of real understanding of the subject. =) Academically speaking, I will surrender the crown of "who's right" to you. Any other understnding needs no surrender of anything but one's own assumptions. >> > and yet claims that there exists a ying/yang relationship between >> > communities and trolls. >> By the use of "claims", I see you mean to drag me into a logical >> argument about what is not logical. If you want to do this dance, >> I shall, but since I recognize it is ultimately futile and you have >> a chance of seeing this...can we not do this? ;) > It's you who's ascribing the Aristotilian mean... I guess you missed my point. *sigh* Entertainment time. > to the issue > of trolls as "anti-contributors", rather than allowing for the > possibility of an excluded middle category... wherein trolls > are neither "contributors" or "anti-contributors", but are > instead some third thing. Trolls would not exist without the ability to troll. Trolling, by definition, is attempting to anti-contribute by distraction. They cannot be some third thing by definition. Thus, excluded middle paradoxia has no basis for applicability in this argument. >> > The freedom to speak is not a guarantee of an audience, >> >> The freedom to speak is the freedom to speak. It implies or >> follows nothing about itself other than itself. It is something >> most every human has, regardless of those who wish to assert to the >> contrary. If the human has a brain, a mouth, and fingers...they are >> generally capable of speaking, writing, or typing. >> >> There is nothing you can really do about this. > > Sure there is. You can always close the valve at the source. You haven't removed the freedom, you've just removed the source. First, unless you remove each and every other human on the planet, there will exist some human who has the freedom to speak things you do not want to hear. Second, even if you remove all of them, their freedom is unchanging, and you'll now be bored silly the rest of your life. Finally, you can remove the source but the ideas spoken by the source will persist in your head unless you can master the easier technique to get rid of them...ignore them. Since you have to master this anyway, why kill another? > Texas, to take one example, has a long and glorious history > of dealing with anti-social behaviour that way. The state may > terminate the speaker, thus terminating his speech. It's interesting that murder is seen as a viable and good alternative to simply ignoring the speech. Murder is in most cases much more energy spent than simply tuning a cretin out using the brain you've been given. This is exactly why I consider this planet an insane asylum. ;) >> > nor is life zero-sum, such that one must tolerate fools gladly in >> > order to walk the eightfold path. >> >> It is not possible to walk the eightfold path if you are carrying a >> fool in this manner. You will exhaust yourself. > > The word "nor" negates the statement; the use of the comma was > as a conjunction. You are merely repeating what I have already > said. Perhaps you said it, but do you really buy it? >> > It seems to me that trolls are people who believe in zero-sum >> > games being the norm, to the point that they believe that for >> > their advocated position to win, all other positions must lose. >> >> Can you not see that this is true of most of the community as well? > > "Majority makes right". We weren't talking about right and wrong were we? I merely asserted that what is true for trolls is also true for the community. > It is the function of any socity to be normative. If you dislike > this idea, do not elect yourself a member of a society whose norms > you hold against. Admittedly, this is rather difficult, with each > society trying to grab as much territory as possible. Evolutionary pressure is necessary to overcome genetic defects such as "worldview", "righteousness", and "opinion". If I buy out of the game, I also lose the benefit of the lesson. ------ Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<< A cat and a dog were fighting. A man asked them what they were doing. They said: "The winner will decide which of us is a rat." "You are both wrong," said the man. So they set upon him and put him to flight. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Aug 27 17:50: 5 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 023FB37B408 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 17:50:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.comcast.net (smtp.comcast.net [24.153.64.2]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E0CB43E3B for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 17:50:00 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from lomifeh@earthlink.net) Received: from [68.39.204.200] (bgp587257bgs.jdover01.nj.comcast.net [68.39.204.200]) by mtaout05.icomcast.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 HotFix 0.8 (built May 13 2002)) with ESMTP id <0H1J00F3N3NCH7@mtaout05.icomcast.net> for chat@freebsd.org; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 20:50:00 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 20:50:00 -0400 From: Lawrence Sica Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-reply-to: To: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/10.1.0.2006 Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On 08/27/02 06:39 PM, "Brad Knowles" wrote: > At 11:34 AM -0400 2002/08/27, Lawrence Sica wrote: >=20 >> Maybe its time to begin the great Troll Classification Project=81. ;) >=20 > TCP has been with us for a very long time. It followed the Ugly > Dimwit Project, and has been a member of the Idiot Project pretty > much since the inception. >=20 Ahh, know I know the real meaning of those acronyms. Wow I made an indirect funny and didn't even see it. :) I think it's time to being the Save My Troll Project, and gain genetic samples so we can clone them in times of war... --Larry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Aug 27 17:55:59 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 443AC37B40C for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 17:55:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from snipe.mail.pas.earthlink.net (snipe.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.62]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6EDB43E6A for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 17:55:42 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0268.cvx40-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([216.244.43.13] helo=mindspring.com) by snipe.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 4.10) id 17jr6l-0007ZQ-00; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 17:54:56 -0700 Message-ID: <3D6C1EB8.FE2FB55B@mindspring.com> Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 17:52:08 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dave Hayes Cc: Lawrence Sica , Giorgos Keramidas , Ceri Davies , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? References: <200208272311.g7RNBk196449@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Dave Hayes wrote: > Terry Lambert writes: > > Dave Hayes wrote: > >> >> The only zen you need is the zen you think about. > >> > A strange sentiment, > >> Sentiments are only strange in reference to a standard of normalcy. > >> To which standard do you refer? > > The Zen. > > If this were truly your standard, you wouldn't be referring to > "strange" and "normal" as opposites that mattered. You're the one who dragged "normal" into the discussion; all I said was that the sentiment was strange. > > Dave Hayes wrote: > > | Mind is the faculty, phenomena are the data; both are like > > | scratches in a mirror. When there are no scratches or dust, > > | the clarity of the mirror shows. When mind and phenomena are > > | both forgotten, then your nature is real. > > -- Ch'an Master Yangqui(992-1049) > > Ah. I wondered who originally said this, and I am still left to > wonder as there is no way to verify the attribution. What with him being dead, and all... 8-) 8-). > >> I apologize to your ego for not doing a complete search on what I had > >> to say, lest my ego be embarassed that someone else said it before I > >> did. =) > >> > >> Did you want to continue assuming that knowledge must be attributed > >> to a source, or did you want to examine the knowledge itself? > > > > On the contrary, > > How is this contrary to what I said? Contrary would be something like: > "You don't understand why attribution to a source is imporant" or "Of > course the source is important" or something similar. Not: It's contrary to your implied premise that I was assuming in the first place. Your statement was similar to "aliens meet with President Bush", with the intent that I accept the existance of aliens by claiming that "they were not meeting with President Bush, they were attending Disney Land", never questioning the implied premise that aliens exist in the first place. 8-). > > your lack of recognition of the source of the quote in your own > > signature informs me of where you obtained it, as well as your > > actual level of familiarity with your subject. > > ...a comment which highlights your academic familiarity but betrays > your lack of real understanding of the subject. =) > > Academically speaking, I will surrender the crown of "who's right" to > you. > > Any other understnding needs no surrender of anything but one's own > assumptions. Zen, as a philosophy, decries ego. Claiming someone else's work, even if done by omission, is an exhibition of ego. A good reason for the 4 clause BSD license. 8-). [ ... ] > > to the issue > > of trolls as "anti-contributors", rather than allowing for the > > possibility of an excluded middle category... wherein trolls > > are neither "contributors" or "anti-contributors", but are > > instead some third thing. > > Trolls would not exist without the ability to troll. Trolling, by > definition, is attempting to anti-contribute by distraction. They > cannot be some third thing by definition. Thus, excluded middle > paradoxia has no basis for applicability in this argument. Actually, there is a third option. Perhaps they are just assholes. And a fourth: perhaps they are deranged. We need not glorify them by assuming that they are as rational as ourselves, and thus are acting in the service of some goal. As for definitions, yours is wrong; the correct definition can be found at: http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/jargon/html/entry/troll.html > >> There is nothing you can really do about this. > > > > Sure there is. You can always close the valve at the source. > > You haven't removed the freedom, you've just removed the source. > > First, unless you remove each and every other human on the planet, > there will exist some human who has the freedom to speak things you do > not want to hear. Second, even if you remove all of them, their > freedom is unchanging, and you'll now be bored silly the rest of your > life. Or hopelessly productive, without the luddites in the way, if they are the type which even notices luddites in the first place. > Finally, you can remove the source but the ideas spoken by the > source will persist in your head unless you can master the easier > technique to get rid of them...ignore them. Since you have to master > this anyway, why kill another? Some parts of human psychology are hard-wired. You point about the ideas is valid, but so is the fact that most people can remove from their consciousness an idea by destroying the source; if you destroy what you fear or do not understand, it is no longer something begging to be understood, nor something to fear. By destroying the source, you destroy the idea, in effigy. > > Texas, to take one example, has a long and glorious history > > of dealing with anti-social behaviour that way. The state may > > terminate the speaker, thus terminating his speech. > > It's interesting that murder is seen as a viable and good alternative > to simply ignoring the speech. Murder is in most cases much more > energy spent than simply tuning a cretin out using the brain you've > been given. This is exactly why I consider this planet an insane > asylum. ;) Rosseau's Theory of the Social Contract permits the state to take such actions as it deems necessary for the common good. The moral equivalent on the Internet is technological. It is possible to provide end-to-end non-repudiation in email protocols, and certification of senders, such that the right to send may be revoked. This damages the self-healing of routes to destinations, but that philosophy was based on the idea that all communication attempts were in fact desirable (in the same way that disabling mail relaying damages self-healing). It also presents a danger to social critics, who legitimately oppose a societies norms, either as a member of a minortiy, or as individuals. Such draconian measures are often the inevitable result of exceeding the tolerance threshold of even a nominally tolernat society. Thus trolls serve the most oppresive minority of society by triggering measures which can be justified to the majority, but once in place, abused to oppress *any* dissent. Trolls are therefore straw-men, serving to strengthen that which they claim to oppose, to the detriment of all. They serve no useful social function, not even the putative function of "the telling of an inside joke", which their dictionary definition implies is their purpose. > Perhaps you said it, but do you really buy it? There *is* a difference between suffering a fool, and suffering him _gladly_. 8-). > >> > It seems to me that trolls are people who believe in zero-sum > >> > games being the norm, to the point that they believe that for > >> > their advocated position to win, all other positions must lose. > >> > >> Can you not see that this is true of most of the community as well? > > > > "Majority makes right". > > We weren't talking about right and wrong were we? I merely asserted > that what is true for trolls is also true for the community. No. You can not tar a positive-sum community with a brush which applies only to zero-sum ideologues. > > It is the function of any socity to be normative. If you dislike > > this idea, do not elect yourself a member of a society whose norms > > you hold against. Admittedly, this is rather difficult, with each > > society trying to grab as much territory as possible. > > Evolutionary pressure is necessary to overcome genetic defects such as > "worldview", "righteousness", and "opinion". If I buy out of the game, > I also lose the benefit of the lesson. There's a cost for everything, isn't there? The trick is to choose actions which result in outcomes with the highest total sum, even if that leaves you with a lower individual sum in the short term. In reality, the idea that you can always go from any equilibrium point to another, traversing the distance in evolutionary steps, is just so much bullshit. It's a philosophy of change management which requires an impossible level of control over individual contributions. It's not sustainable in a corporate culture, let alone one in which the participants are not being paid for their participation. Inevitably, the We Fear Change(tm) faction will lose. If someone feels that strongly about the direction of an Open Source project, then barring some legal issue that precludes it, they should fork the project, and go off in their chosen direction. If people are willing to follow, then they will follow, and if not, then they will have to accept the fact that they are a minority, and live with it. It's the people who are so attached to ego that they can't live with that result, that become the trolls. Of course, that's assuming that your premise is correct, and that the trolls are drawn from the ranks of the society against which they are throwing their temper tantrum. The excluded middle you are neglecting there is exogenous trolls: trolls from other projects that are failing relative to the project they attack. Those trolls attack all *but* the project they favor, since they have nothing else of value to offer their favored projects but their presumed ability to interfere with the otherwise normal function of the competing projects. Generally, though, these trolls are impotent, and can't effectively achieve their goal. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Aug 27 18:54: 1 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD58537B400 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 18:53:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org [64.239.180.8]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22CC643E77 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 18:53:48 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@jetcafe.org) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7S1pv197241; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 18:51:57 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org) Message-Id: <200208280151.g7S1pv197241@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Terry Lambert , Lawrence Sica , Giorgos Keramidas , Ceri Davies , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 18:51:52 -0700 From: Dave Hayes Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Terry Lambert writes: > Dave Hayes wrote: >> Terry Lambert writes: >> > Dave Hayes wrote: >> >> >> The only zen you need is the zen you think about. >> >> > A strange sentiment, >> >> Sentiments are only strange in reference to a standard of normalcy. >> >> To which standard do you refer? >> > The Zen. >> If this were truly your standard, you wouldn't be referring to >> "strange" and "normal" as opposites that mattered. > You're the one who dragged "normal" into the discussion; all > I said was that the sentiment was strange. "Strange" implies it's opposite "Normal", which brings it into the discussion by reference. You can not usefully discuss "strange" without reference to the concept of "normal". > What with him being dead, and all... 8-) 8-). Exactly. ;) >> >> I apologize to your ego for not doing a complete search on what I had >> >> to say, lest my ego be embarassed that someone else said it before I >> >> did. =) >> >> >> >> Did you want to continue assuming that knowledge must be attributed >> >> to a source, or did you want to examine the knowledge itself? >> > >> > On the contrary, >> >> How is this contrary to what I said? Contrary would be something like: >> "You don't understand why attribution to a source is imporant" or "Of >> course the source is important" or something similar. Not: > > It's contrary to your implied premise that I was assuming in > the first place. I assumed you were assuming because you were holding attribution up as if it mattered. If you weren't assuming, then why does attribution of a quote that contains knowledge matter? >> > your lack of recognition of the source of the quote in your own >> > signature informs me of where you obtained it, as well as your >> > actual level of familiarity with your subject. >> >> ...a comment which highlights your academic familiarity but betrays >> your lack of real understanding of the subject. =) >> >> Academically speaking, I will surrender the crown of "who's right" to >> you. >> >> Any other understnding needs no surrender of anything but one's own >> assumptions. > > Zen, as a philosophy, decries ego. Claiming someone else's > work, even if done by omission, is an exhibition of ego. I exhibit ego with each keystroke, as do you. Unless one of us is an enlightened spiritual master (a title born of ego), we cannot help but exhibit ego in today's skewed culture. Neither of us are enlightened spiritual masters because we are both participating in this diatribe. Thus both of us are exhibiting ego at this very moment. Given that "claiming someone else's work is true" is an exhibition of ego, just why do you point to -that- one exhibition and not others like your first message in this round? Whim? Sport? Is your ego trying to best my ego? (Tautological question, of course, but it had to be asked.) Further, I disagree with your implication that the omission of an attribution directly implies that this is claiming someone elses work as your own. My signatures are there for a specific purpose which does -not- include knowing who said which quote. BTW, Zen (as with most spiritual roads) doesn't decry ego per se, it merely considers it irrelavent to reality. If you are too busy decrying ego (an egotistical pastime in itself), you aren't at all seeing the reality before you. =) >> > to the issue >> > of trolls as "anti-contributors", rather than allowing for the >> > possibility of an excluded middle category... wherein trolls >> > are neither "contributors" or "anti-contributors", but are >> > instead some third thing. >> >> Trolls would not exist without the ability to troll. Trolling, by >> definition, is attempting to anti-contribute by distraction. They >> cannot be some third thing by definition. Thus, excluded middle >> paradoxia has no basis for applicability in this argument. > > Actually, there is a third option. Perhaps they are just assholes. > And a fourth: perhaps they are deranged. I consider these two options too similar to over-categorize them as separate options. Note that this categorization doesn't prevent them from playing their part in the yin-yang dance, it merely gives them another category to be named by. > We need not glorify them by assuming that they are as rational as > ourselves, and thus are acting in the service of some goal. No one has been glorifying, and my statements weren't intended to do such. If one can see that the trolls are simply there due to natural phenomena, one has an easier time of marking them as irrelavent, swapping them out, and giving other more important CPU bound tasks some quality time. > As for definitions, yours is wrong; the correct definition can be > found at: > http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/jargon/html/entry/troll.html Just who decided this is the "correct" definition? I would accept "consensual", but not "correct". I define a troll differently (and more generally), so perhaps this is the source of our differences. ;) >> Finally, you can remove the source but the ideas spoken by the >> source will persist in your head unless you can master the easier >> technique to get rid of them...ignore them. Since you have to master >> this anyway, why kill another? > Some parts of human psychology are hard-wired. You point about > the ideas is valid, but so is the fact that most people can > remove from their consciousness an idea by destroying the source; > if you destroy what you fear or do not understand, it is no longer > something begging to be understood, nor something to fear. By > destroying the source, you destroy the idea, in effigy. This is something only time and evolution will solve. *shrug* >> > Texas, to take one example, has a long and glorious history >> > of dealing with anti-social behaviour that way. The state may >> > terminate the speaker, thus terminating his speech. >> >> It's interesting that murder is seen as a viable and good alternative >> to simply ignoring the speech. Murder is in most cases much more >> energy spent than simply tuning a cretin out using the brain you've >> been given. This is exactly why I consider this planet an insane >> asylum. ;) > > Rosseau's Theory of the Social Contract permits the state > to take such actions as it deems necessary for the common > good. Just why is this Theory more correct than others? > Thus trolls serve the most oppresive minority of society by > triggering measures which can be justified to the majority, > but once in place, abused to oppress *any* dissent. You look at this as a forced action. I look at this as the test for the next evolutionary level of community. If the community can withstand even the toughest troll and yet refrain from implementing such draconian and fascist measures, that community is on a higher evolutionary level than it's counterparts. Personally, if I can help it, I refrain from participating in communities with such measures in place. I find that real information is more accurately conveyed in the open arena, with all ranges of people (from the "STFU" d00d to the multisyllabic pleonastic pontificator) being allowed equal access to the mindshare. Trolls are a necessary consequence to a community of individuals which provide evolutionary pressure that benefits everyone in the long run. They are not glorified, they should not also be villified. They simply exist. Why waste energy seeing them any other way? >> Perhaps you said it, but do you really buy it? > There *is* a difference between suffering a fool, and > suffering him _gladly_. 8-). LOL. >> >> > It seems to me that trolls are people who believe in zero-sum >> >> > games being the norm, to the point that they believe that for >> >> > their advocated position to win, all other positions must lose. >> >> >> >> Can you not see that this is true of most of the community as well? >> > >> > "Majority makes right". >> >> We weren't talking about right and wrong were we? I merely asserted >> that what is true for trolls is also true for the community. > > No. You can not tar a positive-sum community with a brush > which applies only to zero-sum ideologues. Heh, I don't think we are arguing sums and results here. I assert the following. You take any large random group of people, some subset of them have common interests. This group forms a community. The anti-group is also formed (by implication if you must). That's how it works. Members of the anti-group are not-in-contact, and trickle into the group as trolls and kooks. >> > It is the function of any socity to be normative. If you dislike >> > this idea, do not elect yourself a member of a society whose norms >> > you hold against. Admittedly, this is rather difficult, with each >> > society trying to grab as much territory as possible. >> >> Evolutionary pressure is necessary to overcome genetic defects such as >> "worldview", "righteousness", and "opinion". If I buy out of the game, >> I also lose the benefit of the lesson. > > There's a cost for everything, isn't there? The trick is to > choose actions which result in outcomes with the highest total > sum, even if that leaves you with a lower individual sum in the > short term. In short, "he who dies with the most toys wins"? That I don't buy. Come on. You haven't even defined a number space and what direction is positive here. Personally, even for my overworkable brain, I think there are too many variables and too many dimensions involved for any meaningful talk about "higher sum" or "better". Some people do well talking about this, but I always find them ignoring some non-zero segment of the population to do this effectively. The real "better", if it exists, exists for everyone. This is highly general I'll admit. As applicable to FreeBSD, it's a bit easier to define your domain of comparison so that you can see what is "better" or "worse"...if you are well studied computer experts like most of us. Still, Microsoft (damn them) has the highest market share...even tho they leave much to be desired as a computer software company...people -still- buy their products when better free ones exist. We computer experts don't understand this, but it illustrates quite nicely that there are more dimensions of optima to "better" than we can quantify. > In reality, the idea that you can always go from any equilibrium > point to another, traversing the distance in evolutionary steps, > is just so much bullshit. At the scales of time we currently can perceive, I agree that we can't see any real benefit in this model. ;) Often when I have had arguments in this direction, it would seem that there are those who cannot accept the datum that our intelligence and brainpower do have upper bounds, and that there are things we cannot know even if we try. If you are one of those people, I can assure you we will agree to disagree on this line of thinking. > Inevitably, the We Fear Change(tm) faction will lose. > If someone feels that strongly about the direction of an Open > Source project, then barring some legal issue that precludes it, > they should fork the project, and go off in their chosen direction. > If people are willing to follow, then they will follow, and if not, > then they will have to accept the fact that they are a minority, > and live with it. It's the people who are so attached to ego that > they can't live with that result, that become the trolls. This is still "anti-community" behavior, dont'cha know. It's the opposite of "support", the antithesis of "contribute". In any large collection of humans called a "community" you are going to have these. Never mind why (though it is interesting to discuss). Still, this phenomena is observable in any human endeavor and I claim it is part of the balancing of nature in the yin-yang dance of life. It happens. We should get over it. =) > Those trolls attack all *but* the project they favor, since they > have nothing else of value to offer their favored projects but > their presumed ability to interfere with the otherwise normal > function of the competing projects. Generally, though, these > trolls are impotent, and can't effectively achieve their goal. Some people are good at creation. Others are good at destruction. It is this latter category which fosters the troll you describe above. I would argue that this troll is a member of the opposing community who cannot contribute except by destruction. Since they do not want to destroy their own community, they attack others. ------ Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<< Learn to behave from those who cannot. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Aug 27 19:54:51 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A987737B400 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 19:54:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pintail.mail.pas.earthlink.net (pintail.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.122]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14A7D43E3B for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 19:54:41 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0268.cvx40-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([216.244.43.13] helo=mindspring.com) by pintail.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17jsy1-0000TZ-00; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 19:54:01 -0700 Message-ID: <3D6C3A8D.37BF15BD@mindspring.com> Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 19:50:53 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dave Hayes Cc: Lawrence Sica , Giorgos Keramidas , Ceri Davies , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? References: <200208280151.g7S1pv197241@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Dave Hayes wrote: > > As for definitions, yours is wrong; the correct definition can be > > found at: > > http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/jargon/html/entry/troll.html > > Just who decided this is the "correct" definition? I would accept > "consensual", but not "correct". I define a troll differently > (and more generally), so perhaps this is the source of our > differences. ;) It's the consensus that a consensus defines correctness. 8-). > > Some parts of human psychology are hard-wired. You point about > > the ideas is valid, but so is the fact that most people can > > remove from their consciousness an idea by destroying the source; > > if you destroy what you fear or do not understand, it is no longer > > something begging to be understood, nor something to fear. By > > destroying the source, you destroy the idea, in effigy. > > This is something only time and evolution will solve. *shrug* I disagree. There are no counter-pressures, unless you make it evolutionarily disadvantageous to be a troll, by removing trolls from the gene pool before they have an opportunity to breed. > > Rosseau's Theory of the Social Contract permits the state > > to take such actions as it deems necessary for the common > > good. > > Just why is this Theory more correct than others? It's axiomatic in any society that accepts it. > > Thus trolls serve the most oppresive minority of society by > > triggering measures which can be justified to the majority, > > but once in place, abused to oppress *any* dissent. > > You look at this as a forced action. I look at this as the test for > the next evolutionary level of community. If the community can > withstand even the toughest troll and yet refrain from implementing > such draconian and fascist measures, that community is on a higher > evolutionary level than it's counterparts. And if not, we'll throw them up against the wall and remove the genes that permit such dissent to arise in the first place. Either way, "problem solved"? That's like arguing "Jeffrey Dahlmer was testing the social acceptability of cannibalism in order to help society grow, not because he was a nut who ate people". In the limit, though, no one in the majority minds a fasciest state. So deleting the minority is topologically equivalent to tolerating them, and it all comes down to what bothers the majority least, option A or option B. Up the level of irritation sufficiently, and option B wins, no matter what. If you believe in reincarnation, come back in a couple thousand years, and try again. > Personally, if I can help it, I refrain from participating in > communities with such measures in place. I find that real information > is more accurately conveyed in the open arena, with all ranges of > people (from the "STFU" d00d to the multisyllabic pleonastic > pontificator) being allowed equal access to the mindshare. If you like anarchy, you can always go hang out where anarchy is welcome, instead of where it is not... > Trolls are a necessary consequence to a community of individuals which > provide evolutionary pressure that benefits everyone in the long > run. They are not glorified, they should not also be villified. They > simply exist. Why waste energy seeing them any other way? Why punch the guy with the ghetto blaster on the public subway in the face, and smash the ghetto blaster to bits? The answer: "Because it is a public subway". Some people are members of communities not by choice, but by necessity, e.g. "The only way from point A to point B is to go through the middle". In "Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home", Sopck Vulcan nerve-pinches a punk (Margaret Thatcher's son, actually), and turns off his radio. The people on the bus (and in the theater) cheered. The people on the bus had no choice but to be there, and the punk made the experience miserable for them, to no benefit to anyone. > > No. You can not tar a positive-sum community with a brush > > which applies only to zero-sum ideologues. > > Heh, I don't think we are arguing sums and results here. > > I assert the following. You take any large random group of people, > some subset of them have common interests. This group forms a > community. The anti-group is also formed (by implication if you > must). That's how it works. Members of the anti-group are > not-in-contact, and trickle into the group as trolls and kooks. And the sherrif throws them in jail, and they leave, or the sherrif throws them in jail, and they learn their lesson, or the sherrif throws them in jail, and the townfolk show up that evening, carrying torches, and hang them from the tree just outside of town as a warning to the next one. The recent spate of trolls on the FreeBSD mailing lists also belies your theory: if your theory were correct, they would have been there all along, and not be a relatively recent phenomenon. How do you explain that away? > > There's a cost for everything, isn't there? The trick is to > > choose actions which result in outcomes with the highest total > > sum, even if that leaves you with a lower individual sum in the > > short term. > > In short, "he who dies with the most toys wins"? That I don't buy. That's an incorrect paraphrasing of my statement. The highest total sum is the *net* sum for all members of the society. An individual is expected to conform to social norms. > Come on. You haven't even defined a number space and what direction is > positive here. Personally, even for my overworkable brain, I think > there are too many variables and too many dimensions involved for any > meaningful talk about "higher sum" or "better". Some people do well > talking about this, but I always find them ignoring some non-zero > segment of the population to do this effectively. It has high complexity, but it's easily modelled with nonlinear dynamics. > The real "better", if it exists, exists for everyone. The avowed racist and the cannibal? That's like the PETA representative, who, when forced to address the issue of tigers eating other animals, said "Can't we just teach them to eat grass?". > This is highly general I'll admit. As applicable to FreeBSD, it's a > bit easier to define your domain of comparison so that you can see > what is "better" or "worse"...if you are well studied computer > experts like most of us. > > Still, Microsoft (damn them) has the highest market share...even tho > they leave much to be desired as a computer software company...people > -still- buy their products when better free ones exist. We computer > experts don't understand this, but it illustrates quite nicely that > there are more dimensions of optima to "better" than we can quantify. Normatively better free ones *do not* exist. Techincally better, yes; normatively better, no. > > In reality, the idea that you can always go from any equilibrium > > point to another, traversing the distance in evolutionary steps, > > is just so much bullshit. > > At the scales of time we currently can perceive, I agree that we can't > see any real benefit in this model. ;) > > Often when I have had arguments in this direction, it would seem that > there are those who cannot accept the datum that our intelligence and > brainpower do have upper bounds, and that there are things we cannot > know even if we try. If you are one of those people, I can assure you > we will agree to disagree on this line of thinking. I never met a transhumanist I didn't like... ;^). In the limit, you can always change your mind by brute-force changing your mind. Changing what you want to want can be done on a gross level right now, and fine control is likely not far off. But for now, the upper bounds do exist, even if I won't agree that the upper bounds are fixed. > > Inevitably, the We Fear Change(tm) faction will lose. > > If someone feels that strongly about the direction of an Open > > Source project, then barring some legal issue that precludes it, > > they should fork the project, and go off in their chosen direction. > > If people are willing to follow, then they will follow, and if not, > > then they will have to accept the fact that they are a minority, > > and live with it. It's the people who are so attached to ego that > > they can't live with that result, that become the trolls. > > This is still "anti-community" behavior, dont'cha know. It's the > opposite of "support", the antithesis of "contribute". In any large > collection of humans called a "community" you are going to have > these. Never mind why (though it is interesting to discuss). Still, > this phenomena is observable in any human endeavor and I claim it is > part of the balancing of nature in the yin-yang dance of life. The difference is that it's socially acceptable, just as it's socially acceptable in the U.S. for Japan to continue to exist. Thinks only get dicey if we start talking about Afghanistan and Iraq, etc., these days. > > Those trolls attack all *but* the project they favor, since they > > have nothing else of value to offer their favored projects but > > their presumed ability to interfere with the otherwise normal > > function of the competing projects. Generally, though, these > > trolls are impotent, and can't effectively achieve their goal. > > Some people are good at creation. Others are good at destruction. > It is this latter category which fosters the troll you describe > above. I would argue that this troll is a member of the opposing > community who cannot contribute except by destruction. Since they > do not want to destroy their own community, they attack others. And, in self defense, they are themselves trashed by those they attack. Seems acceptable to me. We have a number of Al Qaeda members in a prison camp on the tip of Cuba on precisely this premise. I have no problem whatsoever with that: they are incapable of building what they want in their own country, so they attempt to tear ours down, and we lock them up. Unarmed English policement are rather ineffective against IRA attacks -- "Stop! Or I shall yell `Stop!' again!" is hardly a deterrant. On a similar note, we have ~1.6 million people in prision, and another 4.4 million on probation in this country (~2.5% of the total population). I have no problem with them being forcibly removed from society for their failure to obey norms of human behaviour, either. People who can only contribute destruction should be removed from the gene pool. Locking them away from the larger society is an OK alternative, as long as when they escalate the issue, society has the right to escalate as well. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Aug 27 20:22:54 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A4E137B400 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 20:22:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from HAL9000.homeunix.com (12-232-220-15.client.attbi.com [12.232.220.15]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0CEE43E6A for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 20:22:50 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dschultz@uclink.Berkeley.EDU) Received: from HAL9000.homeunix.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by HAL9000.homeunix.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g7S3NY1v004890; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 20:23:34 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dschultz@uclink.Berkeley.EDU) Received: (from das@localhost) by HAL9000.homeunix.com (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) id g7S3NYEd004889; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 20:23:34 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dschultz@uclink.Berkeley.EDU) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 20:23:34 -0700 From: David Schultz To: Santos Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Is this still actual? Message-ID: <20020828032334.GB4653@HAL9000.homeunix.com> Mail-Followup-To: Santos , chat@FreeBSD.ORG References: <3D6B9E78.6060407@myrealbox.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3D6B9E78.6060407@myrealbox.com> Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Thus spake Santos : > http://www.samag.com/documents/s=1148/sam0107a/0107a.htm and > http://www.samag.com/documents/s=1147/sam0108q/0108q.htm > > Even with FreeBSD tuned, it only has similar performance comparing to > the others untuned OSes, including Windows 2000! I thought FreeBSD was > the fastest on x86. They used their MailEngine software but still.. > Maybe using a diferent MTA would show other favorably results? > So, why people say FreeBSD is the fastest, when benchmarks prove the > contrary? What has changed, perfomance-wise since that article (july 2001)? Notice how the second one reveals the authors' general lack of understanding of filesystems and networking? In particular, note the fact that they didn't even realize that they were comparing a filesystem mounted sync to a filesystem mounted async. Rothman ought to have known better, but then again, he's never done any work in performance measurement except with a simulator. More on this in the archives. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Aug 27 20:23:19 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08D2F37B400 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 20:23:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.seattleFenix.net (seattleFenix.net [216.39.145.247]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3358243E6A for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 20:23:15 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from roo@mail.seattleFenix.net) Received: (from roo@localhost) by mail.seattleFenix.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g7S3LUa50926; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 20:21:30 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from roo) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 20:21:29 -0700 From: Benjamin Krueger To: George Barnett Cc: Kris Kennaway , freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: How to read (was The current status of FreeBSD) Message-ID: <20020827202129.A47060@mail.seattleFenix.net> References: <20020827113350.B787A3951@sitemail.everyone.net> <014901c24dd4$e3958e30$c74608c3@spoem> <20020827160924.GA78790@xor.obsecurity.org> <01c001c24de7$7e668fb0$c74608c3@spoem> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <01c001c24de7$7e668fb0$c74608c3@spoem>; from george@alink.co.za on Tue, Aug 27, 2002 at 05:33:37PM +0100 X-PGP-Key: http://www.macguire.net/benjamin/public_key.asc Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org * George Barnett (george@alink.co.za) [020827 09:35]: > From: "Kris Kennaway" : > >> SuSE is available as an ISO? heh.. I was under the impression the only > ISO > >> you got was a trial "live system" one, and you had to fiddle with an FTP > >> install or buy a full copy? > >> > >> Has this changed? > > > >Please do not feed the trolls. > > How about, instead of all rushing to say "don't feed the trolls", you answer > my question? These are still @freebsd.org lists and thus your question is off-topic. > I really fail to see how asking a question about SuSE Linux being available > in ISO format feeds any trolls, perhaps we should all stop posting in that > case on the off chance something somebody says "feeds the trolls". YHBT. YHL. Accept it and move on. > *sigh* Dah, don't be sad George. We'll get him next time George. An then he can be my pet George, an I will hug him and squeeze him and love him and hug him and love him and... > Actually.. Nevermind about answering the question, I no longer care all that > much. Yay. > --george -- Benjamin Krueger "Everyone has wings, some folks just don't know what they're for" - B. Bonzai ---------------------------------------------------------------- Send mail w/ subject 'send public key' or query for (0x251A4B18) Fingerprint = A642 F299 C1C1 C828 F186 A851 CFF0 7711 251A 4B18 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Aug 27 23: 4:32 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E49A737B400 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 23:04:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org [64.239.180.8]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA31C43E3B for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 23:04:21 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@jetcafe.org) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7S63h198402; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 23:03:47 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org) Message-Id: <200208280603.g7S63h198402@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Terry Lambert Cc: Lawrence Sica , Giorgos Keramidas , Ceri Davies , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 23:03:38 -0700 From: Dave Hayes Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Terry Lambert writes: > Dave Hayes wrote: >> > As for definitions, yours is wrong; the correct definition can be >> > found at: >> > http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/jargon/html/entry/troll.html >> >> Just who decided this is the "correct" definition? I would accept >> "consensual", but not "correct". I define a troll differently >> (and more generally), so perhaps this is the source of our >> differences. ;) > It's the consensus that a consensus defines correctness. 8-). Unfortunately, adherence to this consensus prevents you from seeing anything else that might be there. For example, it was one time known by consensus that the correct viewpoint was that the world was flat... The real question is how useful the definition is to explain something that people might not be seeing. >> > Some parts of human psychology are hard-wired. You point about >> > the ideas is valid, but so is the fact that most people can >> > remove from their consciousness an idea by destroying the source; >> > if you destroy what you fear or do not understand, it is no longer >> > something begging to be understood, nor something to fear. By >> > destroying the source, you destroy the idea, in effigy. >> >> This is something only time and evolution will solve. *shrug* > > I disagree. There are no counter-pressures, unless you make > it evolutionarily disadvantageous to be a troll, by removing > trolls from the gene pool before they have an opportunity to > breed. The stagnation that would occur in that instance will leave us genetically weak as a race and unable to adapt. >> > Rosseau's Theory of the Social Contract permits the state >> > to take such actions as it deems necessary for the common >> > good. >> >> Just why is this Theory more correct than others? > > It's axiomatic in any society that accepts it. That doesn't make it globally correct, or even useful. >> > Thus trolls serve the most oppresive minority of society by >> > triggering measures which can be justified to the majority, >> > but once in place, abused to oppress *any* dissent. >> >> You look at this as a forced action. I look at this as the test for >> the next evolutionary level of community. If the community can >> withstand even the toughest troll and yet refrain from implementing >> such draconian and fascist measures, that community is on a higher >> evolutionary level than it's counterparts. > > And if not, we'll throw them up against the wall and remove > the genes that permit such dissent to arise in the first > place. I didn't say that. You did. The real solution is for individuals to make trolls irrelavent. Until we can do that as a group, we aren't there yet. > In the limit, though, no one in the majority minds a fasciest > state. So deleting the minority is topologically equivalent to > tolerating them, I don't accept that. Deleting them means there are no more tests to tolerance, which means tolerance becomes weak. If another problem were to surface which required strong tolerance, the problem would not be solv-ed. >> Personally, if I can help it, I refrain from participating in >> communities with such measures in place. I find that real information >> is more accurately conveyed in the open arena, with all ranges of >> people (from the "STFU" d00d to the multisyllabic pleonastic >> pontificator) being allowed equal access to the mindshare. > If you like anarchy, you can always go hang out where anarchy > is welcome, instead of where it is not... This was true before you asserted it, and remains true after your attempt to make it a straw man. ;) >> Trolls are a necessary consequence to a community of individuals which >> provide evolutionary pressure that benefits everyone in the long >> run. They are not glorified, they should not also be villified. They >> simply exist. Why waste energy seeing them any other way? > Why punch the guy with the ghetto blaster on the public subway > in the face, and smash the ghetto blaster to bits? Because you haven't learned tolerance? > Some people are members of communities not by choice, but by > necessity, e.g. "The only way from point A to point B is to > go through the middle". There is always a choice. There may not be choices we prefer over others, and some choices may have starkly different returns on investment, but there are always choices. You can also choose to be tolerant. >> > No. You can not tar a positive-sum community with a brush >> > which applies only to zero-sum ideologues. >> >> Heh, I don't think we are arguing sums and results here. >> >> I assert the following. You take any large random group of people, >> some subset of them have common interests. This group forms a >> community. The anti-group is also formed (by implication if you >> must). That's how it works. Members of the anti-group are >> not-in-contact, and trickle into the group as trolls and kooks. > > And the sherrif throws them in jail, and they leave, or the > sherrif throws them in jail, and they learn their lesson, or > the sherrif throws them in jail, and the townfolk show up > that evening, carrying torches, and hang them from the tree > just outside of town as a warning to the next one. Since the genes are till out there, another one shows up and another and another...they keep getting thrown in jail, they get stronger while people on the outside get weaker. A meteor hits the planet, suddenly all the weak "societal" folk die and the people who've been in prison for years have the toughness to survive the coming ice age. > The recent spate of trolls on the FreeBSD mailing lists also > belies your theory: if your theory were correct, they would > have been there all along, and not be a relatively recent > phenomenon. How do you explain that away? Just because they don't post doesn't mean they aren't there. Perhaps they were biding their time? >> > There's a cost for everything, isn't there? The trick is to >> > choose actions which result in outcomes with the highest total >> > sum, even if that leaves you with a lower individual sum in the >> > short term. >> >> In short, "he who dies with the most toys wins"? That I don't buy. > > That's an incorrect paraphrasing of my statement. The highest > total sum is the *net* sum for all members of the society. > An individual is expected to conform to social norms. That is the entire problem with our planet to date. This is not the original purpose of the individual, nor does this game of maximizing sum have any meaning outside of the society it is in. Society expects individuals to conform to a standard that may or may not be appropriate for any particular individual to conform to. This tries to limit the genetic search space of the planet. It's counterproductive to the global algorithm. It also backfires constantly. >> The real "better", if it exists, exists for everyone. > The avowed racist and the cannibal? Them too. > That's like the PETA representative, who, when forced to > address the issue of tigers eating other animals, said "Can't > we just teach them to eat grass?". This flys in the face of: > An individual is expected to conform to social norms. Some individuals aren't here to do what society wants them to. I feel it's dishonorable to expect them to conform. >> This is highly general I'll admit. As applicable to FreeBSD, it's a >> bit easier to define your domain of comparison so that you can see >> what is "better" or "worse"...if you are well studied computer >> experts like most of us. >> >> Still, Microsoft (damn them) has the highest market share...even tho >> they leave much to be desired as a computer software company...people >> -still- buy their products when better free ones exist. We computer >> experts don't understand this, but it illustrates quite nicely that >> there are more dimensions of optima to "better" than we can quantify. > Normatively better free ones *do not* exist. Techincally > better, yes; normatively better, no. In effect you are saying if everyone uses FooOS, there's nothing normatively better. Is that really useful? > I never met a transhumanist I didn't like... ;^). A who? > On a similar note, we have ~1.6 million people in prision, and > another 4.4 million on probation in this country (~2.5% of the > total population). I have no problem with them being forcibly > removed from society for their failure to obey norms of human > behaviour, either. I do. Those are our survival as a race should a real mega-disaster happen. Without them, we don't survive (unless a mega-disaster never happens). > People who can only contribute destruction should be removed > from the gene pool. Nonsense. Creation and destruction are a dance. Both need to exist for either to exist. How would you destroy an old building or find out that a piece of software has security holes without those kind of people? ------ Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<< "The king has been kind to me," a man was telling Nasrudin. "I planted wheat but the rains came. He heard of my troubles and compensated me for the damage done by the flood." Nasrudin thought for a moment. "Tell me," he asked, "how does one _cause_ a flood?" To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Aug 28 0:16:13 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 830E037B400 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 00:16:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from vienna9.his.com (vienna9.his.com [216.200.68.14]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5D2D43E6E for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 00:16:08 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from brad.knowles@skynet.be) Received: from [10.0.1.60] (root@[127.0.0.1]) by vienna9.his.com (8.11.6/8.10.1) with ESMTP id g7RNep304113; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 19:40:52 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: bs663385@pop.skynet.be (Unverified) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20020827152738.F68343-100000@carver.gumbysoft.com> References: <20020827152738.F68343-100000@carver.gumbysoft.com> Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 01:11:44 +0200 To: Doug White , Santos From: Brad Knowles Subject: Re: Is this still actual? Cc: chat@freebsd.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org At 3:28 PM -0700 2002/08/27, Doug White wrote: > On Tue, 27 Aug 2002, Santos wrote: > >> http://www.samag.com/documents/s=1148/sam0107a/0107a.htm and >> http://www.samag.com/documents/s=1147/sam0108q/0108q.htm > > These benchmarks are not to be trusted. SysAdmin Magazine has refused to > provide sufficient information to reconstruct their benchmarks externally > for verification, which is the first step in publishing even a > semi-scientific benchmark. They didn't run the benchmarks -- the authors did. Moreover, the authors are totally fscking clueless programmers who don't know diddly about system administration or performance tuning. They just blindly apply what other people tell them to apply. I know this because I have extensively spoken to them specifically on the topic of what they did for this article, and their methodology. The sad thing is that they actually had a real point, and if they had stuck to just the one OS that they actually know anything about (from the perspective of system programmers), then they would have been able to make that point clear and not cloud the issue with things like whether or not they tuned their other platforms appropriately, etc.... IMO, what they really wanted to do was to demonstrate their "superior" spamware on the "superior" spamware platform(s), and if they could take a pot-shot at FreeBSD in the process, then so much the better. > Pretty much everyone, even the Windows folks, has deridied SysAdmin about > these articles -- search around. Indeed. I hate to say it, but don't bother wasting your time with _SysAdmin_. -- Brad Knowles, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania. GCS/IT d+(-) s:+(++)>: a C++(+++)$ UMBSHI++++$ P+>++ L+ !E W+++(--) N+ !w--- O- M++ V PS++(+++) PE- Y+(++) PGP>+++ t+(+++) 5++(+++) X++(+++) R+(+++) tv+(+++) b+(++++) DI+(++++) D+(++) G+(++++) e++>++++ h--- r---(+++)* z(+++) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Aug 28 0:16:16 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B7F137B401 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 00:16:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from vienna9.his.com (vienna9.his.com [216.200.68.14]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADAA743E6E for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 00:16:09 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from brad.knowles@skynet.be) Received: from [10.0.1.60] (root@[127.0.0.1]) by vienna9.his.com (8.11.6/8.10.1) with ESMTP id g7RMsP326152; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 18:54:26 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: bs663385@pop.skynet.be (Unverified) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3D6B9E78.6060407@myrealbox.com> References: <3D6B9E78.6060407@myrealbox.com> Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 00:46:32 +0200 To: Santos , chat@freebsd.org From: Brad Knowles Subject: Re: Is this still actual? Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org At 4:44 PM +0100 2002/08/27, Santos wrote: > http://www.samag.com/documents/s=1148/sam0107a/0107a.htm and > http://www.samag.com/documents/s=1147/sam0108q/0108q.htm > > Even with FreeBSD tuned, it only has similar performance comparing to > the others untuned OSes, including Windows 2000! I thought FreeBSD was > the fastest on x86. They used their MailEngine software but still.. Their MailEngine software is basically spamware. It doesn't care if any mail gets lost, etc.... Moreover, the idiots who wrote the article knew absolutely nothing about configuring and tuning FreeBSD and were simply trying to demonstrate their "superior" spamware on "superior" spamware platforms (e.g., Linux and Windows 2000). There was a long and very nasty discussion on this topic, and a mailing list was actually set up. I gave Amber Ankerholz holy hell over the incredibly poor standards of journalism that she demonstrated in this case, and her response was that they could only publish what they got. I since offered to write three different articles for them, and unfortunately it takes several months turn-around time to get a response from Joe Casad, the technical editor. Moreover, you basically already have to have a complete article written to their standards, without any editorial assistance whatsoever. Worst of all, you have to have it to their time-table -- so, when you haven't heard from Joe in three months and then he suddenly pops up and says that he expects you have to have the final copy of your article ready in two weeks, that's your only window. > Maybe using a diferent MTA would show other favorably results? These people are a waste of carbon. Don't waste your time worrying about them. -- Brad Knowles, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania. GCS/IT d+(-) s:+(++)>: a C++(+++)$ UMBSHI++++$ P+>++ L+ !E W+++(--) N+ !w--- O- M++ V PS++(+++) PE- Y+(++) PGP>+++ t+(+++) 5++(+++) X++(+++) R+(+++) tv+(+++) b+(++++) DI+(++++) D+(++) G+(++++) e++>++++ h--- r---(+++)* z(+++) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Aug 28 0:16:19 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E708F37B405 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 00:16:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from vienna9.his.com (vienna9.his.com [216.200.68.14]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 647D543E3B for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 00:16:10 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from brad.knowles@skynet.be) Received: from [10.0.1.60] (root@[127.0.0.1]) by vienna9.his.com (8.11.6/8.10.1) with ESMTP id g7RMsT326161; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 18:54:29 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: bs663385@pop.skynet.be (Unverified) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 00:49:30 +0200 To: Lawrence Sica , Santos , chat@freebsd.org From: Brad Knowles Subject: Re: Is this still actual? Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org At 11:58 AM -0400 2002/08/27, Lawrence Sica wrote: > But as a mail server it has never failed me. I've used > primarily Sendmail or postfix and FreeBSD screams with those two when setup > properly. A properly configured sendmail running on a properly configured FreeBSD machine will outrun every other "real" MTA on every other platform in existence. I know the people that have proved this fact, but their customers want them to keep this a secret because they don't want their competitive advantage to be known. BTW, you may be interested to read the upcoming book _Sendmail Performance Tuning_ by Nick Christenson. -- Brad Knowles, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania. GCS/IT d+(-) s:+(++)>: a C++(+++)$ UMBSHI++++$ P+>++ L+ !E W+++(--) N+ !w--- O- M++ V PS++(+++) PE- Y+(++) PGP>+++ t+(+++) 5++(+++) X++(+++) R+(+++) tv+(+++) b+(++++) DI+(++++) D+(++) G+(++++) e++>++++ h--- r---(+++)* z(+++) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Aug 28 0:16:22 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9E3037B406 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 00:16:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from vienna9.his.com (vienna9.his.com [216.200.68.14]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 146AA43E3B for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 00:16:11 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from brad.knowles@skynet.be) Received: from [10.0.1.60] (root@[127.0.0.1]) by vienna9.his.com (8.11.6/8.10.1) with ESMTP id g7RMsJ326144; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 18:54:19 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: bs663385@pop.skynet.be (Unverified) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 00:39:49 +0200 To: Lawrence Sica , Giorgos Keramidas , Ceri Davies From: Brad Knowles Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Cc: Dave Hayes , chat@freebsd.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" ; format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org At 11:34 AM -0400 2002/08/27, Lawrence Sica wrote: > Maybe its time to begin the great Troll Classification Project. ;) TCP has been with us for a very long time. It followed the Ugly Dimwit Project, and has been a member of the Idiot Project pretty much since the inception. ;-) -- Brad Knowles, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania. GCS/IT d+(-) s:+(++)>: a C++(+++)$ UMBSHI++++$ P+>++ L+ !E W+++(--) N+ !w--- O- M++ V PS++(+++) PE- Y+(++) PGP>+++ t+(+++) 5++(+++) X++(+++) R+(+++) tv+(+++) b+(++++) DI+(++++) D+(++) G+(++++) e++>++++ h--- r---(+++)* z(+++) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Aug 28 1:40:55 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D169037B400 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 01:40:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from flamingo.mail.pas.earthlink.net (flamingo.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.232]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1148043E6A for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 01:40:43 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0032.cvx21-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([209.179.192.32] helo=mindspring.com) by flamingo.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17jyMt-0002OB-00; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 01:40:04 -0700 Message-ID: <3D6C8C28.E64C085B@mindspring.com> Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 01:39:04 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dave Hayes Cc: Lawrence Sica , Giorgos Keramidas , Ceri Davies , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? References: <200208280603.g7S63h198402@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Dave Hayes wrote: > Terry Lambert writes: > > It's the consensus that a consensus defines correctness. 8-). > > Unfortunately, adherence to this consensus prevents you from > seeing anything else that might be there. IYHO. 8-). > For example, it was > one time known by consensus that the correct viewpoint was that > the world was flat... And it was, for all intents and purposes. As a working hypothesis, it's as good an approximation as, say, Newtonian mechanics. > The real question is how useful the definition is to explain something > that people might not be seeing. Never having seen an example of a working civilization of any type that didn't have it as an axiom, I wouldn't know. Examples welcome, of course... 8-). > > I disagree. There are no counter-pressures, unless you make > > it evolutionarily disadvantageous to be a troll, by removing > > trolls from the gene pool before they have an opportunity to > > breed. > > The stagnation that would occur in that instance will leave us > genetically weak as a race and unable to adapt. Again, IYHO. Arguably it *is* an adaptation, to an increased population density, with decreased communications delays. > >> > Rosseau's Theory of the Social Contract permits the state > >> > to take such actions as it deems necessary for the common > >> > good. > >> > >> Just why is this Theory more correct than others? > > > > It's axiomatic in any society that accepts it. > > That doesn't make it globally correct, or even useful. It's useful in that it's predictive. That's makes it one up on uncontrolled anarchy. > >> You look at this as a forced action. I look at this as the test for > >> the next evolutionary level of community. If the community can > >> withstand even the toughest troll and yet refrain from implementing > >> such draconian and fascist measures, that community is on a higher > >> evolutionary level than it's counterparts. > > > > And if not, we'll throw them up against the wall and remove > > the genes that permit such dissent to arise in the first > > place. > > I didn't say that. You did. The real solution is for individuals > to make trolls irrelavent. Until we can do that as a group, we > aren't there yet. Make them irrelevent by removing them from the gene pool? By removing their mail accounts? By denying them DNS services? By blocking packets from them at our routers and firewalls? I didn't expect you to advocate the Spanish Inquisition... but then I guess no one expects that. ;^). > > In the limit, though, no one in the majority minds a fasciest > > state. So deleting the minority is topologically equivalent to > > tolerating them, > > I don't accept that. Deleting them means there are no more tests to > tolerance, which means tolerance becomes weak. If another problem were > to surface which required strong tolerance, the problem would not be > solv-ed. So, for example, if you don't constantly pound on your skull with a brick, in six months time, the first loose brick you see will, without a doubt, be fatal to you from six yards away? What you are describing is an overly simplistic version of a mutual security game. Your model is flawed, actually. I suggest you read up on "globocop". The arms race equivalent to your argument is that unless we are constant at a state of DefCon 4, if we ever "slip" to DefCon 1, then our ability to defend ourselves is compromised. > > If you like anarchy, you can always go hang out where anarchy > > is welcome, instead of where it is not... > > This was true before you asserted it, and remains true after your > attempt to make it a straw man. ;) The "instead" is the important part. > >> Trolls are a necessary consequence to a community of individuals which > >> provide evolutionary pressure that benefits everyone in the long > >> run. They are not glorified, they should not also be villified. They > >> simply exist. Why waste energy seeing them any other way? > > > > Why punch the guy with the ghetto blaster on the public subway > > in the face, and smash the ghetto blaster to bits? > > Because you haven't learned tolerance? Because it's not societys job to accomodate the every whim of the sociopathic individual? > > Some people are members of communities not by choice, but by > > necessity, e.g. "The only way from point A to point B is to > > go through the middle". > > There is always a choice. There may not be choices we prefer over > others, and some choices may have starkly different returns on > investment, but there are always choices. > > You can also choose to be tolerant. There may not be choices we prefer over others. I prefer to choose not to tolerate sociopaths. > >> I assert the following. You take any large random group of people, > >> some subset of them have common interests. This group forms a > >> community. The anti-group is also formed (by implication if you > >> must). That's how it works. Members of the anti-group are > >> not-in-contact, and trickle into the group as trolls and kooks. > > > > And the sherrif throws them in jail, and they leave, or the > > sherrif throws them in jail, and they learn their lesson, or > > the sherrif throws them in jail, and the townfolk show up > > that evening, carrying torches, and hang them from the tree > > just outside of town as a warning to the next one. > > Since the genes are till out there, another one shows up and another > and another...they keep getting thrown in jail, they get stronger > while people on the outside get weaker. A meteor hits the planet, > suddenly all the weak "societal" folk die and the people who've been > in prison for years have the toughness to survive the coming ice age. Cool. Then we wait until they get bored diddling themselves, since even if the genetic tendency towards civilization is recessive, it's there, and then their great great grandchildren build their own jails. > > The recent spate of trolls on the FreeBSD mailing lists also > > belies your theory: if your theory were correct, they would > > have been there all along, and not be a relatively recent > > phenomenon. How do you explain that away? > > Just because they don't post doesn't mean they aren't there. Er, interesting theory... ever heard of Occam's Razor? > Perhaps they were biding their time? I guess we will all die of Ebola next Thursday at 17:05 Zulu, since we are all infected, the virus has merely been "biding its time". Sneaky bastard, that Ebola... 8-) 8-O. > >> > There's a cost for everything, isn't there? The trick is to > >> > choose actions which result in outcomes with the highest total > >> > sum, even if that leaves you with a lower individual sum in the > >> > short term. > >> > >> In short, "he who dies with the most toys wins"? That I don't buy. > > > > That's an incorrect paraphrasing of my statement. The highest > > total sum is the *net* sum for all members of the society. > > An individual is expected to conform to social norms. > > That is the entire problem with our planet to date. This is not the > original purpose of the individual, nor does this game of maximizing > sum have any meaning outside of the society it is in. Well, I think I speak for everyone when I say that you're always free to find another planet, where you declare what (IYHO) you believe the purpose of the individual to be, and then deport anyone who doesn't agree with you.... As far as sum maximization: no it doesn't: but it was you who were claiming that trolls were definitionally part and parcel with the society they oppose, rather than outside provocateurs. > Society expects individuals to conform to a standard that may or may > not be appropriate for any particular individual to conform to. This > tries to limit the genetic search space of the planet. It's > counterproductive to the global algorithm. It also backfires > constantly. Socially approapriate? Appropriate in what context? You are starting to sound like Archimedes Plutonium... > >> The real "better", if it exists, exists for everyone. > > The avowed racist and the cannibal? > > Them too. No, not them too. The benefits of society do not accrue to those who would destroy it. > > That's like the PETA representative, who, when forced to > > address the issue of tigers eating other animals, said "Can't > > we just teach them to eat grass?". > > This flys in the face of: > > > An individual is expected to conform to social norms. > > Some individuals aren't here to do what society wants them to. I feel > it's dishonorable to expect them to conform. What about locking them up, and having no expectations of them, other than that they not escape, and that they will eventually die of natural causes? Are you arguing that it is *never* right to segregate people from the larger society? > >> Still, Microsoft (damn them) has the highest market share...even tho > >> they leave much to be desired as a computer software company...people > >> -still- buy their products when better free ones exist. We computer > >> experts don't understand this, but it illustrates quite nicely that > >> there are more dimensions of optima to "better" than we can quantify. > > > > Normatively better free ones *do not* exist. Techincally > > better, yes; normatively better, no. > > In effect you are saying if everyone uses FooOS, there's nothing > normatively better. Is that really useful? Yes, in terms of reduction in duplication of effort. There are at least 80 million people in the U.S. (my numbers are old; this is likely more today) who interact with Microsoft Windows in one way or another on a daily basis. The training costs for a single application run to US$2,500 per seat. That's $200 billion dollars of training, alone, totally ignoring data. Whatever wanted to displace it would have to have a normative value in excess of $200 billion *above* the equal base value of the OS itself. > > I never met a transhumanist I didn't like... ;^). > > A who? No, Cindy Lou wasn't a transhumanist, she wasn't even human... > > On a similar note, we have ~1.6 million people in prison, and > > another 4.4 million on probation in this country (~2.5% of the > > total population). I have no problem with them being forcibly > > removed from society for their failure to obey norms of human > > behaviour, either. > > I do. Those are our survival as a race should a real mega-disaster > happen. Without them, we don't survive (unless a mega-disaster > never happens). You must see some redeeming traits in the Jeffrey Dahlmer's of the world that I don't. > > People who can only contribute destruction should be removed > > from the gene pool. > > Nonsense. Creation and destruction are a dance. Both need to exist > for either to exist. How would you destroy an old building or find > out that a piece of software has security holes without those kind > of people? That's a joke, right? You're not seriously advocating that script kiddies serve a social good which is not already served by the people who originally discovered the problems, or that those who discover the problems, but exploit rather than disclosing them are somehow beneficial to society? -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Aug 28 3:32:28 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBF3F37B400 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 03:32:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org [64.239.180.8]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FB4743E6E for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 03:32:11 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@jetcafe.org) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7SAUJ101187; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 03:30:19 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org) Message-Id: <200208281030.g7SAUJ101187@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Terry Lambert Cc: Lawrence Sica , Giorgos Keramidas , Ceri Davies , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 03:30:13 -0700 From: Dave Hayes Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Terry Lambert writes: > Dave Hayes wrote: >> Terry Lambert writes: >> > It's the consensus that a consensus defines correctness. 8-). >> >> Unfortunately, adherence to this consensus prevents you from >> seeing anything else that might be there. > > IYHO. 8-). Actually no. It's observable to yourself if you are willing to do the work or open the eyes a bit. I can't do this for you because...well that would be a consensus blinding you. ;) >> For example, it was one time known by consensus that the correct >> viewpoint was that the world was flat... > > And it was, for all intents and purposes. As a working hypothesis, > it's as good an approximation as, say, Newtonian mechanics. Yet it wasn't exact, and the example holds as to how consensus can blind you to the exact truth. >> > I disagree. There are no counter-pressures, unless you make >> > it evolutionarily disadvantageous to be a troll, by removing >> > trolls from the gene pool before they have an opportunity to >> > breed. >> >> The stagnation that would occur in that instance will leave us >> genetically weak as a race and unable to adapt. > > Again, IYHO. It's not provable, no. Also, my opinions are seldom humble, being a creature of ego. >> >> > Rosseau's Theory of the Social Contract permits the state >> >> > to take such actions as it deems necessary for the common >> >> > good. >> >> >> >> Just why is this Theory more correct than others? >> > >> > It's axiomatic in any society that accepts it. >> >> That doesn't make it globally correct, or even useful. > > It's useful in that it's predictive. That's makes it one up on > uncontrolled anarchy. Anarchy is always perceived as uncontrolled. This stems from a commonly held fear-based view of that state, usually reinforced by people wanting to make sure you are supportive of whatever government is in place. You see, people that talk about revolutions, people who hate this or that government...they are all misguided. I believe "The Who" said it best: "Meet the new boss, he's the same as the old boss". Mankind's evolutionary state is such that no matter what organization or community forms, corruption, inefficiency and politics will derail any -real- "good" that said organization can do. This is not a bad or good thing, it simply indicates the current level of human evolution. Humans are not ready for the next level at the moment. This is because it's terribly frightening to most humans to a) be personally responsible for their own actions, b) honor others regardless of what they choose to do, c) maintain a state of constant present-time awareness, d) follow their own internal codes of conduct, e) find their passion, and f) dance their passion into existance. Doing any one of these things is difficult even for people we call "aware" or "cool" or "respectable". Doing all of them can put the person at odds with "consensus" and evoke a palpable state of fear. This is why these things are not done commonly. It takes someone really in tune with themselves. True Anarchy can only be achieved when enough people who take the above steps live and work together in the same area. At this point, there is no need for government, police, lawyers, courts, contracts, trolls, or even charters for mailing lists. People naturally do the thing that is appropriate, it never even occurs to anyone to "hurt" someone else in any way, it never occurs to anyone to be "hurt" by anything other than someone else's physical actions, and everyone is able to get along with others as naturally as eating or sleeping. No one's ready for this, yet. Painting it as evil or fearful just marks you as someone who isn't there yet or has no reference points to it. (That's not a bad thing, either.) The lack of reference points may stimulate you to pick this idea apart. I'll point out now that every argument you lob against this concept stems directly out of your fear...don't ask why, I can't explain it logically. >> >> You look at this as a forced action. I look at this as the test for >> >> the next evolutionary level of community. If the community can >> >> withstand even the toughest troll and yet refrain from implementing >> >> such draconian and fascist measures, that community is on a higher >> >> evolutionary level than it's counterparts. >> > >> > And if not, we'll throw them up against the wall and remove >> > the genes that permit such dissent to arise in the first >> > place. >> >> I didn't say that. You did. The real solution is for individuals >> to make trolls irrelavent. Until we can do that as a group, we >> aren't there yet. > > Make them irrelevent by removing them from the gene pool? By > removing their mail accounts? By denying them DNS services? By > blocking packets from them at our routers and firewalls? I > didn't expect you to advocate the Spanish Inquisition... but > then I guess no one expects that. ;^). I'm sorry, I guess you forgot that you have the absolute power to control your online input. You can make a troll irrelevant in a number of ways: - deleting the message - refusing to read the message past a certain point - reading the message and forcing yourself not to react - reading the message, laughing, and moving to the next message (my fav) - reading the message, getting up, going out the door, enjoying the weather, and forgetting about it - scanning subject lines in your email box and deciding from that what to read - Assigning each message a boolean value called "is_troll". A genetic algorithm will then be used to attempt to evolve filter criteria for your mail. - reading the message, noticing the reaction in you, tracing the reaction internally, meditating on the reaction, finding what it is in you that causes you to react, altering what causes you to react. These are just off the top of my head. I can come up with others if you like? ;) >> > In the limit, though, no one in the majority minds a fasciest >> > state. So deleting the minority is topologically equivalent to >> > tolerating them, >> >> I don't accept that. Deleting them means there are no more tests to >> tolerance, which means tolerance becomes weak. If another problem were >> to surface which required strong tolerance, the problem would not be >> solv-ed. > > So, for example, if you don't constantly pound on your skull with > a brick, in six months time, the first loose brick you see will, > without a doubt, be fatal to you from six yards away? This example is such a straw man. There's a real difference between a brick and a troll. If you doubt me, try both and see which hurts more. > What you are describing is an overly simplistic version of a > mutual security game. IYHO. ;) >> > If you like anarchy, you can always go hang out where anarchy >> > is welcome, instead of where it is not... >> >> This was true before you asserted it, and remains true after your >> attempt to make it a straw man. ;) > > The "instead" is the important part. Actually, the important part is our disagreement as to where to hang out. >> >> Trolls are a necessary consequence to a community of individuals which >> >> provide evolutionary pressure that benefits everyone in the long >> >> run. They are not glorified, they should not also be villified. They >> >> simply exist. Why waste energy seeing them any other way? >> > >> > Why punch the guy with the ghetto blaster on the public subway >> > in the face, and smash the ghetto blaster to bits? >> >> Because you haven't learned tolerance? > > Because it's not societys job to accomodate the every whim of > the sociopathic individual? Accomodation and toleration are a bit different, don't you think? This is a matter of scope. On a subway, you are pretty much stuck there (you can change trains of course) physically. On a mailing list, you have this wonderful button on your monitor that makes anything anyone says irrelevant...it's called the "off" switch. You don't have to be on a mailing list. You don't have to read each and every message on said list. > There may not be choices we prefer over others. I prefer to choose > not to tolerate sociopaths. If they are killing many people daily, I can see this. Killing a mailing list troll is a bit extreme, don't you think? >> > The recent spate of trolls on the FreeBSD mailing lists also >> > belies your theory: if your theory were correct, they would >> > have been there all along, and not be a relatively recent >> > phenomenon. How do you explain that away? >> >> Just because they don't post doesn't mean they aren't there. > Er, interesting theory... ever heard of Occam's Razor? I don't shave, I have a beard. ;) >> Perhaps they were biding their time? > I guess we will all die of Ebola next Thursday at 17:05 Zulu, > since we are all infected, the virus has merely been "biding > its time". Sneaky bastard, that Ebola... 8-) 8-O. You are an interesting person, I must say. Your examples are only weakly parallel to the actual issues, yet you are convinced of them with the force of a thousand zealots. I see my mirror in you, sir, and I am grateful for the chance to observe this. =) >> >> > There's a cost for everything, isn't there? The trick is to >> >> > choose actions which result in outcomes with the highest total >> >> > sum, even if that leaves you with a lower individual sum in the >> >> > short term. >> >> >> >> In short, "he who dies with the most toys wins"? That I don't buy. >> > >> > That's an incorrect paraphrasing of my statement. The highest >> > total sum is the *net* sum for all members of the society. >> > An individual is expected to conform to social norms. >> >> That is the entire problem with our planet to date. This is not the >> original purpose of the individual, nor does this game of maximizing >> sum have any meaning outside of the society it is in. > > Well, I think I speak for everyone -That- is the number one cause of trolling. > when I say that you're always free to find another planet, > where you declare what (IYHO) you believe the purpose of the > individual to be, and then deport anyone who doesn't agree with > you.... Man, do you miss the point. >> Society expects individuals to conform to a standard that may or may >> not be appropriate for any particular individual to conform to. This >> tries to limit the genetic search space of the planet. It's >> counterproductive to the global algorithm. It also backfires >> constantly. > Socially approapriate? Appropriate in what context? You are > starting to sound like Archimedes Plutonium... Who? >> >> The real "better", if it exists, exists for everyone. >> > The avowed racist and the cannibal? >> Them too. > No, not them too. The benefits of society do not accrue to those > who would destroy it. Perhaps the cannibal learns to eat prisoners, and the racist goes to live among his kind. >> > That's like the PETA representative, who, when forced to >> > address the issue of tigers eating other animals, said "Can't >> > we just teach them to eat grass?". >> >> This flys in the face of: >> >> > An individual is expected to conform to social norms. >> >> Some individuals aren't here to do what society wants them to. I feel >> it's dishonorable to expect them to conform. > > What about locking them up, and having no expectations of > them, other than that they not escape, and that they will > eventually die of natural causes? Everytime I point to this, you presume that the individual in question is some sort of extreme mass murderer. Where we fail to communicate is that I am pointing to the misfit, not the murderer. While both are nonconformists, there is a difference in degree and manner of their non-conformity. The tiger is the tiger. Do not expect the tiger to act like the rabbit. Yet, each animal has his place in the ecosystem. > Are you arguing that it is *never* right to segregate people > from the larger society? Not really. I'm arguing against this knee-jerk "hang em till they rot" attitude that I think I see in you applied to people who's only crime is thinking different than the pack. You keep using murderers in your examples and I keep using artists. It's not working. >> >> Still, Microsoft (damn them) has the highest market share...even tho >> >> they leave much to be desired as a computer software company...people >> >> -still- buy their products when better free ones exist. We computer >> >> experts don't understand this, but it illustrates quite nicely that >> >> there are more dimensions of optima to "better" than we can quantify. >> > >> > Normatively better free ones *do not* exist. Techincally >> > better, yes; normatively better, no. >> >> In effect you are saying if everyone uses FooOS, there's nothing >> normatively better. Is that really useful? > > Yes, in terms of reduction in duplication of effort. There are > at least 80 million people in the U.S. (my numbers are old; this > is likely more today) who interact with Microsoft Windows in one > way or another on a daily basis. The training costs for a single > application run to US$2,500 per seat. That's $200 billion dollars > of training, alone, totally ignoring data. > Whatever wanted to displace it would have to have a normative value > in excess of $200 billion *above* the equal base value of the OS > itself. I thought M$ claim to fame was "easy to use applications that didn't need training". I don't know if I buy this one. >> > On a similar note, we have ~1.6 million people in prison, and >> > another 4.4 million on probation in this country (~2.5% of the >> > total population). I have no problem with them being forcibly >> > removed from society for their failure to obey norms of human >> > behaviour, either. >> >> I do. Those are our survival as a race should a real mega-disaster >> happen. Without them, we don't survive (unless a mega-disaster >> never happens). > > You must see some redeeming traits in the Jeffrey Dahlmer's of > the world that I don't. I see genetics, genetic algorithms, and I can kind of percieve the grandeur of the unanswered genetic question we are solving. I recognize that "that one asshole" has to be there or we don't search the space of all solutions completely. I also recognize we can't know the question, so we shouldn't assume that someone doesn't have that answer...whoever or whatever that someone is. Before you go there (which you apparently will), I'm not condoning murder or rape or any of that. I merely recognize that it is impossible for me to control other people, and that real control begins with yourself, which has a better chance of success than anything else. I don't kill, steal, rape, etc, and that's good enough for me. Most of my examples of "sociopaths" were constructed with artists and misfits in mind. There are those I know who think so different from you that you would most assuredly panic upon the first attempt to communicate. One could even say the people in this fora are "misfits" of a sort since they certainly don't fit the actual norm of society. You are using murderers because you hate trolls. I consider that intellectually dishonest, but I give you some slack on that since I recognize that you are human and have these kinds of emotions. Also, maybe I should be picking stronger examples of sociopaths, and maybe the fact that I don't is just as dishonest. Perhaps I just wish you'd try to see what I'm saying, instead of swinging that sword so much. ;) >> > People who can only contribute destruction should be removed >> > from the gene pool. >> >> Nonsense. Creation and destruction are a dance. Both need to exist >> for either to exist. How would you destroy an old building or find >> out that a piece of software has security holes without those kind >> of people? > > That's a joke, right? Nope. That's how the universe works. > You're not seriously advocating that script kiddies serve a social > good which is not already served by the people who originally > discovered the problems, or that those who discover the problems, > but exploit rather than disclosing them are somehow beneficial to > society? There you go with that extrema again. Pick your examples carefully and you'll always win, right? Think about it. Without script kiddies and exploiters, how would the systems get stronger? ------ Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<< "What's so special about the Net? People -still- don't listen..." -The Unknown Drummer To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Aug 28 5:15:46 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BB2637B400 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 05:15:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from swan.mail.pas.earthlink.net (swan.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.123]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60BEA43E4A for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 05:15:27 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0018.cvx40-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([216.244.42.18] helo=mindspring.com) by swan.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17k1io-0003w0-00; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 05:14:54 -0700 Message-ID: <3D6CBE34.133FC2C2@mindspring.com> Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 05:12:36 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Schultz Cc: Dave Hayes , Lawrence Sica , Giorgos Keramidas , Ceri Davies , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? References: <200208281030.g7SAUJ101187@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> <20020828114634.GA6286@HAL9000.homeunix.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org David Schultz wrote: > Thus spake Dave Hayes : > [snip psychobabble] > > I'm sorry, I guess you forgot that you have the absolute power to > > control your online input. You can make a troll irrelevant in a number > > of ways: [ ... ] > It wouldn't be too hard to filter. Three components come to mind > for a solution to the recent troll problem: [ ... ] Nice toy. Like all fitering proposals, though, it doesn't really keep people from having to pay for connect time, or spend elapsed transfer time, downloading unwanted messages. The normal way you handle this is to subscribe to lists where anti-troll ordinances are enforced (obviously, this doesn't generally include "-chat"). Dave thinks this is robbing the trolls of their right to speak, but I would maintain that usenet is still available for that purpose, and so are street corners and PTA meetings, so you might as well keep it off the mailing lists. In the limit, though, there's always "Yeah, it robs them of their rights; we're a repressive fasciest society; get over it". 8-). -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Aug 28 6:42:32 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D16337B400 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 06:42:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gull.mail.pas.earthlink.net (gull.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.84]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CA8243E72 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 06:42:13 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0113.cvx22-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([209.179.198.113] helo=mindspring.com) by gull.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17k34M-00078T-00; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 06:41:14 -0700 Message-ID: <3D6CD242.F86BCC1F@mindspring.com> Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 06:38:10 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dave Hayes Cc: Lawrence Sica , Giorgos Keramidas , Ceri Davies , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? References: <200208281030.g7SAUJ101187@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Dave Hayes wrote: > >> > It's the consensus that a consensus defines correctness. 8-). > >> > >> Unfortunately, adherence to this consensus prevents you from > >> seeing anything else that might be there. > > > > IYHO. 8-). > > Actually no. It's observable to yourself if you are willing to do the > work or open the eyes a bit. I can't do this for you because...well > that would be a consensus blinding you. ;) This is patently false. You can commit to comply with consensus, while still dissenting. Civil disobedience isn't the only possible means of protest, and it not that effective compared to, say, being elected to congress. > >> For example, it was one time known by consensus that the correct > >> viewpoint was that the world was flat... > > > > And it was, for all intents and purposes. As a working hypothesis, > > it's as good an approximation as, say, Newtonian mechanics. > > Yet it wasn't exact, and the example holds as to how consensus can > blind you to the exact truth. The exact truth is a Platonic ideal; it's not achievable in the real world (give us a couple hundred thousand years and check back, though). The closest you can ever get is a working hypothesis. Accepting that fact is how we ended up with things like light bulbs that worked, even though the Catholic Church had a good 1800 years to get "how to make light bulbs" as revealed truth. > It's not provable, no. > > Also, my opinions are seldom humble, being a creature of ego. Har. ;^) > > It's useful in that it's predictive. That's makes it one up on > > uncontrolled anarchy. > > Anarchy is always perceived as uncontrolled. This stems from a > commonly held fear-based view of that state, usually reinforced by > people wanting to make sure you are supportive of whatever government > is in place. In other words "Yes, you are advocating anarchy". That's fine, as long as you realize that the vast majority of humans *like* predictability, and anything besides that is outside their comfort zone, and short of insurrection, you are not going to get the anarchy you want. > You see, people that talk about revolutions, people who hate this or > that government...they are all misguided. I believe "The Who" said it > best: "Meet the new boss, he's the same as the old boss". Mankind's > evolutionary state is such that no matter what organization or > community forms, corruption, inefficiency and politics will derail any > -real- "good" that said organization can do. So work on human evolution, instead of pissing in people's campfires because they aren't building fusion powered heaters fast enough for you. > This is not a bad or good thing, it simply indicates the current level > of human evolution. Humans are not ready for the next level at the > moment. Says you and Ted Kaczynski. > This is because it's terribly frightening to most humans to a) > be personally responsible for their own actions, b) honor others > regardless of what they choose to do, c) maintain a state of constant > present-time awareness, d) follow their own internal codes of conduct, > e) find their passion, and f) dance their passion into existance. (d) is problematic. > Doing any one of these things is difficult even for people we call > "aware" or "cool" or "respectable". Doing all of them can put the > person at odds with "consensus" and evoke a palpable state of fear. > This is why these things are not done commonly. It takes someone > really in tune with themselves. Or a sociopath. > True Anarchy can only be achieved when enough people who take the > above steps live and work together in the same area. At this point, > there is no need for government, police, lawyers, courts, contracts, > trolls, or even charters for mailing lists. People naturally do the > thing that is appropriate, it never even occurs to anyone to "hurt" > someone else in any way, it never occurs to anyone to be "hurt" by > anything other than someone else's physical actions, and everyone > is able to get along with others as naturally as eating or sleeping. You forgot about people who eat people. > No one's ready for this, yet. Painting it as evil or fearful just > marks you as someone who isn't there yet or has no reference points to > it. (That's not a bad thing, either.) The lack of reference points may > stimulate you to pick this idea apart. I'll point out now that every > argument you lob against this concept stems directly out of your > fear...don't ask why, I can't explain it logically. You seem to believe that I disagree with your psotion because I don't understand it, but in fact I *do* understand it, and while it has the same seductive logic of true communism, it ignores the fact that human beings are biological machines, and no matter how enlightened everyone starts out being, there are bound to be malfunctions or even bad initial blueprints. One of the first communist communities was The State Of Deseret, which covered much of the Southwest, but shrunk until it was just Utah, in order to obtain statehood. If you needed new pants, you went and got a pair of new pants. It failed when kids found out they could turn a pair of pants they didn't like into "old pants needing replacement" by backing into the grinding wheel, among other abuses of the system. If it's "to each. according to his need", well, then, all that's really necessary is to manufacture "need". > >> I didn't say that. You did. The real solution is for individuals > >> to make trolls irrelavent. Until we can do that as a group, we > >> aren't there yet. > > > > Make them irrelevent by removing them from the gene pool? By > > removing their mail accounts? By denying them DNS services? By > > blocking packets from them at our routers and firewalls? I > > didn't expect you to advocate the Spanish Inquisition... but > > then I guess no one expects that. ;^). > > I'm sorry, I guess you forgot that you have the absolute power to > control your online input. You can make a troll irrelevant in a number > of ways: [ ... ] None of these work to avoid costing me storage space or time to download, or per packet charges to download, etc.. The closest you can get is ISP's doing server-side filtering, which is not really something you are going to be able to get them to do, since such filtering requires CPU resources, and those resources have to be paid for somehow. > These are just off the top of my head. I can come up with others if > you like? ;) Yes. Come up with one that lets me not download or store the message in the first place, and takes no ISP resources to filter. The easiest one I can think of is requiring sender certificates. > >> I don't accept that. Deleting them means there are no more tests to > >> tolerance, which means tolerance becomes weak. If another problem were > >> to surface which required strong tolerance, the problem would not be > >> solv-ed. > > > > So, for example, if you don't constantly pound on your skull with > > a brick, in six months time, the first loose brick you see will, > > without a doubt, be fatal to you from six yards away? > > This example is such a straw man. There's a real difference between a > brick and a troll. If you doubt me, try both and see which hurts > more. The troll. I can make the brick stop any time I want. > > What you are describing is an overly simplistic version of a > > mutual security game. > > IYHO. ;) Actually, according to complexity theorists: http://www.santafe.edu/sfi/indexResearch.html http://www-chaos.umd.edu/ http://cnls.lanl.gov http://t13.lanl.gov http://www.ccsr.uiuc.edu http://www.beckman.uiuc.edu http://www.nbi.dk 8-). > Actually, the important part is our disagreement as to where to hang > out. ??? > > Because it's not societys job to accomodate the every whim of > > the sociopathic individual? > > Accomodation and toleration are a bit different, don't you think? No. If you tolerate a behaviour, you implicitly condone that behaviour. > This is a matter of scope. On a subway, you are pretty much stuck > there (you can change trains of course) physically. On a mailing list, > you have this wonderful button on your monitor that makes anything > anyone says irrelevant...it's called the "off" switch. You don't have > to be on a mailing list. You don't have to read each and every message > on said list. Or I don't have to hang out on lists with trolls. But your theory says no matter what list I'm on, trolls will be an emergent part of the environment, and that I should not block their access to the list, merely because the name of the list is "list with no trolls" or something similar. I, on the other hand, feel perfectly comfortable blocking access to the list for eggregious disruption of the lists ability to fulfill its charter. > > There may not be choices we prefer over others. I prefer to choose > > not to tolerate sociopaths. > > If they are killing many people daily, I can see this. Killing a > mailing list troll is a bit extreme, don't you think? Let me get back to you on that... > >> > The recent spate of trolls on the FreeBSD mailing lists also > >> > belies your theory: if your theory were correct, they would > >> > have been there all along, and not be a relatively recent > >> > phenomenon. How do you explain that away? > >> > >> Just because they don't post doesn't mean they aren't there. > > > Er, interesting theory... ever heard of Occam's Razor? > > I don't shave, I have a beard. ;) The simplest theory is that they weren't there until recently, and all things being equal, the simplest explanation is the best. Of course, I have a theory on why they have arrived, and what their actual goals are (they are not the goals or purpose you state for trolls, in general, because they are not the emergent environmental trolls you claim are the only possible trolls), and I could even give them pointers, since they probably have not bothered to mathematically model the project that they are attempting to disrupt (they are probably incapable of doing the necessary math, actually). So rather than pushing "the right buttons", they are shot-gunning, and hopping to hit the right button by accident. They are incredibly bad social engineers. > >> Perhaps they were biding their time? > > I guess we will all die of Ebola next Thursday at 17:05 Zulu, > > since we are all infected, the virus has merely been "biding > > its time". Sneaky bastard, that Ebola... 8-) 8-O. > > You are an interesting person, I must say. Your examples are only > weakly parallel to the actual issues, yet you are convinced of them > with the force of a thousand zealots. I see my mirror in you, sir, > and I am grateful for the chance to observe this. =) It's an intentional tit-for-tat. > >> That is the entire problem with our planet to date. This is not the > >> original purpose of the individual, nor does this game of maximizing > >> sum have any meaning outside of the society it is in. > > > > Well, I think I speak for everyone > > -That- is the number one cause of trolling. People cutting off people's sentences in the middle in order to take them out of context? 8-). > > when I say that you're always free to find another planet, > > where you declare what (IYHO) you believe the purpose of the > > individual to be, and then deport anyone who doesn't agree with > > you.... > > Man, do you miss the point. My failure to agree with you is not a failure of you to properly communicate what you feel is the worth of your thesis, it's a result of my disagreement with that thesis. > >> Society expects individuals to conform to a standard that may or may > >> not be appropriate for any particular individual to conform to. This > >> tries to limit the genetic search space of the planet. It's > >> counterproductive to the global algorithm. It also backfires > >> constantly. > > Socially appropriate? Appropriate in what context? You are > > starting to sound like Archimedes Plutonium... > > Who? Well known usenet troll from the late 1980's, early 1990's, had a particular fondness for the fusion related science newgroups. He was tolerated because the commercial people had not yet come in and turned the place into a sewer. > >> >> The real "better", if it exists, exists for everyone. > >> > The avowed racist and the cannibal? > >> Them too. > > No, not them too. The benefits of society do not accrue to those > > who would destroy it. > > Perhaps the cannibal learns to eat prisoners, and the racist goes > to live among his kind. What about your putative "troll" of "the wrong race" who chooses as his means moving in next door to the racist who is actually in the process of attempting to "live among his own kind"? What about the putative "troll" whose "moral code" requires that when he eats people, he only eat people "who stood a sporting chance at not being eaten, or eating him instead" -- which would definitely not include the prisoners you are willing to feed to him. > >> > An individual is expected to conform to social norms. > >> > >> Some individuals aren't here to do what society wants them to. I feel > >> it's dishonorable to expect them to conform. > > > > What about locking them up, and having no expectations of > > them, other than that they not escape, and that they will > > eventually die of natural causes? > > Everytime I point to this, you presume that the individual in question > is some sort of extreme mass murderer. Where we fail to communicate is > that I am pointing to the misfit, not the murderer. While both are > nonconformists, there is a difference in degree and manner of their > non-conformity. Reductio ad absurdum: I argue the extreme case because it is the case that must be addressed in order to set boundary conditions other than "it doesn't bother me that much, so you live with it because I live with it". Only when the extremes are addressed is there a range in which to locate imtermediate cases. Your continued attempts to address the "what do we do or not do with minor misfits, once we have built the anarchists utopia" presumes premises which I'm not willing to accept directly, merely for the sake of argument (actually, you haven't *asked* that your premises be conditionally accepted that way, you've simply held them forth as something everyone should just naturally accept). One of these is that "all trolls are only minor misfits", and another is that "minor misfits should be tolerated in the utopian anarchy". > The tiger is the tiger. Do not expect the tiger to act like the > rabbit. Yet, each animal has his place in the ecosystem. Pigeons are a non-native species in North and South America. > > Are you arguing that it is *never* right to segregate people > > from the larger society? > > Not really. I'm arguing against this knee-jerk "hang em till they rot" > attitude that I think I see in you applied to people who's only crime > is thinking different than the pack. You keep using murderers in your > examples and I keep using artists. I don't want to "hang em till they rot", I just want to block their postings to a particular set of mailing lists. On the flip side, you keep portraying sender blocking as if it were some form of capital punishment, inviting extreme comparisons. > It's not working. That's because trolling is not "art", any more than any other criminal activity is "art". > > Whatever wanted to displace it would have to have a normative value > > in excess of $200 billion *above* the equal base value of the OS > > itself. > > I thought M$ claim to fame was "easy to use applications that > didn't need training". I don't know if I buy this one. What is claimed, and what is, are often two different things. > >> I do. Those are our survival as a race should a real mega-disaster > >> happen. Without them, we don't survive (unless a mega-disaster > >> never happens). > > > > You must see some redeeming traits in the Jeffrey Dahlmer's of > > the world that I don't. > > I see genetics, genetic algorithms, and I can kind of percieve the > grandeur of the unanswered genetic question we are solving. "42". > I recognize that "that one asshole" has to be there or we don't > search the space of all solutions completely. I also recognize > we can't know the question, so we shouldn't assume that someone > doesn't have that answer...whoever or whatever that someone is. What is being searched or searched for, and who and where are the pan-dimensional mice who entered the search terms? > Before you go there (which you apparently will), I'm not condoning > murder or rape or any of that. I merely recognize that it is > impossible for me to control other people, and that real control > begins with yourself, which has a better chance of success than > anything else. I don't kill, steal, rape, etc, and that's good enough > for me. I don't think it's possible for individuals to assert any important amount of control over more than a few people, either. But it's demonstrably true that society can, and does, exert such control. Where you seem to differ from me is that I think it *should*. > Most of my examples of "sociopaths" were constructed with artists and > misfits in mind. There are those I know who think so different from > you that you would most assuredly panic upon the first attempt to > communicate. One could even say the people in this fora are "misfits" > of a sort since they certainly don't fit the actual norm of society. Hardly; I'm merely playing angel's advocate to your devil, for a behaviour that I personally find extremely undesirable, and likely to result in consequences you claim you want to avoid. > You are using murderers because you hate trolls. I consider that > intellectually dishonest, but I give you some slack on that since > I recognize that you are human and have these kinds of emotions. > Also, maybe I should be picking stronger examples of sociopaths, > and maybe the fact that I don't is just as dishonest. I'm picking extreme examples of antisocial behaviour because of the reasons I have outlined above. I do, in fact, hate the behaviour of trolls, and would just as soon that it were made technologically impossible for them to persist in such behaviour without the consent of the targets of the targets they act out against. I look at this as a design problem, like the TCP protocol requiring two response packets for a single request packet, with no means of retransmit, or like gravity. The trolls can't disobey the laws of physics merely because it suits them to do so; niether should "the laws of physics of mailing lists" permit such behaviour. Rather than stepping of the cliff and just hanging there, it would be nice if, when they steped off the cliff, there were consequences that were enforced automatically, imparitally, and immediately. > Perhaps I just wish you'd try to see what I'm saying, instead > of swinging that sword so much. ;) I understand that you're claiming trolls are not sociopaths, they are merely people with the email equivalent of Tourette's Syndrome. Understand me, when I say I won't hire these people to work the mailing lists, any more than I'd hire myself as a spotter. > > You're not seriously advocating that script kiddies serve a social > > good which is not already served by the people who originally > > discovered the problems, or that those who discover the problems, > > but exploit rather than disclosing them are somehow beneficial to > > society? > > There you go with that extrema again. Pick your examples carefully and > you'll always win, right? Overgeneralize to include all destructive acts under your umbrella, without addressing a specific case that could be shot down, and you'll always lose, right? > Think about it. Without script kiddies and exploiters, how would the > systems get stronger? Why would the systems *need* to be stronger, if there weren't script kiddies and exploiters? But I'll answer the question: by design, and by disclosure of weaknesses by a third party. There's no need for a Morris worm, "Code Red", a Virus, or actual use of an exploit against a target by hundreds or even thousands of people who could never write the code themselves in the first place, for the problem to be disclosed. Merely disclosing the problem to the right people should be sufficient, and if it isn't, diclosure to the public at large is. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Aug 28 8:50:11 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA22E37B401 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 08:50:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from omta01.mta.everyone.net (sitemail3.everyone.net [216.200.145.37]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DC5F43E4A for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 08:50:03 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from ltambert2@digiverse.net) Received: from sitemail.everyone.net (dsnat [216.200.145.62]) by omta01.mta.everyone.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63A7E1C58F6 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 08:50:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: by sitemail.everyone.net (Postfix, from userid 99) id 37CC33960; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 08:50:03 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 5.41 (Entity 5.404) Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 08:50:03 -0700 (PDT) From: Lerrence Tambert To: chat@freebsd.org Subject: Incredible Reply-To: ltambert2@digiverse.net X-Originating-Ip: [208.189.97.90] Message-Id: <20020828155003.37CC33960@sitemail.everyone.net> Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org I can't believe the amount of BS that I'm seeing posted here. Terry, stop posting SHIT, please, nobody gives a flying fuck about Zen, or Aristotle, ok? Then we have all the other people who replied to those trolls, sometimes with insulting comments, without realizing they just showed what a bunch of clueless fuckwits they are. Never judge a persons IQ by his willing to troll or crapflood. Those are not related. And don't assume I've never written good software just because I decided to troll a bit. I've probably written more lines of quality C and assembler now than most of you will in your entire life. Then we have the people shouting loud "You're a troll!". That I am and worse, much worse, but I do have ethics. Let's not get started on the amount of crapflooding now going on freebsd-security@, so the signal/noise ratio was low? Gimme a break, it's 0 now! Gentlement, don't confuse kindness with weakness. Sincerely, Lerrence BTW, greetings to Jordan Hubbard[1] [1] "When i think of "politics," i think of Jordan Hubbard, flat out lying about what's in, or going to be in, FreeBSD, or what the system can do, or what's wrong with the system. (worth noting: I've come to understand Kolstad, even see him as a reasonable person. I see jordan as a _liar_, period.) _that's_ not the game that we, or i, play." Chris G Demetriou (NetBSD core team) _____________________________________________________________ Tired of spam from Hotmail? >>> http://www.digiverse.net yourname@digiverse - a unique name for your unique personality _____________________________________________________________ Promote your group and strengthen ties to your members with email@yourgroup.org by Everyone.net http://www.everyone.net/?btn=tag To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Aug 28 11:39: 9 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79BCC37B497 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 11:39:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.speakeasy.net (mail15.speakeasy.net [216.254.0.215]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2309E43E42 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 11:39:01 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jhb@FreeBSD.org) Received: (qmail 10252 invoked from network); 28 Aug 2002 18:39:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO server.baldwin.cx) ([216.27.160.63]) (envelope-sender ) by mail15.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with DES-CBC3-SHA encrypted SMTP for ; 28 Aug 2002 18:39:00 -0000 Received: from laptop.baldwin.cx (gw1.twc.weather.com [216.133.140.1]) by server.baldwin.cx (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g7SIcxBQ042689 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 14:38:59 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jhb@FreeBSD.org) Message-ID: X-Mailer: XFMail 1.5.2 on FreeBSD X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 14:39:02 -0400 (EDT) From: John Baldwin To: chat@FreeBSD.org Subject: Troll Bait Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Hey, I feel left out since I haven't had a troll abuse my name or give me shouts. :-P Well, there were some falsely attributed IRC quotes, so maybe I'll just have to settle for simple libel. -- John Baldwin <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Aug 28 14:45:39 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63CAC37B400 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 14:45:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailhost2.dircon.co.uk (mailhost2.dircon.co.uk [194.112.32.66]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9058343E65 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 14:45:36 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mark@blackmans.org) Received: from mail.blackmans.org (unknown [195.157.223.19]) by mailhost2.dircon.co.uk (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C4D262F04; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 22:45:35 +0100 (BST) Received: by mail.blackmans.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id B0BA51842; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 22:45:34 +0100 (BST) Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 22:45:34 +0100 From: Mark Blackman To: Santos Cc: chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Is this still actual? Message-ID: <20020828224534.A68623@maddog.netscalibur.co.uk> References: <3D6B9E78.6060407@myrealbox.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <3D6B9E78.6060407@myrealbox.com>; from casd@myrealbox.com on Tue, Aug 27, 2002 at 04:44:56PM +0100 Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org a) he didn't do enough tuning even in the second instance b) he didn't give enough information about his application to allow further tuning. c) the biggest problem was that his application was binary only and you had to pay for it. FreeBSD is fine, faster on some things, slower in others. On Tue, Aug 27, 2002 at 04:44:56PM +0100, Santos wrote: > http://www.samag.com/documents/s=1148/sam0107a/0107a.htm and > http://www.samag.com/documents/s=1147/sam0108q/0108q.htm > > Even with FreeBSD tuned, it only has similar performance comparing to > the others untuned OSes, including Windows 2000! I thought FreeBSD was > the fastest on x86. They used their MailEngine software but still.. > Maybe using a diferent MTA would show other favorably results? > So, why people say FreeBSD is the fastest, when benchmarks prove the > contrary? What has changed, perfomance-wise since that article (july 2001)? > > > Santos > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Aug 28 18:29: 5 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 352FF37B40B for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 18:28:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org [64.239.180.8]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54C4343E6E for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 18:28:39 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@jetcafe.org) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7T1QC106932; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 18:26:12 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org) Message-Id: <200208290126.g7T1QC106932@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Terry Lambert Cc: Dave Hayes , Lawrence Sica , Giorgos Keramidas , Ceri Davies , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 18:26:06 -0700 From: Dave Hayes Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Terry Lambert writes: > Dave Hayes wrote: >> >> > It's the consensus that a consensus defines correctness. 8-). >> >> >> >> Unfortunately, adherence to this consensus prevents you from >> >> seeing anything else that might be there. >> > >> > IYHO. 8-). >> >> Actually no. It's observable to yourself if you are willing to do the >> work or open the eyes a bit. I can't do this for you because...well >> that would be a consensus blinding you. ;) > > This is patently false. You can commit to comply with consensus, > while still dissenting. If you are dissenting or complying, you are still acknowledging that consensus still exists and has meaning. If you do neither, consensus stops having meaning, and then you are open to different perceptions. > Civil disobedience isn't the only possible means of protest, and it > not that effective compared to, say, being elected to congress. That's not effective either. Those who think congress really runs America are enjoying a most delicious delusion. >> >> For example, it was one time known by consensus that the correct >> >> viewpoint was that the world was flat... >> > >> > And it was, for all intents and purposes. As a working hypothesis, >> > it's as good an approximation as, say, Newtonian mechanics. >> >> Yet it wasn't exact, and the example holds as to how consensus can >> blind you to the exact truth. > > The exact truth is a Platonic ideal; it's not achievable in the > real world The real world is an Aristotlean ideal; it doesn't exist in the space of exact truth. =P For the simpler minded, John Mayer said it best. >> > It's useful in that it's predictive. That's makes it one up on >> > uncontrolled anarchy. >> >> Anarchy is always perceived as uncontrolled. This stems from a >> commonly held fear-based view of that state, usually reinforced by >> people wanting to make sure you are supportive of whatever government >> is in place. > > In other words "Yes, you are advocating anarchy". Horrors! I have commited the most grevious sin of not speaking against that evil of evils... ANARCHY Actually if you look, I'm not really advocating that. But it's more fun not to look. ;) > That's fine, as long as you realize that the vast majority of humans > *like* predictability, and anything besides that is outside their > comfort zone, and short of insurrection, you are not going to get > the anarchy you want. I don't -want- it. It's there to be, if possible. Anything I want is in the way of what I truly need. But that's another 10 message interchange. >> You see, people that talk about revolutions, people who hate this or >> that government...they are all misguided. I believe "The Who" said it >> best: "Meet the new boss, he's the same as the old boss". Mankind's >> evolutionary state is such that no matter what organization or >> community forms, corruption, inefficiency and politics will derail any >> -real- "good" that said organization can do. > > So work on human evolution, instead of pissing in people's > campfires because they aren't building fusion powered heaters > fast enough for you. Who's pissing in people's campfires now? Did you even read what I said with intent to understand, or are you just looking for a good time in argument? >> This is not a bad or good thing, it simply indicates the current level >> of human evolution. Humans are not ready for the next level at the >> moment. > Says you and Ted Kaczynski. Who? >> This is because it's terribly frightening to most humans to a) >> be personally responsible for their own actions, b) honor others >> regardless of what they choose to do, c) maintain a state of constant >> present-time awareness, d) follow their own internal codes of conduct, >> e) find their passion, and f) dance their passion into existance. > (d) is problematic. For you, maybe. I find, once I remove the consensual pressure to conform, that it's rather impossible to violate your own internal codes. Remember that you can't say anything about another's violations, just your own. >> Doing any one of these things is difficult even for people we call >> "aware" or "cool" or "respectable". Doing all of them can put the >> person at odds with "consensus" and evoke a palpable state of fear. >> This is why these things are not done commonly. It takes someone >> really in tune with themselves. > Or a sociopath. If you define sociopath as "one who refuses to conform to consensual standards just because they are consensual standards", I'd agree, > You forgot about people who eat people. I always forget them, they aren't real to me. I've never seen one. Even if I had seen one, I wouldn't focus on that one extrema as my shining example of why sociopathy is wrong and you must conform. >> No one's ready for this, yet. Painting it as evil or fearful just >> marks you as someone who isn't there yet or has no reference points to >> it. (That's not a bad thing, either.) The lack of reference points may >> stimulate you to pick this idea apart. I'll point out now that every >> argument you lob against this concept stems directly out of your >> fear...don't ask why, I can't explain it logically. > You seem to believe that I disagree with your psotion because I > don't understand it, If you understood it, you wouldn't be saying what you have been saying, nor presenting the examples you have been presenting. > but in fact I *do* understand it, and while > it has the same seductive logic of true communism, it ignores the > fact that human beings are biological machines, and no matter how > enlightened everyone starts out being, there are bound to be > malfunctions or even bad initial blueprints. My "position", as you call it, takes this into account. You have to be immune (somehow) to the high sigma endpoints of the bell curve or you need to evolve more. > If it's "to each. according to his need", well, then, all that's > really necessary is to manufacture "need". "Need" has to be moved to "want" or even "desire" before what I was talking about can unfold. Put another way, no one will need or want to abuse the system, because it won't occur to them and because there really will be no system to abuse. You dont need a system if everyone is enlightened and aware. >> I'm sorry, I guess you forgot that you have the absolute power to >> control your online input. You can make a troll irrelevant in a number >> of ways: > None of these work to avoid costing me storage space or time to > download, or per packet charges to download, etc.. Well. Let's see just how much your averagea 4K message will cost you to store. I'll even give you a SCSI disk (more expensive). Current prices of 36GB scsi disks are $220-$250. We'll use $250 to give you even more leeway. This is just under 7 $/GB. A 4K message works out to costing you .00267 of a cent. Even if this person sent out 100 messages, that's .267 of a cent. I recognize some people are penny pinchers but...come on! ;) >> These are just off the top of my head. I can come up with others if >> you like? ;) > Yes. Come up with one that lets me not download or store the > message in the first place, and takes no ISP resources to filter. Unsubscribe to the mailing list? ;) > The easiest one I can think of is requiring sender certificates. Sorry. You are acting like one troll is a huge cost. It isn't. Let me assure you in my vast experience with trolls and message group communities, even 100 messages from 10 trolls only hurts the psyche of the community. Storage and transport costs are too cheap to care about what one person can do short of scripting floods. >> >> I don't accept that. Deleting them means there are no more tests to >> >> tolerance, which means tolerance becomes weak. If another problem were >> >> to surface which required strong tolerance, the problem would not be >> >> solv-ed. >> > >> > So, for example, if you don't constantly pound on your skull with >> > a brick, in six months time, the first loose brick you see will, >> > without a doubt, be fatal to you from six yards away? >> >> This example is such a straw man. There's a real difference between a >> brick and a troll. If you doubt me, try both and see which hurts >> more. > > The troll. I can make the brick stop any time I want. I find it hard to believe that you can stop a brick in mid flight to your brain, and yet you can't stop one troll from affecting your world with the flick of a single key. >> > What you are describing is an overly simplistic version of a >> > mutual security game. >> >> IYHO. ;) > > Actually, according to complexity theorists: ITHO. ;) > http://www.santafe.edu/sfi/indexResearch.html > http://www-chaos.umd.edu/ > http://cnls.lanl.gov > http://t13.lanl.gov > http://www.ccsr.uiuc.edu > http://www.beckman.uiuc.edu > http://www.nbi.dk While these are some excellent academic links, not a one of them has anything even remotely resembling what I was describing. >> Actually, the important part is our disagreement as to where to hang >> out. > ??? I hang out in many places, generally preferring the anarchistic to the overly fascist. You seemed to assert you only like fascist places. >> > Because it's not societys job to accomodate the every whim of >> > the sociopathic individual? >> >> Accomodation and toleration are a bit different, don't you think? > > No. If you tolerate a behaviour, you implicitly condone that > behaviour. Oh please. Not this tired old argument. Again, you are violating your "excluded middle" paradoxia. It's possible to neither condone nor decry a behavior, don't you think? Additionally, what kind of egotistical concept is it where you have to render forth on each behavior you see? >> This is a matter of scope. On a subway, you are pretty much stuck >> there (you can change trains of course) physically. On a mailing list, >> you have this wonderful button on your monitor that makes anything >> anyone says irrelevant...it's called the "off" switch. You don't have >> to be on a mailing list. You don't have to read each and every message >> on said list. > > Or I don't have to hang out on lists with trolls. But your theory > says no matter what list I'm on, trolls will be an emergent part > of the environment, Yes, some lists will rigorously block trolls and others will not. That doesn't mean the trolls don't exist or will not emerge. > and that I should not block their access to the list, merely because > the name of the list is "list with no trolls" or something similar. Let me rephrase what you think I said. -I- think that troll access should not be blocked. -You- can do whatever you want, but I would recommend that you learn to filter trolls out at your brain since it's demonstrably the most efficient way to do so. >> >> > The recent spate of trolls on the FreeBSD mailing lists also >> >> > belies your theory: if your theory were correct, they would >> >> > have been there all along, and not be a relatively recent >> >> > phenomenon. How do you explain that away? >> >> >> >> Just because they don't post doesn't mean they aren't there. >> >> > Er, interesting theory... ever heard of Occam's Razor? >> >> I don't shave, I have a beard. ;) > > The simplest theory is that they weren't there until recently, and > all things being equal, the simplest explanation is the best. I never agreed with Occam's Razor. Sometimes it's not accurate. > Of course, I have a theory on why they have arrived, and what > their actual goals are (they are not the goals or purpose you > state for trolls, in general, because they are not the emergent > environmental trolls you claim are the only possible trolls), Man, are you good at reading things into what I said that aren't there or what? Do I have to forumlate a set of theorems so you can dispute each one separately? > and I could even give them pointers, since they probably have > not bothered to mathematically model the project that they are > attempting to disrupt (they are probably incapable of doing the > necessary math, actually). Ok, so what is your theory? >> >> Perhaps they were biding their time? >> > I guess we will all die of Ebola next Thursday at 17:05 Zulu, >> > since we are all infected, the virus has merely been "biding >> > its time". Sneaky bastard, that Ebola... 8-) 8-O. >> >> You are an interesting person, I must say. Your examples are only >> weakly parallel to the actual issues, yet you are convinced of them >> with the force of a thousand zealots. I see my mirror in you, sir, >> and I am grateful for the chance to observe this. =) > > It's an intentional tit-for-tat. Of course, oh superior one. Tell me what else I should know? =) >> >> That is the entire problem with our planet to date. This is not the >> >> original purpose of the individual, nor does this game of maximizing >> >> sum have any meaning outside of the society it is in. >> > >> > Well, I think I speak for everyone >> >> -That- is the number one cause of trolling. > > People cutting off people's sentences in the middle in order > to take them out of context? 8-). No, thinking you speak for everyone. >> > when I say that you're always free to find another planet, >> > where you declare what (IYHO) you believe the purpose of the >> > individual to be, and then deport anyone who doesn't agree with >> > you.... >> >> Man, do you miss the point. > > My failure to agree with you is not a failure of you to properly > communicate what you feel is the worth of your thesis, it's a > result of my disagreement with that thesis. I don't think we've reached a point where you -can- agree or disagree. I think you are still not understanding the thesis, and being a subjugate to Occam, you take the simplest road which is to disagree. I also think it will take more than email to communicate the principia of that thesis. I might have to try back in 20 years. >> >> >> The real "better", if it exists, exists for everyone. >> >> > The avowed racist and the cannibal? >> >> Them too. >> > No, not them too. The benefits of society do not accrue to those >> > who would destroy it. >> >> Perhaps the cannibal learns to eat prisoners, and the racist goes >> to live among his kind. > > What about your putative "troll" of "the wrong race" who chooses > as his means moving in next door to the racist who is actually > in the process of attempting to "live among his own kind"? Why is it society's job to prevent each from learning their own lesson? Let them fight each other and learn, eh? Neither is trying to destroy "society" per se, they are just trying to destroy each other's race. > What about the putative "troll" whose "moral code" requires that > when he eats people, he only eat people "who stood a sporting > chance at not being eaten, or eating him instead" -- which would > definitely not include the prisoners you are willing to feed to > him. What about him? Eventually, someone he tries to eat will kill him. Of course you can define a situation that supports your position, just like I can define one to support mine. The key debating point is, my position is self directed, yours is others directed. Which is more efficient? I assert self directed self improvement, rather than other's directed jihadic purging, takes the least energy and is more productive in the long run. >> >> > An individual is expected to conform to social norms. >> >> >> >> Some individuals aren't here to do what society wants them to. I feel >> >> it's dishonorable to expect them to conform. >> > >> > What about locking them up, and having no expectations of >> > them, other than that they not escape, and that they will >> > eventually die of natural causes? >> >> Everytime I point to this, you presume that the individual in question >> is some sort of extreme mass murderer. Where we fail to communicate is >> that I am pointing to the misfit, not the murderer. While both are >> nonconformists, there is a difference in degree and manner of their >> non-conformity. > > Reductio ad absurdum: I argue the extreme case because it is > the case that must be addressed in order to set boundary > conditions other than "it doesn't bother me that much, so you > live with it because I live with it". In that case, you should be killing everyone you see that is remotely different from you. After all, at some point they might be sociopathic or at the very least, against you....and you are doing society a favor. Ad absurdum arguments are seductive, but they don't produce workable realities...only absurd ones. > Your continued attempts to address the "what do we do or not do > with minor misfits, once we have built the anarchists utopia" > presumes premises which I'm not willing to accept directly, > merely for the sake of argument Ok. > (actually, you haven't *asked* that your premises be conditionally > accepted that way, you've simply held them forth as something > everyone should just naturally accept). I havent even held them forth as something everyone should just naturally accept. I've expressed my assertions, only you have risen to challenge them. While this is entertaining. it really hasn't changed them or me or you or yours or anyone else. It reminds me of the USENET of old, and that's pretty much the only reason why I continue. ;) > One of these is that "all trolls are only minor misfits", and > another is that "minor misfits should be tolerated in the utopian > anarchy". There are no misfits in a utpoian anarchy, by definition. What is your definition of a "troll that is not a minor misfit"? >> The tiger is the tiger. Do not expect the tiger to act like the >> rabbit. Yet, each animal has his place in the ecosystem. > Pigeons are a non-native species in North and South America. Yes, and as we have changed the environment, new niches appear which are filled by the available displaced lifeforms. ;) >> > Are you arguing that it is *never* right to segregate people >> > from the larger society? >> >> Not really. I'm arguing against this knee-jerk "hang em till they rot" >> attitude that I think I see in you applied to people who's only crime >> is thinking different than the pack. You keep using murderers in your >> examples and I keep using artists. > > I don't want to "hang em till they rot", I just want to block > their postings to a particular set of mailing lists. Hmm. Before you were talking about killing them all and letting God sort them out (metaphorically speaking of course). I guess I misunderstood. > On the flip side, you keep portraying sender blocking as if it > were some form of capital punishment, inviting extreme comparisons. It is to me. It's lost information. I learn just as much from the detractors as I do from the supporters. Block the detractors and that's a lot of information lost. >> It's not working. > That's because trolling is not "art", any more than any other > criminal activity is "art". Bah. Did you see the latest troll (message ID 20020828155003.37CC33960@sitemail.everyone.net) towards you? A masterpiece, I tell you! Brilliantly executed to make you seem like the good guy. And trolling about trolls, man that is exquisite. I'm surprised a man of your apparent culture level cannot appreciate this art form. ;) Criminal activity can be art. Ever see some of the graffiti artists in central LA? My god these people are talented with a spray paint can. Some of the stuff is so eye catching, it's hard to drive through the area without risking an accident. I can send you some photos if you don't frequent these kinds of areas. Just because the results and/or actions are illegal doesn't mean they aren't artistic. >> >> I do. Those are our survival as a race should a real mega-disaster >> >> happen. Without them, we don't survive (unless a mega-disaster >> >> never happens). >> > >> > You must see some redeeming traits in the Jeffrey Dahlmer's of >> > the world that I don't. >> >> I see genetics, genetic algorithms, and I can kind of percieve the >> grandeur of the unanswered genetic question we are solving. > > "42". Yes, Douglas Adams almost had it right. Still, the real trick is to find the question. >> I recognize that "that one asshole" has to be there or we don't >> search the space of all solutions completely. I also recognize >> we can't know the question, so we shouldn't assume that someone >> doesn't have that answer...whoever or whatever that someone is. > > What is being searched or searched for, and who and where are > the pan-dimensional mice who entered the search terms? We -can't- know. That's how it's set up. >> Before you go there (which you apparently will), I'm not condoning >> murder or rape or any of that. I merely recognize that it is >> impossible for me to control other people, and that real control >> begins with yourself, which has a better chance of success than >> anything else. I don't kill, steal, rape, etc, and that's good enough >> for me. > > I don't think it's possible for individuals to assert any > important amount of control over more than a few people, > either. But it's demonstrably true that society can, and > does, exert such control. Where you seem to differ from me > is that I think it *should*. Society doesn't do a very good job of it, and that is part of the reason I think it shouldn't. The other part is that I think it's dishonorable to control others, I don't care who you are. > I look at this as a design problem, like the TCP protocol requiring > two response packets for a single request packet, with no means of > retransmit, or like gravity. The trolls can't disobey the laws of > physics merely because it suits them to do so; niether should "the > laws of physics of mailing lists" permit such behaviour. Rather > than stepping of the cliff and just hanging there, it would be nice > if, when they steped off the cliff, there were consequences that > were enforced automatically, imparitally, and immediately. Good luck. This is extremely difficult to do without stifling communication from those you want to hear from (who aren't trolls). >> Perhaps I just wish you'd try to see what I'm saying, instead >> of swinging that sword so much. ;) > > I understand that you're claiming trolls are not sociopaths, they > are merely people with the email equivalent of Tourette's Syndrome. > Understand me, when I say I won't hire these people to work the > mailing lists, any more than I'd hire myself as a spotter. I dunno, I think a troll would be a perfect moderator. Trolls truly understand the impact of specific communications, more than most people anyway. And you'd have one less troll. |) >> > You're not seriously advocating that script kiddies serve a social >> > good which is not already served by the people who originally >> > discovered the problems, or that those who discover the problems, >> > but exploit rather than disclosing them are somehow beneficial to >> > society? >> >> There you go with that extrema again. Pick your examples carefully and >> you'll always win, right? > > Overgeneralize to include all destructive acts under your umbrella, > without addressing a specific case that could be shot down, and > you'll always lose, right? In picking a specific case such that you can fail to see the general paradigm, who's really losing here? >> Think about it. Without script kiddies and exploiters, how would the >> systems get stronger? > Why would the systems *need* to be stronger, if there weren't > script kiddies and exploiters? Rogue AI programs that get out of hand? ;) > But I'll answer the question: by design, and by disclosure of > weaknesses by a third party. There's no need for a Morris > worm, "Code Red", a Virus, or actual use of an exploit against > a target by hundreds or even thousands of people who could > never write the code themselves in the first place, for the > problem to be disclosed. Merely disclosing the problem to the > right people should be sufficient, and if it isn't, diclosure > to the public at large is. Which creates script kiddies and exploiters and contributes to the wonderous dance of opposites. ;) ------ Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<< There is a proverb: "The answer to a fool is silence." Observation, however, indicates that almost any other answer will have the same effect in the long run. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Aug 28 20:18:20 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFFDD37B400 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 20:18:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from harrier.mail.pas.earthlink.net (harrier.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.12]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BCE143E65 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 20:18:00 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0190.cvx21-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([209.179.192.190] helo=mindspring.com) by harrier.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17kFoT-0000eg-00; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 20:17:41 -0700 Message-ID: <3D6D9140.1366128B@mindspring.com> Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 20:13:04 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dave Hayes Cc: Lawrence Sica , Giorgos Keramidas , Ceri Davies , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? References: <200208290126.g7T1QC106932@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Dave Hayes wrote: > > This is patently false. You can commit to comply with consensus, > > while still dissenting. > > If you are dissenting or complying, you are still acknowledging that > consensus still exists and has meaning. If you do neither, consensus > stops having meaning, and then you are open to different perceptions. As long as a group of people can get together and kill you and/or otherwise deny you access to nominally public resources, consensus has meaning. > That's not effective either. Those who think congress really runs > America are enjoying a most delicious delusion. My black helicopter is in the shop. [ ... ] > I don't -want- it[anarchy]. It's there to be, if possible. Anything I want > is in the way of what I truly need. But that's another 10 message > interchange. Hardly. In any case, anarchy is the emergent property of the system you describe, so in wanting the system, you want anarchy. > >> You see, people that talk about revolutions, people who hate this or > >> that government...they are all misguided. I believe "The Who" said it > >> best: "Meet the new boss, he's the same as the old boss". Mankind's > >> evolutionary state is such that no matter what organization or > >> community forms, corruption, inefficiency and politics will derail any > >> -real- "good" that said organization can do. > > > > So work on human evolution, instead of pissing in people's > > campfires because they aren't building fusion powered heaters > > fast enough for you. > > Who's pissing in people's campfires now? Did you even read what I said > with intent to understand, or are you just looking for a good time in > argument? I *understand*, I *disagree*. I disagree with your claims that adversity is a positive evolutionary pressure (anything which is not potentially fatal prior to reporduction is not an evolutionary pressure, positive or otherwise). I disagree with your thesis about mankinds "current evolutionary state" (which has so many assumptions in it that it's hard to know where to start picking it apart). I disagree with your preposterous claim that "corruption, inefficiency and politics will derail any -real- ``good''" that could arise from an emergent organization. Oh yeah: I also disagree that organizations and communities are always self-assembled, and can not be the result of a conscious design -- a thesis upon which a lot of your faith is apparently based. > >> This is not a bad or good thing, it simply indicates the current level > >> of human evolution. Humans are not ready for the next level at the > >> moment. > > Says you and Ted Kaczynski. > > Who? The Unibomber. A Luddite, who believes that humans were not, by nature, prepared for the rate of technological advance that is already upon them, and believed that he could sabotoge that advance through mail bombs delivered to people he considered to be key intellectuals contributing to the change. Whether or not his thesis (or yours) was/is correct is irrelevent to the fact that it's about 150 years too late to put that genie back into the bottle in any case, even if we were stupid enough to want to. [ ... allowing people to follow their internal codes of conduct, to the potential detriment of the larger society, is probematic ... ] > For you, maybe. I find, once I remove the consensual pressure to > conform, that it's rather impossible to violate your own internal > codes. Remember that you can't say anything about another's > violations, just your own. It remains that there are people who act as they do, not out of an intrinsic rightousness, but out of a fear of the penalty. If you are such an advocate of unbounded evolution, surely you must recognize the rule of law as an evolutionary pressure imposed by a socitey on its members. The intent of socially imposed penalties for transgressions is to close the feedback circuit, so that the society can achieve homeostasis. Complexity without order is chaos, which has none of the interesting emergent properties. [ ... non-conformance for the sake of disruption, rather than the sake of non-conformance itself ... ] > If you define sociopath as "one who refuses to conform to consensual > standards just because they are consensual standards", I'd agree, No, I define it in terms of violent disruption of the established social order. The interesting thing is that you seem to believe that the noosphere is somehow just as limited and constrained as physical geography, for some reason, and that, as a result, it's important for your ideas to colonize someone else's established space, rather than creating your own. I guess it sucks to be the pied piper of Hamlin, if you build a shiny new city, and no rats appear for lack of an inadequate public sanitation system. > > You forgot about people who eat people. > > I always forget them, they aren't real to me. I've never seen one. > Even if I had seen one, I wouldn't focus on that one extrema as > my shining example of why sociopathy is wrong and you must conform. It's a good example of behaviour which is intolerably sociopathic, in the larger context. If you want to pick another example for me, then all we will be arguing about is level of tolerability, which is subjective. It's unreasonable to expect everyone else to adopt your thresholds. > > You seem to believe that I disagree with your psotion because I > > don't understand it, > > If you understood it, you wouldn't be saying what you have been > saying, nor presenting the examples you have been presenting. That's false. You apparently believe that to understand it is to agree with it. Pick your examples; I will still disagree with the foundations. [ ... humans are machines which can malfunction, and certain malfunctions are not tolerable in *any* society ... ] > My "position", as you call it, takes this into account. You have to be > immune (somehow) to the high sigma endpoints of the bell curve or you > need to evolve more. Personally immune? Or socio-situationally immune ("it can't happen because it not being able to happen is an emergent property of the system")? Isn't it kind of hypocritical to elevate immunity, on the one hand, and bemoan a systems immune response, on the other? > > If it's "to each. according to his need", well, then, all that's > > really necessary is to manufacture "need". > > "Need" has to be moved to "want" or even "desire" before what I was > talking about can unfold. Put another way, no one will need or want to > abuse the system, because it won't occur to them and because there > really will be no system to abuse. You dont need a system if everyone > is enlightened and aware. Simon Bar Sinister had little blinking control lights that he would attach to the tops of people's heads, in order to make them behave the way he wanted them to behave. I was just as happy when Underdog opened the secret compartment of his ring to reveal his "Underdog Super Energy Pill", and sent the bugger packing. > > None of these work to avoid costing me storage space or time to > > download, or per packet charges to download, etc.. > > Well. Let's see just how much your averagea 4K message will cost you > to store. I'll even give you a SCSI disk (more expensive). Current > prices of 36GB scsi disks are $220-$250. We'll use $250 to give you > even more leeway. This is just under 7 $/GB. A 4K message works out > to costing you .00267 of a cent. Even if this person sent out 100 > messages, that's .267 of a cent. > > I recognize some people are penny pinchers but...come on! ;) Tell that to the people who invented mailbox quotas. I notice you failed to address bandwidth cost related issues. [ ... ] > Unsubscribe to the mailing list? ;) And let the troll achive his goal uncontested? Go somewhere else? Only to have the troll follow, because, with everyone unsubscribed to freebsd-hackers and subscribed to freebsd-hacker instead, there is no one to piss on? That moves the problem, but it hardly solves it, does it? > > The easiest one I can think of is requiring sender certificates. > > Sorry. You are acting like one troll is a huge cost. It isn't. Let me > assure you in my vast experience with trolls and message group > communities, even 100 messages from 10 trolls only hurts the psyche of > the community. Storage and transport costs are too cheap to care about > what one person can do short of scripting floods. What if it's "the psyche of the community" itself which you value? > > The troll. I can make the brick stop any time I want. > > I find it hard to believe that you can stop a brick in mid flight > to your brain, and yet you can't stop one troll from affecting your > world with the flick of a single key. The brick was self-inflicted in the example. Dropping the brick is an action. Blocking the troll is an action. > >> > What you are describing is an overly simplistic version of a > >> > mutual security game. [ ... ] > While these are some excellent academic links, not a one of them has > anything even remotely resembling what I was describing. I told you that it was overly simplistic. 8-). > >> Actually, the important part is our disagreement as to where to hang > >> out. > > ??? > > I hang out in many places, generally preferring the anarchistic to the > overly fascist. You seemed to assert you only like fascist places. No, I like freedom, both from oppression of the free exchange of ideas by a central authority, and oppression of the free echange of ideas by individual bullies. Defeating the neghborhood bully doesn't of necessity breed another neighborhood bully, particularly if word gets around that bullies have "accidents" in that particular neighborhood. > >> Accomodation and toleration are a bit different, don't you think? > > > > No. If you tolerate a behaviour, you implicitly condone that > > behaviour. > > Oh please. Not this tired old argument. Again, you are violating your > "excluded middle" paradoxia. It's possible to neither condone nor > decry a behavior, don't you think? Condone: to pardon or overlook voluntarily; especially : to treat as if trivial, harmless, or of no importance > Additionally, what kind of egotistical concept is it where you > have to render forth on each behavior you see? On each behaviour you see that you find antisocial, you mean. It's human. [ ... ] > Yes, some lists will rigorously block trolls and others will not. That > doesn't mean the trolls don't exist or will not emerge. It means they will have to go elsewhere to find their voice; and since the desire is for them to go elsewhere, the reason that happens is pretty irrelevent. > -I- think that troll access should not be blocked. -You- can do > whatever you want, but I would recommend that you learn to filter > trolls out at your brain since it's demonstrably the most efficient > way to do so. I disagree with your efficiency claim. It is more efficient for the trolls to not exist. > I never agreed with Occam's Razor. Sometimes it's not accurate. Science works. > > Of course, I have a theory on why they have arrived, and what > > their actual goals are (they are not the goals or purpose you > > state for trolls, in general, because they are not the emergent > > environmental trolls you claim are the only possible trolls), > > Man, are you good at reading things into what I said that aren't > there or what? Do I have to forumlate a set of theorems so you can > dispute each one separately? Depends; do you want to have your ideas taken seriously, or do you want to lump a whole bunch of them together, so that if a person swallows 70% of them, they get 30% of them "for free"? > > and I could even give them pointers, since they probably have > > not bothered to mathematically model the project that they are > > attempting to disrupt (they are probably incapable of doing the > > necessary math, actually). > > Ok, so what is your theory? My theory of what? Of why the trolls are suddenly raising their pointy heads? Of my model for some Open Source projects? Of the several buttons which, if pressed, would cause the whole machine to fall apart? > > It's an intentional tit-for-tat. > > Of course, oh superior one. Tell me what else I should know? =) You are talking in subtexts, refusing to address real points, or permit them divisibility from a cloud of issues, so I have responded in kind. [ ... ] > > My failure to agree with you is not a failure of you to properly > > communicate what you feel is the worth of your thesis, it's a > > result of my disagreement with that thesis. > > I don't think we've reached a point where you -can- agree or disagree. > I think you are still not understanding the thesis, and being a > subjugate to Occam, you take the simplest road which is to disagree. > > I also think it will take more than email to communicate the principia > of that thesis. I might have to try back in 20 years. Alternately, you can post your thesis on a web site somewhere, and post the URL, rather than continually alluding to it, but never saying it. > > What about your putative "troll" of "the wrong race" who chooses > > as his means moving in next door to the racist who is actually > > in the process of attempting to "live among his own kind"? > > Why is it society's job to prevent each from learning their own > lesson? Let them fight each other and learn, eh? Neither is trying > to destroy "society" per se, they are just trying to destroy each > other's race. Stay out of the middle, and let one wipe out the other, if it can? [ ... ] > What about him? Eventually, someone he tries to eat will kill him. And that's an acceptable outcome? > Of course you can define a situation that supports your position, > just like I can define one to support mine. The key debating point > is, my position is self directed, yours is others directed. Which is > more efficient? I assert self directed self improvement, rather than > other's directed jihadic purging, takes the least energy and is more > productive in the long run. So CBS is on a Jihad against you, personally, because they deny you air time to vent your views? [ ... ] > Ad absurdum arguments are seductive, but they don't produce workable > realities...only absurd ones. Hardly. The point out the fallacy of arguing from the specific to the general, which is their intended function. [ ... ] > There are no misfits in a utpoian anarchy, by definition. Nor in a fascist police state... > What is your definition of a "troll that is not a minor misfit"? One who trolls because he is paid to troll, rather than from a sense of heart-felt convictions, whatever the coin in which he is paid. A troll who trolls from heart-felt convictions will either leave or achieve accomodation within the group. The other has no interest in achieving accommodation, or even permtting any form of coexistance. He is a sociopath. [ ... ] > > On the flip side, you keep portraying sender blocking as if it > > were some form of capital punishment, inviting extreme comparisons. > > It is to me. It's lost information. I learn just as much from the > detractors as I do from the supporters. Block the detractors and > that's a lot of information lost. It's not lost; it is merely forced to see alternate venue. You are free to go to the other venue and learn from the detractors there. > >> It's not working. > > That's because trolling is not "art", any more than any other > > criminal activity is "art". > > Bah. Did you see the latest troll (message ID > 20020828155003.37CC33960@sitemail.everyone.net) towards you? > > A masterpiece, I tell you! Brilliantly executed to make you seem like > the good guy. And trolling about trolls, man that is exquisite. I'm > surprised a man of your apparent culture level cannot appreciate this > art form. ;) Hardly. It's like appreciating Thomas Harris' Jamie Gumb's sewing skills, or a sausage factory: very hard to appreciate the art, once you know the raw materials. > Criminal activity can be art. Ever see some of the graffiti artists > in central LA? My god these people are talented with a spray paint > can. Some of the stuff is so eye catching, it's hard to drive through > the area without risking an accident. I can send you some photos if > you don't frequent these kinds of areas. > > Just because the results and/or actions are illegal doesn't mean they > aren't artistic. Criminal art is a subset of criminal activity, not an equivalence set. > > "42". > > Yes, Douglas Adams almost had it right. Still, the real trick is to > find the question. Yes. That's what I was making fun of: you see it as a big computation of something, but you don't know what, yet you still see value in the act of computation... the means justify the ends. [ ... ] > > I don't think it's possible for individuals to assert any > > important amount of control over more than a few people, > > either. But it's demonstrably true that society can, and > > does, exert such control. Where you seem to differ from me > > is that I think it *should*. > > Society doesn't do a very good job of it, and that is part of the > reason I think it shouldn't. The other part is that I think > it's dishonorable to control others, I don't care who you are. Name one person who has been assessed the death penalty who has subsequently repeated their crime. 8-). [ ... design problem ... ] > Good luck. This is extremely difficult to do without stifling > communication from those you want to hear from (who aren't trolls). I see this as a result of having trolls: an consequence of their actions is general oppression. > > I understand that you're claiming trolls are not sociopaths, they > > are merely people with the email equivalent of Tourette's Syndrome. > > Understand me, when I say I won't hire these people to work the > > mailing lists, any more than I'd hire myself as a spotter. > > I dunno, I think a troll would be a perfect moderator. Trolls truly > understand the impact of specific communications, more than most > people anyway. And you'd have one less troll. |) This is the Theo de Raddt argument. The fallacy there is that the people who "take their ball and go home", and the people who follow them, will always be the most volatile segment of any society. [ ... ] > In picking a specific case such that you can fail to see the general > paradigm, who's really losing here? You, in failing to communicate your view of the general paradigm effectively? [ ... ] > Which creates script kiddies and exploiters and contributes to the > wonderous dance of opposites. ;) Script kiddies and exploiters create themselves. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Aug 28 20:19:21 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A17DB37B400 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 20:19:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from floralplanet.com (c-66-176-181-95.se.client2.attbi.com [66.176.181.95]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 556E943E77 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 20:19:15 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from email@floralplanet.com) From: "Visit Earth's Largest Garden today!" To: "Freebsd-chat" Subject: Welcome to Floralplanet.com- thanks for stopping By! Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 23:19:05 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Message-ID: <36621410891223121011@floralplanet.com> Reply-To: "Visit Earth's Largest Garden today!" Organization: Floralplanet.com X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_NextPart_5680548196" Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_NextPart_5680548196 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Floralplanet.com http://www.floralplanet.com Visit Earth's Largest Garden and see the Internets most spectacular one-stop super store for fresh flowers, silks, gift baskets, batiks, art, and other exciting gifts !! Visit Planet Bouquets ! Now at a Galaxy near You ! http://www.floralplanet.com/planetbouquets1.htm Visit Planet Gift Baskets ! http://www.floralplanet.com/giftbaskets1.htm Visit the Planet Gallery ! http://www.floralplanet.com/planetgallery.html Visit Planet Rainforest ! http://www.floralplanet.com/planetrainforest.htm Visit Planet Reef ! http://www.floralplanet.com/planetreef.htm A Planet Wish for You ! http://www.floralplanet.com/planetwishes.htm September 11th Tribute http://www.floralplanet.com/usatributepage1.htm Register NoW! for Exclusive Membership and automatically enter Planet Sweepstakes ! http://www.floralplanet.com/registration1.htm Thanks for stopping by our garden ! Bryan S. Tartus CEO Floralplanet.com http://www.floralplanet.com To Unsubscribe Please Click Reply and Type Unsubscribe in Subject Sorry if we have caused any inconvienence. Peace on Earth. Floralplanet.com - US Trademark 2002 All Rights Reserved Earth's Largest Garden- US Trademark 2002 All Rights Reserved ------_NextPart_5680548196 Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE

                      Floralplanet.com
                 http://www.floralplanet.com

  Visit Earth's Largest Garden and see the Internets
most spectacular one-stop super store for fresh flowers,
 silks, gift baskets, batiks, art, and other exciting gifts !!


Visit Planet Bouquets !
Now at a Galaxy near You !
http://www.floralplanet.com/planetbouquets1.htm

Visit Planet Gift Baskets !
http://www.floralplanet.com/giftbaskets1.htm

Visit the Planet Gallery !
http://www.floralplanet.com/planetgallery.html

Visit Planet Rainforest !
http://www.floralplanet.com/planetrainforest.htm

Visit Planet Reef !
http://www.floralplanet.com/planetreef.htm


A Planet Wish for You !
http://www.floralplanet.com/planetwishes.htm

September 11th Tribute 
http://www.floralplanet.com/usatributepage1.htm

Register NoW! for Exclusive Membership and
automatically enter Planet Sweepstakes !
http://www.floralplanet.com/registration1.htm


Thanks for stopping by our garden !

Bryan S. Tartus
CEO
Floralplanet.com
http://www.floralplanet.com


To Unsubscribe Please Click Reply and Type Unsubscribe in Subject
Sorry if we have caused any inconvienence. Peace on Earth.


Floralplanet.com - US Trademark 2002
All Rights Reserved
Earth's Largest Garden- US Trademark 2002
All Rights Reserved

 

------_NextPart_5680548196-- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Aug 28 20:33:45 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E81C037B400 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 20:33:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from blue.dls.net (blue.dls.net [209.242.10.156]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A59543E77 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 20:33:37 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from emailrob@emailrob.com) Received: from emailrob.com (420-dls801.dls.net [216.145.237.165]) by blue.dls.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47448120033 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 22:33:24 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <3D6D8941.5A3F5D82@emailrob.com> Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 21:38:57 -0500 From: rob spellberg X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? References: <200208290126.g7T1QC106932@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org gentlemen --- this has actually been rather interesting. however - > >> This is because it's terribly frightening to most humans to a) > >> be personally responsible for their own actions, b) honor others > >> regardless of what they choose to do, c) maintain a state of constant > >> present-time awareness, d) follow their own internal codes of conduct, > >> e) find their passion, and f) dance their passion into existance. > > (d) is problematic. > > For you, maybe. I find, once I remove the consensual pressure to > conform, that it's rather impossible to violate your own internal > codes. Remember that you can't say anything about another's > violations, just your own. actually, [d] --is-- problematic. if one person's ICOC includes killing others and others ICOC's insist that they not be killed by others, then houston, we have a problem. the immovable object and the irresistable force can not mutually co_exist. ... > > If it's "to each. according to his need", well, then, all that's > > really necessary is to manufacture "need". > > "Need" has to be moved to "want" or even "desire" before what I was > talking about can unfold. Put another way, no one will need or want to > abuse the system, because it won't occur to them and because there > really will be no system to abuse. You dont need a system if everyone > is enlightened and aware. in my experience [ i'm 47 ], most people are neither enlightened nor aware. consider that there exists a large group of people who put forth great effort, just to avoid having "a job". all utopias fail because, sooner or later, somebody learns how to game the system. then someone else discovers that they must behave likewise just to stay even. induction on a finite population size requires that, eventually, everyone does it. ... > Well. Let's see just how much your averagea 4K message will cost you > to store. the last post was 28k. ... > A 4K message works out > to costing you .00267 of a cent. Even if this person sent out 100 > messages, that's .267 of a cent. > > I recognize some people are penny pinchers but...come on! ;) as soon as costs are allowed, costs grow rapidly. this is the first_rule_of_spending_other_people's_money. ... > >> You are an interesting person, I must say. Your examples are only > >> weakly parallel to the actual issues, yet you are convinced of them > >> with the force of a thousand zealots. I see my mirror in you, sir, > >> and I am grateful for the chance to observe this. =) > > > > It's an intentional tit-for-tat. > > Of course, oh superior one. Tell me what else I should know? =) uh_oh; bad move, dave. ... > > My failure to agree with you is not a failure of you to properly > > communicate what you feel is the worth of your thesis, it's a > > result of my disagreement with that thesis. > > I don't think we've reached a point where you -can- agree or disagree. > I think you are still not understanding the thesis, and being a > subjugate to Occam, you take the simplest road which is to disagree. > > I also think it will take more than email to communicate the principia > of that thesis. I might have to try back in 20 years. oh, dave. the ad_hominem attack; questioning your debating opponent's intelligence. you have just declared that, in your own mind, you have already lost the argument. ... > > One of these is that "all trolls are only minor misfits", and > > another is that "minor misfits should be tolerated in the utopian > > anarchy". > > There are no misfits in a utpoian anarchy, by definition. this isn't a utopia [ of any kind ]. ... > Criminal activity can be art. Ever see some of the graffiti artists > in central LA? My god these people are talented with a spray paint > can. Some of the stuff is so eye catching, it's hard to drive through > the area without risking an accident. I can send you some photos if > you don't frequent these kinds of areas. > > Just because the results and/or actions are illegal doesn't mean they > aren't artistic. thank you for serving up a fat one, right down the middle and just in time for the strike. graffiti [ except in designated places ] --is-- vandalism. in addition, by your own admission, it is sometimes a clear and present danger to public safety. --------------------------- dave, you strike me as a physically_nonviolent person who means well and wants the best for everyone. your good intentions are admirable. however, while good intentions are an almost necessary condition, they are not a sufficient condition. it is necessary to have good results. without good results, the intentions don't mean diddly_squat. rob spellberg harvard, illinois To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Aug 28 21:57:57 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEA8137B400 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 21:57:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org [64.239.180.8]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D85243E4A for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 21:57:34 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@jetcafe.org) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7T4up108342; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 21:56:51 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org) Message-Id: <200208290456.g7T4up108342@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Terry Lambert Cc: Lawrence Sica , Giorgos Keramidas , Ceri Davies , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 21:56:46 -0700 From: Dave Hayes Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Terry Lambert writes: > Dave Hayes wrote: >> > This is patently false. You can commit to comply with consensus, >> > while still dissenting. >> >> If you are dissenting or complying, you are still acknowledging that >> consensus still exists and has meaning. If you do neither, consensus >> stops having meaning, and then you are open to different perceptions. > As long as a group of people can get together and kill you and/or > otherwise deny you access to nominally public resources, consensus > has meaning. They have to find me first. >> That's not effective either. Those who think congress really runs >> America are enjoying a most delicious delusion. > My black helicopter is in the shop. Oh? Which of the corporate rulers' insignia does it have? > [ ... ] >> I don't -want- it[anarchy]. It's there to be, if possible. Anything I want >> is in the way of what I truly need. But that's another 10 message >> interchange. > Hardly. In any case, anarchy is the emergent property of the system > you describe, so in wanting the system, you want anarchy. I don't want the system either. >> >> You see, people that talk about revolutions, people who hate this or >> >> that government...they are all misguided. I believe "The Who" said it >> >> best: "Meet the new boss, he's the same as the old boss". Mankind's >> >> evolutionary state is such that no matter what organization or >> >> community forms, corruption, inefficiency and politics will derail any >> >> -real- "good" that said organization can do. >> > >> > So work on human evolution, instead of pissing in people's >> > campfires because they aren't building fusion powered heaters >> > fast enough for you. >> >> Who's pissing in people's campfires now? Did you even read what I said >> with intent to understand, or are you just looking for a good time in >> argument? > > I *understand*, I *disagree*. I disagree that you understand. ;) > I disagree with your claims that adversity is a positive evolutionary > pressure (anything which is not potentially fatal prior to reporduction > is not an evolutionary pressure, positive or otherwise). So you are disagreeing with most academic evolutionary theory? > I disagree with your thesis about mankinds "current evolutionary state" > (which has so many assumptions in it that it's hard to know where to > start picking it apart). It's not my thesis. There's the first assumption. It's not even a paper. Look around you. > I disagree with your preposterous claim that "corruption, inefficiency > and politics will derail any -real- ``good''" that could arise from an > emergent organization. You can't provide an example to refute this claim. Go on, try. > Oh yeah: I also disagree that organizations and communities are always > self-assembled, and can not be the result of a conscious design -- a > thesis upon which a lot of your faith is apparently based. Just where did you get this from? >> >> This is not a bad or good thing, it simply indicates the current level >> >> of human evolution. Humans are not ready for the next level at the >> >> moment. >> > Says you and Ted Kaczynski. >> Who? > The Unibomber. A Luddite, who believes that humans were not, by > nature, prepared for the rate of technological advance that is > already upon them, I agree, they're not. But then again, humans aren't really ready for anything past fire either...this hasn't stopped them yet. > and believed that he could sabotoge that advance > through mail bombs delivered to people he considered to be key > intellectuals contributing to the change. So this person was attempting demonstrate the lack of readiness by attempting to change society using destruction? Doomed to failure he was, not only would the demonstration be lost on most people (including you), but naturally society would react, find him, and "rehabilitate" him. How ironic. > Whether or not his thesis (or yours) was/is correct is irrelevent > to the fact that it's about 150 years too late to put that genie > back into the bottle in any case, even if we were stupid enough to > want to. First off, not everyone is an academic worshipper. I certainly don't consider my views or observations "a thesis" as if it were to stand up under the attack of several boring, asleep, unaware, and droll Ph.Ds who wouldn't know how to see truth if it bit them in the rear. You consistently seem to put worldviews up on this altar for academic sacrifice. If you can get past that need, perhaps you are ready to see what I am saying. Until then, I very much doubt you can extract your brain from the sea of assumptions it sails upon enough to even consider parts of real truth. I'm afraid this must all seem so antithetical to your worldview that it's all to be rejected outright by you. This is why I disagree that you understand. If you really understood, you would have long since removed the argument from the academic arena of thesis/proof/experiement, and attempted to interact with it in the arena of what you have experienced yourself. Some concepts in truth cannot be expressed in the thesis framework, and are yet nevertheless true. > [ ... allowing people to follow their internal codes of conduct, to the > potential detriment of the larger society, is probematic ... ] >> For you, maybe. I find, once I remove the consensual pressure to >> conform, that it's rather impossible to violate your own internal >> codes. Remember that you can't say anything about another's >> violations, just your own. > It remains that there are people who act as they do, not out of > an intrinsic rightousness, but out of a fear of the penalty. This is no better than slavery. > If you are such an advocate of unbounded evolution, surely you must > recognize the rule of law as an evolutionary pressure imposed by > a socitey on its members. I recognize it, but normally I render such dishonorable intrusions irrelevant. I don't kill people...this isn't because there is some law with a penalty preventing me...it's because *I* choose not to kill people. And note...you can't make me. Period. There's a lot of other things I don't do on the same basis. > The intent of socially imposed penalties for transgressions is to > close the feedback circuit, so that the society can achieve > homeostasis. As if humans were modellable as a collection of automata with preset behavior and reaction to external stimuli. Another reason I don't believe you understand. > Complexity without order is chaos, which has none of the interesting > emergent properties. Hmm, according to a lot of those links you posted, it's the boundary between order and chaos that is interesting and has emergent properties. ;) > [ ... non-conformance for the sake of disruption, rather than the > sake of non-conformance itself ... ] >> If you define sociopath as "one who refuses to conform to consensual >> standards just because they are consensual standards", I'd agree, > No, I define it in terms of violent disruption of the established > social order. That explains our disagreement then. |) > The interesting thing is that you seem to believe that the noosphere > is somehow just as limited and constrained as physical geography, > for some reason, and that, as a result, it's important for your > ideas to colonize someone else's established space, rather than > creating your own. Ok, I'll bite. Why do you say that? > I guess it sucks to be the pied piper of Hamlin, if you build a > shiny new city, and no rats appear for lack of an inadequate public > sanitation system. It always sucks to have your purpose in life ridiculed or made irrelevant by people who claim to have your best interests in mind. >> > You forgot about people who eat people. >> >> I always forget them, they aren't real to me. I've never seen one. >> Even if I had seen one, I wouldn't focus on that one extrema as >> my shining example of why sociopathy is wrong and you must conform. > > It's a good example of behaviour which is intolerably sociopathic, > in the larger context. But it's not real. There simply aren't any cannibals who settle here and live very long. It's extreme to the absurd, which suits your purposes, but I don't buy absurdum argumenta easily. Consider this one: someone invents a perfect mind control drug and then becomes a medical doctor who prescribes these to his patients. Eventually the entire society is enslaved. Therefore we should not have doctors, since they could very well do that. >> > You seem to believe that I disagree with your psotion because I >> > don't understand it, >> >> If you understood it, you wouldn't be saying what you have been >> saying, nor presenting the examples you have been presenting. > > That's false. You apparently believe that to understand it is to > agree with it. Not at all. You can disagree. I merely contend that you don't understand what I am mostly pointing at enough TO disagree with it meaningfully. You can still disagree, it's your right as a human being... at least untill your troll-control advocacy bears it's fruit. ;) All you've done is pointed to certain assumptions or assertions I've made, and disagreed with those. You aren't seeing the big picture, and I don't believe you can. > Pick your examples; I will still disagree with the foundations. Because, deep down, I stand for everything you hate. ;) > [ ... humans are machines which can malfunction, and certain malfunctions > are not tolerable in *any* society ... ] >> My "position", as you call it, takes this into account. You have to be >> immune (somehow) to the high sigma endpoints of the bell curve or you >> need to evolve more. > > Personally immune? Or socio-situationally immune ("it can't happen > because it not being able to happen is an emergent property of the > system")? Personally immune. The buck stops at you. > Isn't it kind of hypocritical to elevate immunity, on the one hand, > and bemoan a systems immune response, on the other? You are assuming a systems immune response where none is indicated. >> > None of these work to avoid costing me storage space or time to >> > download, or per packet charges to download, etc.. >> >> Well. Let's see just how much your averagea 4K message will cost you >> to store. I'll even give you a SCSI disk (more expensive). Current >> prices of 36GB scsi disks are $220-$250. We'll use $250 to give you >> even more leeway. This is just under 7 $/GB. A 4K message works out >> to costing you .00267 of a cent. Even if this person sent out 100 >> messages, that's .267 of a cent. >> >> I recognize some people are penny pinchers but...come on! ;) > > Tell that to the people who invented mailbox quotas. 4k still doesn't make an appreciable dent in them. > I notice you failed to address bandwidth cost related issues. Mostly because I think that is cheaper. Each post of the mailing list incurs the same cost. High membership and high volume means the troll is taking a very low percentage of the total cost. High membership and low volume lists are usually moderated, so are irrelevant. Low membership lists don't get the fan-out to be expensive on a per message basis. > [ ... ] >> Unsubscribe to the mailing list? ;) > And let the troll achive his goal uncontested? Is that his goal? How would you know? Some trolls like to be heard. Others like to engender flamewars. Some are simply trying to get an unpopular message out. > Go somewhere else? Hey, you were the one asking for a solution to let you not download or store the message in the first place. ;) > Only to have the troll follow, because, with everyone unsubscribed > to freebsd-hackers and subscribed to freebsd-hacker instead, there > is no one to piss on? > That moves the problem, but it hardly solves it, does it? You can't moderate a troll without moderation, and moderation tends to stifle creative discussion. (Personally, I can't wait until Freenet has the equivalent of USENET.) >> Sorry. You are acting like one troll is a huge cost. It isn't. Let me >> assure you in my vast experience with trolls and message group >> communities, even 100 messages from 10 trolls only hurts the psyche of >> the community. Storage and transport costs are too cheap to care about >> what one person can do short of scripting floods. > What if it's "the psyche of the community" itself which you value? Then you are doomed, even without trolls. Psyches change all the time. You've often heard someone bemoan change, this will be no different. >> >> Actually, the important part is our disagreement as to where to hang >> >> out. >> > ??? >> >> I hang out in many places, generally preferring the anarchistic to the >> overly fascist. You seemed to assert you only like fascist places. > > No, I like freedom, both from oppression of the free exchange of > ideas by a central authority, and oppression of the free echange > of ideas by individual bullies. Censoring a troll is oppressing that troll's idea, whether from a central authority or by a consensual group of bullies. Did you say you liked freedom? The true test of liking freedom is had when you encounter someone who has the freedom to be sociopathic against you...and you still like that freedom. > Defeating the neghborhood bully doesn't of necessity breed another > neighborhood bully, particularly if word gets around that bullies > have "accidents" in that particular neighborhood. Without that lesson of learning to defeat the bully, you might never understand what it is to overcome social adversity. >> >> Accomodation and toleration are a bit different, don't you think? >> > >> > No. If you tolerate a behaviour, you implicitly condone that >> > behaviour. >> >> Oh please. Not this tired old argument. Again, you are violating your >> "excluded middle" paradoxia. It's possible to neither condone nor >> decry a behavior, don't you think? > > Condone: to pardon or overlook voluntarily; especially : to treat > as if trivial, harmless, or of no importance Ok, wrong word. s/condone/support/go; >> Additionally, what kind of egotistical concept is it where you >> have to render forth on each behavior you see? > On each behaviour you see that you find antisocial, you mean. If I were to spend my time holding forth on each behaviour I see that I considered "antisocial" or bad, I'd be holding forth the rest of my life 24/7. > It's human. It takes every kind of people. > [ ... ] >> Yes, some lists will rigorously block trolls and others will not. That >> doesn't mean the trolls don't exist or will not emerge. > It means they will have to go elsewhere to find their voice; and > since the desire is for them to go elsewhere, the reason that > happens is pretty irrelevent. Some creative trolls find ways to get past blocks. One more dance for people to do in their copious spare time. >> -I- think that troll access should not be blocked. -You- can do >> whatever you want, but I would recommend that you learn to filter >> trolls out at your brain since it's demonstrably the most efficient >> way to do so. > I disagree with your efficiency claim. It is more efficient for > the trolls to not exist. I'd agree with that, but I disagree that trolls are going away any time soon. >> I never agreed with Occam's Razor. Sometimes it's not accurate. > Science works. Science is a religion. Like most religions, you see what you want to see; usually this is not truth. >> > Of course, I have a theory on why they have arrived, and what >> > their actual goals are (they are not the goals or purpose you >> > state for trolls, in general, because they are not the emergent >> > environmental trolls you claim are the only possible trolls), >> >> Man, are you good at reading things into what I said that aren't >> there or what? Do I have to forumlate a set of theorems so you can >> dispute each one separately? > > Depends; do you want to have your ideas taken seriously, Damn, thanks for reminding me. No I don't want them taken seriously. This planet is one big comedic stage, I keep trying to rememeber that. >> > and I could even give them pointers, since they probably have >> > not bothered to mathematically model the project that they are >> > attempting to disrupt (they are probably incapable of doing the >> > necessary math, actually). >> >> Ok, so what is your theory? > > My theory of what? Of why the trolls are suddenly raising their > pointy heads? Yes. > Of my model for some Open Source projects? Good god, hasn't everyone in the world already held forth on this one? >> > It's an intentional tit-for-tat. >> >> Of course, oh superior one. Tell me what else I should know? =) > > You are talking in subtexts, refusing to address real points, or > permit them divisibility from a cloud of issues, so I have responded > in kind. There are no real points, and you can't usefully orthogonalize the world into finite integer divisions to be analyzed separately. The subject and the object are one. > [ ... ] >> I also think it will take more than email to communicate the principia >> of that thesis. I might have to try back in 20 years. > > Alternately, you can post your thesis on a web site somewhere, > and post the URL, rather than continually alluding to it, but > never saying it. That would not serve the best and highest good. So I won't. >> > What about your putative "troll" of "the wrong race" who chooses >> > as his means moving in next door to the racist who is actually >> > in the process of attempting to "live among his own kind"? >> >> Why is it society's job to prevent each from learning their own >> lesson? Let them fight each other and learn, eh? Neither is trying >> to destroy "society" per se, they are just trying to destroy each >> other's race. > > Stay out of the middle, and let one wipe out the other, if it can? Basically. > [ ... ] >> What about him? Eventually, someone he tries to eat will kill him. > And that's an acceptable outcome? I don't believe I have the authority to accept any outcomes other than the ones I am involved in. >> Of course you can define a situation that supports your position, >> just like I can define one to support mine. The key debating point >> is, my position is self directed, yours is others directed. Which is >> more efficient? I assert self directed self improvement, rather than >> other's directed jihadic purging, takes the least energy and is more >> productive in the long run. > So CBS is on a Jihad against you, personally, because they deny > you air time to vent your views? Actually, it's FOX that's on the jihad. CBS wants to sign me to a three-year contract. ;) > [ ... ] >> Ad absurdum arguments are seductive, but they don't produce workable >> realities...only absurd ones. > Hardly. The point out the fallacy of arguing from the specific > to the general, which is their intended function. Isn't that what you are doing, taking a specific example and attempting to generalize from it? > [ ... ] >> There are no misfits in a utpoian anarchy, by definition. > Nor in a fascist police state... Misfits will pop up from time to time in a fascist police state, but they will soon be hung. In a utopian anarchy, misfits cannot even exist. >> What is your definition of a "troll that is not a minor misfit"? > One who trolls because he is paid to troll, rather than from > a sense of heart-felt convictions, whatever the coin in which > he is paid. In that sense all trolls are paid...some receive gratification...others receive hatred... > A troll who trolls from heart-felt convictions will either leave > or achieve accomodation within the group. The other has no > interest in achieving accommodation, or even permtting any form > of coexistance. He is a sociopath. I don't agree. I think he's just mad and not gonna take it anymore. > [ ... ] >> > On the flip side, you keep portraying sender blocking as if it >> > were some form of capital punishment, inviting extreme comparisons. >> >> It is to me. It's lost information. I learn just as much from the >> detractors as I do from the supporters. Block the detractors and >> that's a lot of information lost. > It's not lost; it is merely forced to see alternate venue. You > are free to go to the other venue and learn from the detractors > there. IF I can find the other venue. >> >> It's not working. >> > That's because trolling is not "art", any more than any other >> > criminal activity is "art". >> >> Bah. Did you see the latest troll (message ID >> 20020828155003.37CC33960@sitemail.everyone.net) towards you? >> >> A masterpiece, I tell you! Brilliantly executed to make you seem like >> the good guy. And trolling about trolls, man that is exquisite. I'm >> surprised a man of your apparent culture level cannot appreciate this >> art form. ;) > Hardly. It's like appreciating Thomas Harris' Jamie Gumb's > sewing skills, or a sausage factory: very hard to appreciate > the art, once you know the raw materials. I can tell you aren't an artist. >> Criminal activity can be art. Ever see some of the graffiti artists ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> in central LA? My god these people are talented with a spray paint >> can. Some of the stuff is so eye catching, it's hard to drive through >> the area without risking an accident. I can send you some photos if >> you don't frequent these kinds of areas. >> >> Just because the results and/or actions are illegal doesn't mean they >> aren't artistic. > > Criminal art is a subset of criminal activity, not an equivalence > set. I never said they were equivalence. >> > "42". >> >> Yes, Douglas Adams almost had it right. Still, the real trick is to >> find the question. > Yes. That's what I was making fun of: you see it as a big > computation of something, but you don't know what, yet you > still see value in the act of computation... the means justify > the ends. Well make fun of it as you like. That's my viewpoint. Have fun doing your superior dance. > [ ... ] >> > I don't think it's possible for individuals to assert any >> > important amount of control over more than a few people, >> > either. But it's demonstrably true that society can, and >> > does, exert such control. Where you seem to differ from me >> > is that I think it *should*. >> >> Society doesn't do a very good job of it, and that is part of the >> reason I think it shouldn't. The other part is that I think >> it's dishonorable to control others, I don't care who you are. > > Name one person who has been assessed the death penalty who has > subsequently repeated their crime. 8-). Only if I can name several people who have continually repeated their crimes and haven't been caught yet. (Damn, I can't use Enron as an example anymore.) X) > [ ... design problem ... ] >> Good luck. This is extremely difficult to do without stifling >> communication from those you want to hear from (who aren't trolls). > I see this as a result of having trolls: an consequence of their > actions is general oppression. We will have to agree to disagree on this point. >> > I understand that you're claiming trolls are not sociopaths, they >> > are merely people with the email equivalent of Tourette's Syndrome. >> > Understand me, when I say I won't hire these people to work the >> > mailing lists, any more than I'd hire myself as a spotter. >> >> I dunno, I think a troll would be a perfect moderator. Trolls truly >> understand the impact of specific communications, more than most >> people anyway. And you'd have one less troll. |) > > This is the Theo de Raddt argument. Who? (Sorry Theo...had to be done.) > The fallacy there is that the people who "take their ball and go > home", and the people who follow them, will always be the most > volatile segment of any society. There's nothing you can do about them without granting them the implicit power to moderate, so why worry about it? > [ ... ] >> In picking a specific case such that you can fail to see the general >> paradigm, who's really losing here? > You, in failing to communicate your view of the general paradigm > effectively? Or you, in failing to see new data. > [ ... ] >> Which creates script kiddies and exploiters and contributes to the >> wonderous dance of opposites. ;) > Script kiddies and exploiters create themselves. Dig it. It's natural. ------ Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<< You should know by yourself what is holy and what is ordinary, what is wrong and what is right -- don't be concerned with others' judgements. How many people have ever managed to find out every subtlety? People arbitrarily follow material senses, running like idiots. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Aug 28 22: 6:29 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C25B37B400 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 22:06:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org [64.239.180.8]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0219C43E6A for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 22:06:26 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@jetcafe.org) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7T56I108415; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 22:06:19 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org) Message-Id: <200208290506.g7T56I108415@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: rob spellberg Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 22:06:13 -0700 From: Dave Hayes Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org rob spellberg writes: >> >> This is because it's terribly frightening to most humans to a) >> >> be personally responsible for their own actions, b) honor others >> >> regardless of what they choose to do, c) maintain a state of constant >> >> present-time awareness, d) follow their own internal codes of conduct, >> >> e) find their passion, and f) dance their passion into existance. >> > (d) is problematic. >> For you, maybe. I find, once I remove the consensual pressure to >> conform, that it's rather impossible to violate your own internal >> codes. Remember that you can't say anything about another's >> violations, just your own. > actually, [d] --is-- problematic. > if one person's ICOC includes killing others and > others ICOC's insist that they not be killed by others, then > houston, we have a problem. I think you misunderstand (d). Your ICOC cannot insist actions from others by definition. It's an internal code of conduct, for how -you- act. If you've written "I shall not be killed by others" in your ICOC, then you're bound to take a martial art, study combat, have umpteen guns, etc. Or you could study Aikido. > in my experience [ i'm 47 ], > most people are neither enlightened nor aware. Granted. > consider that there exists a large group of people > who put forth great effort, just to avoid having "a job". > all utopias fail because, sooner or later, > somebody learns how to game the system. The utopia I described starts with people who have no need to game the system. It's pretty far advanced, I doubt our current system could transition in less than 5000 years without some natural disaster taking out most of the population of the planet. >> Well. Let's see just how much your averagea 4K message will cost you >> to store. > the last post was 28k. And rare to find a post that long. Look at the troll post sizes. > oh, dave. > the ad_hominem attack; > questioning your debating opponent's intelligence. That's not an ad hominem attack. An ad hominem attack is something like "Terry you ignorant slut". If you examine the context, you'll get a better handle on it. > you have just declared that, in your own mind, > you have already lost the argument. But I'm not trying to win or lose... > graffiti [ except in designated places ] --is-- vandalism. > in addition, by your own admission, > it is sometimes a clear and present danger to public safety. That doesn't mean it isn't artistic because it is illegal. Some of it is beautiful. ------ Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<< A person was frighteningly ugly. Once he was asked how could he go on living with such a terrible face. "Why should I be unhappy?", answered the man. "I never see my own face; let others worry." To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Aug 28 22:45: 8 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDF0937B400 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 22:45:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from falcon.mail.pas.earthlink.net (falcon.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.74]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EDEB43E6E for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 22:45:01 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from richardh@wsonline.net) Received: from user-119a7q7.biz.mindspring.com ([66.149.31.71] helo=athlon.wsonline.net) by falcon.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17kI71-0002z3-00; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 22:44:59 -0700 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020828233348.00a8d700@mail.richardh.wsonline.net> X-Sender: richardh@mail.richardh.wsonline.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 23:47:57 -0600 To: Dave Hayes , rob spellberg From: RichardH Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: <200208290506.g7T56I108415@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org All of you fail to realize that everything you are stating is based on "morals" supplied by whatever crap religion it is you support. Break it down to animal basics and the strong survive, the weak will be filtered by natural selection. If you take the "moral" equation out of this discussion it ends. We are organic beings, animals, pretty much like any other. The difference is we have recollection of the past, not just a struggle for the future. If it was brought to the "Utopia" then there would definitely not be 6 billion people of which probably 5 billion are useless swamping this planet :) Just my 2 cents after watching all this for the past 2 days. As stated by a reader in the Denver papers yesterday, for Iraq, we should drop A-bombs on them and then deny we did it. There is no way it could be "proven", I would take this a step further and flatten Jerusalem, Bethlehem and all of the other religious sites that cause all these problems in the world, Vatican included . If these idiots did not have their "holy" sites to fight over peace would possibly be attained. Of course there would be bombings, wars, etc. but after 100-200 years of stuff being paved and radioactive people would get over it. Of course as stated this is based on a "no moral" attack. Can't do that tho, look to the PC status of not just the US but what we do to appease the rest of the world. Flame away but the Jew/Arab/Middle east conflict could be solved by about 6 neutron, no those leave their stupid "holy" sites, lets say hydrogen bombs, about 50MT-100MT each should fix the middle east issue. Then We just deny any involvement, we have bombers that could drop with no detection. At 11:06 PM 8/28/2002, Dave Hayes wrote: >rob spellberg writes: > >> >> This is because it's terribly frightening to most humans to a) > >> >> be personally responsible for their own actions, b) honor others > >> >> regardless of what they choose to do, c) maintain a state of constant > >> >> present-time awareness, d) follow their own internal codes of conduct, > >> >> e) find their passion, and f) dance their passion into existance. > >> > (d) is problematic. > >> For you, maybe. I find, once I remove the consensual pressure to > >> conform, that it's rather impossible to violate your own internal > >> codes. Remember that you can't say anything about another's > >> violations, just your own. > > actually, [d] --is-- problematic. > > if one person's ICOC includes killing others and > > others ICOC's insist that they not be killed by others, then > > houston, we have a problem. > >I think you misunderstand (d). > >Your ICOC cannot insist actions from others by definition. It's an >internal code of conduct, for how -you- act. > >If you've written "I shall not be killed by others" in your ICOC, >then you're bound to take a martial art, study combat, have umpteen >guns, etc. Or you could study Aikido. > > > in my experience [ i'm 47 ], > > most people are neither enlightened nor aware. > >Granted. > > > consider that there exists a large group of people > > who put forth great effort, just to avoid having "a job". > > all utopias fail because, sooner or later, > > somebody learns how to game the system. > >The utopia I described starts with people who have no need to game the >system. It's pretty far advanced, I doubt our current system could >transition in less than 5000 years without some natural disaster >taking out most of the population of the planet. > > >> Well. Let's see just how much your averagea 4K message will cost you > >> to store. > > the last post was 28k. > >And rare to find a post that long. Look at the troll post sizes. > > > oh, dave. > > the ad_hominem attack; > > questioning your debating opponent's intelligence. > >That's not an ad hominem attack. An ad hominem attack is something >like "Terry you ignorant slut". If you examine the context, you'll >get a better handle on it. > > > you have just declared that, in your own mind, > > you have already lost the argument. > >But I'm not trying to win or lose... > > > graffiti [ except in designated places ] --is-- vandalism. > > in addition, by your own admission, > > it is sometimes a clear and present danger to public safety. > >That doesn't mean it isn't artistic because it is illegal. Some of it >is beautiful. >------ >Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org > >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<< > >A person was frighteningly ugly. Once he was asked how could >he go on living with such a terrible face. "Why should I be >unhappy?", answered the man. "I never see my own face; let >others worry." > > > > > >To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org >with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Aug 28 22:46:51 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7904637B400; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 22:46:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wantadilla.lemis.com (wantadilla.lemis.com [192.109.197.80]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43AAE43E4A; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 22:46:49 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from grog@lemis.com) Received: by wantadilla.lemis.com (Postfix, from userid 1004) id 53E0181291; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 15:16:46 +0930 (CST) Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 15:16:46 +0930 From: Baldknife John To: John Baldwin Cc: chat@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Troll Bait Message-ID: <20020829054646.GF27285@wantadilla.lemis.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.99i Organization: The FreeBSD Project X-PGP-Fingerprint: 9A1B 8202 BCCE B846 F92F 09AC 22E6 F290 507A 4223 Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Wednesday, 28 August 2002 at 14:39:02 -0400, John Baldwin wrote: > Hey, I feel left out since I haven't had a troll abuse my name or give > me shouts. :-P Well, there were some falsely attributed IRC quotes, so > maybe I'll just have to settle for simple libel. I'm here. Beware. You don't know what dangers live in the depths of the trolls. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. Baldknife To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Aug 28 22:55: 3 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DEFD37B400; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 22:55:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pintail.mail.pas.earthlink.net (pintail.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.122]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBC2743E72; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 22:54:59 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from richardh@wsonline.net) Received: from user-119a7q7.biz.mindspring.com ([66.149.31.71] helo=athlon.wsonline.net) by pintail.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17kIGh-0005xw-00; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 22:54:59 -0700 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020828235632.00adf358@mail.richardh.wsonline.net> X-Sender: richardh@mail.richardh.wsonline.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 23:57:57 -0600 To: Baldknife John , John Baldwin From: RichardH Subject: Re: Troll Bait Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: <20020829054646.GF27285@wantadilla.lemis.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org They won't stop it, has been over 36 hours now. I figured the "survival of the fittest" argument might make them , hell I don't know, take themselves out lol. At 11:46 PM 8/28/2002, Baldknife John wrote: >On Wednesday, 28 August 2002 at 14:39:02 -0400, John Baldwin wrote: > > Hey, I feel left out since I haven't had a troll abuse my name or give > > me shouts. :-P Well, there were some falsely attributed IRC quotes, so > > maybe I'll just have to settle for simple libel. > >I'm here. Beware. You don't know what dangers live in the depths of >the trolls. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. > >Baldknife > >To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org >with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Aug 28 22:56:34 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C95D237B400; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 22:56:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pintail.mail.pas.earthlink.net (pintail.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.122]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B30643E6A; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 22:56:32 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from richardh@wsonline.net) Received: from user-119a7q7.biz.mindspring.com ([66.149.31.71] helo=athlon.wsonline.net) by pintail.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17kIIB-0007BB-00; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 22:56:32 -0700 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020828235905.00acd500@mail.richardh.wsonline.net> X-Sender: richardh@mail.richardh.wsonline.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 23:59:28 -0600 To: Baldknife John , John Baldwin From: RichardH Subject: Re: Troll Bait Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org or at least going on 36 hours, pretty damn close They won't stop it, has been over 36 hours now. I figured the "survival of the fittest" argument might make them , hell I don't know, take themselves out lol. At 11:46 PM 8/28/2002, Baldknife John wrote: >On Wednesday, 28 August 2002 at 14:39:02 -0400, John Baldwin wrote: > > Hey, I feel left out since I haven't had a troll abuse my name or give > > me shouts. :-P Well, there were some falsely attributed IRC quotes, so > > maybe I'll just have to settle for simple libel. > >I'm here. Beware. You don't know what dangers live in the depths of >the trolls. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. > >Baldknife > >To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org >with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Aug 28 23: 2:28 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D78A137B400 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 23:02:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pintail.mail.pas.earthlink.net (pintail.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.122]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 916E043E6A for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 23:02:26 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from rh@storm2k.com) Received: from user-119a7q7.biz.mindspring.com ([66.149.31.71] helo=athlon.storm2k.com) by pintail.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17kINu-00048Z-00 for chat@FreeBSD.ORG; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 23:02:26 -0700 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020829000049.00ad4bc0@mail.storm2k.wsonline.net> X-Sender: storm2k@mail.storm2k.wsonline.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 00:05:25 -0600 To: chat@FreeBSD.ORG From: RichardH Subject: new subject- office stuff Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Here's a new subject. As far as "office" suites, any recommends? Openoffice still seems buggy and all that is said is "patch it" not alot else. Star is now pay, basically looking for something that will do "word" docs, not really concerned about excel, PP, etc. Does KDE office suite convert to MS crap in any way?? Just need to read them if possible, can send as plain text so no problem there. If openoffice is "fixed" what patches, etc. need to be done in what order, etc. (seems to me if it is "fixed" it should not need to be patched, sounds like MS crap) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Aug 28 23:13:28 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B09437B40A; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 23:13:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org [64.239.180.8]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC04243ED8; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 23:13:10 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@jetcafe.org) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7T6CY108832; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 23:12:35 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org) Message-Id: <200208290612.g7T6CY108832@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: RichardH Cc: Baldknife John , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Troll Bait Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 23:12:29 -0700 From: Dave Hayes Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org richardh writes: > They won't stop it, has been over 36 hours now. I'll stop if asked since I'm not really a troll, just enjoying the feel of an old tyme USENET fla...er discussion. ;) ------ Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<< If trees could scream, would we be so cavalier about cutting them down? We might, if they screamed all the time, for no good reason. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Aug 28 23:14: 7 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7A0D37B400 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 23:14:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.comcast.net (smtp.comcast.net [24.153.64.2]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5167D43E4A for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 23:14:05 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from lomifeh@earthlink.net) Received: from [68.39.204.200] (bgp587257bgs.jdover01.nj.comcast.net [68.39.204.200]) by mtaout03.icomcast.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 HotFix 0.8 (built May 13 2002)) with ESMTP id <0H1L00BTVDBBX8@mtaout03.icomcast.net> for chat@freebsd.org; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 02:14:01 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 02:14:00 -0400 From: Lawrence Sica Subject: Re: new subject- office stuff In-reply-to: <5.1.0.14.0.20020829000049.00ad4bc0@mail.storm2k.wsonline.net> To: RichardH , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/10.1.0.2006 Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On 08/29/02 02:05 AM, "RichardH" wrote: > Here's a new subject. As far as "office" suites, any recommends? Openoffice > still seems buggy and all that is said is "patch it" not alot else. Star is > now pay, basically looking for something that will do "word" docs, not > really concerned about excel, PP, etc. Does KDE office suite convert to MS > crap in any way?? Just need to read them if possible, can send as plain > text so no problem there. If openoffice is "fixed" what patches, etc. need > to be done in what order, etc. (seems to me if it is "fixed" it should not > need to be patched, sounds like MS crap) > Openoffice would be nice, ive used it on Solaris, not on FreeBSD. Koffice does do word docs I cant say how well though. Catdoc will extract text from word docs, it is in the ports. Comes with a viewer too. As an aside I find it ironic that office v.x for the mac is a better quality product than ms office for windows. At least from my use it seems to be. > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Aug 28 23:19:25 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E330037B400; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 23:19:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.comcast.net (smtp.comcast.net [24.153.64.2]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EC7143E4A; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 23:19:22 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from lomifeh@earthlink.net) Received: from [68.39.204.200] (bgp587257bgs.jdover01.nj.comcast.net [68.39.204.200]) by mtaout03.icomcast.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 HotFix 0.8 (built May 13 2002)) with ESMTP id <0H1L00B0ADK9IS@mtaout03.icomcast.net>; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 02:19:22 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 02:19:18 -0400 From: Lawrence Sica Subject: Re: Troll Bait In-reply-to: <200208290612.g7T6CY108832@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> To: Dave Hayes , RichardH Cc: Baldknife John , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/10.1.0.2006 Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On 08/29/02 02:12 AM, "Dave Hayes" wrote: > richardh writes: >> They won't stop it, has been over 36 hours now. > > I'll stop if asked since I'm not really a troll, just enjoying the feel of > an old tyme USENET fla...er discussion. ;) > I thought this was an attempt for the worlds record. I better call guiness and see what the longest is. Also teaches me to mention the word zen on this list again.... ;) --Larry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Aug 28 23:22:32 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E204D37B407 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 23:22:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from scaup.mail.pas.earthlink.net (scaup.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.49]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CAE343E6E for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 23:22:28 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from rh@storm2k.com) Received: from user-119a7q7.biz.mindspring.com ([66.149.31.71] helo=athlon.storm2k.com) by scaup.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17kIhH-0006K5-00; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 23:22:27 -0700 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020829002021.00add248@mail.storm2k.wsonline.net> X-Sender: storm2k@mail.storm2k.wsonline.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 00:25:21 -0600 To: Lawrence Sica , chat@FreeBSD.ORG From: RichardH Subject: Re: new subject- office stuff In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020829000049.00ad4bc0@mail.storm2k.wsonline.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org At 12:14 AM 8/29/2002, Lawrence Sica wrote: >On 08/29/02 02:05 AM, "RichardH" wrote: > If openoffice is "fixed" what patches, etc. need > > to be done in what order, etc. (seems to me if it is "fixed" it should not > > need to be patched, sounds like MS crap) > > >Openoffice would be nice, ive used it on Solaris, not on FreeBSD. Koffice >does do word docs I cant say how well though. > >Catdoc will extract text from word docs, it is in the ports. Comes with a >viewer too. > >As an aside I find it ironic that office v.x for the mac is a better quality >product than ms office for windows. At least from my use it seems to be. Will delve further into koffice, it sets up easy, reloading whole sys now so deciding what to use. OO seems to be good for some people here and others cannot get it running. Supposedly patching it fixes it but there is no clear documentation for the exact steps to do it (in mail list archives at least). Will check catdoc, just need to view "word" docs, can send replys, etc. in plain text. Any additional info on OO would be helpful from ppl reading this and running it successfully. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Aug 28 23:25:39 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF4F637B400; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 23:25:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from avocet.mail.pas.earthlink.net (avocet.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.50]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B17743E84; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 23:25:37 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from richardh@wsonline.net) Received: from user-119a7q7.biz.mindspring.com ([66.149.31.71] helo=athlon.wsonline.net) by avocet.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17kIkE-0006WG-00; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 23:25:30 -0700 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020829002730.03073430@mail.richardh.wsonline.net> X-Sender: richardh@mail.richardh.wsonline.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 00:28:29 -0600 To: Lawrence Sica From: RichardH Subject: Re: Troll Bait Cc: Baldknife John , chat@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: References: <200208290612.g7T6CY108832@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org hahaha, I just figured after reading their crap for almost 2 days I would piss them off some more, keep 'em awake you know lol. RH At 12:19 AM 8/29/2002, Lawrence Sica wrote: >On 08/29/02 02:12 AM, "Dave Hayes" wrote: > > > richardh writes: > >> They won't stop it, has been over 36 hours now. > > > > I'll stop if asked since I'm not really a troll, just enjoying the feel of > > an old tyme USENET fla...er discussion. ;) > > > >I thought this was an attempt for the worlds record. I better call guiness >and see what the longest is. > >Also teaches me to mention the word zen on this list again.... > > >;) > >--Larry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Aug 28 23:32:16 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3494937B400; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 23:32:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org [64.239.180.8]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B816043E42; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 23:32:14 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@jetcafe.org) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7T6W7109106; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 23:32:07 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org) Message-Id: <200208290632.g7T6W7109106@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: RichardH Cc: Lawrence Sica , Baldknife John , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Troll Bait Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 23:32:02 -0700 From: Dave Hayes Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org richardh writes: > hahaha, I just figured after reading their crap for almost 2 days I would > piss them off some more, keep 'em awake you know lol. RH I doubt very much that I would ever allow you such control over my emotions. |) ------ Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<< Our greatest fears are shadows of things that don't exist. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Aug 28 23:33:22 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0715937B418 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 23:33:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hawk.mail.pas.earthlink.net (hawk.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.22]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77B9A43E42 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 23:33:10 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from rh@storm2k.com) Received: from user-119a7q7.biz.mindspring.com ([66.149.31.71] helo=athlon.storm2k.com) by hawk.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17kIrd-0002Nm-00 for chat@FreeBSD.ORG; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 23:33:09 -0700 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020829003448.00ad65b8@mail.storm2k.wsonline.net> X-Sender: storm2k@mail.storm2k.wsonline.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 00:36:09 -0600 To: chat@FreeBSD.ORG From: RichardH Subject: trump? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org hmm, no asinine zen comments yet, wonder if my hydro bomb theory trumped their "let's all get along" theories?? To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Aug 28 23:40:59 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7BA637B400 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 23:40:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gull.mail.pas.earthlink.net (gull.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.84]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF4EA43E3B for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 23:40:56 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from rh@storm2k.com) Received: from user-119a7q7.biz.mindspring.com ([66.149.31.71] helo=athlon.storm2k.com) by gull.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17kIzA-0006N3-00 for chat@FreeBSD.ORG; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 23:40:56 -0700 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020829004040.00ad65b8@mail.storm2k.wsonline.net> X-Sender: storm2k@mail.storm2k.wsonline.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 00:43:50 -0600 To: chat@FreeBSD.ORG From: RichardH Subject: zen Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org oh, and zen is that guy in Utah who probably kidnapped the little girl who is now pretty much brain dead from an aneurysm/tumor, hahaha, that is universal zen. hope he stays a veg for about 3 years and then twitches out, sad taxpayers have to foot it, should have let him out on bail the day b4 so family could have got part of it at least. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Aug 28 23:43:30 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 417EA37B400 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 23:43:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gull.mail.pas.earthlink.net (gull.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.84]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 098DF43E6A for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 23:43:28 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from rh@storm2k.com) Received: from user-119a7q7.biz.mindspring.com ([66.149.31.71] helo=athlon.storm2k.com) by gull.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17kJ1a-0000Cv-00 for chat@FreeBSD.ORG; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 23:43:26 -0700 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020829004546.03085a98@mail.storm2k.wsonline.net> X-Sender: storm2k@mail.storm2k.wsonline.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 00:46:26 -0600 To: chat@FreeBSD.ORG From: RichardH Subject: correction Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org correction, that should be attributed to karma prob, what goes around, etc. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Aug 29 0:46:58 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BCED37B400 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 00:46:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from chen.org.nz (chen.org.nz [210.54.19.51]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 829E043E3B for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 00:46:21 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jonc@chen.org.nz) Received: from grimoire.chen.org.nz (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by chen.org.nz (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g7T7hBve069801; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 19:43:11 +1200 (NZST) (envelope-from jonc@grimoire.chen.org.nz) Received: (from jonc@localhost) by grimoire.chen.org.nz (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) id g7T7hARU069800; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 19:43:10 +1200 (NZST) Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 19:43:10 +1200 From: Jonathan Chen To: RichardH Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: new subject- office stuff Message-ID: <20020829074310.GA69769@grimoire.chen.org.nz> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020829000049.00ad4bc0@mail.storm2k.wsonline.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20020829002021.00add248@mail.storm2k.wsonline.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020829002021.00add248@mail.storm2k.wsonline.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 12:25:21AM -0600, RichardH wrote: > OO seems to be good for some people here and others cannot get it running. > Supposedly patching it fixes it but there is no clear documentation for the > exact steps to do it (in mail list archives at least). You can download packages or use the ports. Both work fine here. -- Jonathan Chen ---------------------------------------------------------------------- "Irrationality is the square root of all evil" - Douglas Hofstadter To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Aug 29 1:30:22 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4D6837B400 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 01:29:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from scaup.mail.pas.earthlink.net (scaup.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.49]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 163D543E65 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 01:29:49 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0109.cvx40-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([216.244.42.109] helo=mindspring.com) by scaup.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17kKfn-0007ge-00; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 01:29:04 -0700 Message-ID: <3D6DD985.81C8AF41@mindspring.com> Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 01:21:25 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dave Hayes Cc: Lawrence Sica , Giorgos Keramidas , Ceri Davies , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? References: <200208290456.g7T4up108342@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Dave Hayes wrote: > > I disagree with your claims that adversity is a positive evolutionary > > pressure (anything which is not potentially fatal prior to reporduction > > is not an evolutionary pressure, positive or otherwise). > > So you are disagreeing with most academic evolutionary theory? Just yours. 8-). > > I disagree with your thesis about mankinds "current evolutionary state" > > (which has so many assumptions in it that it's hard to know where to > > start picking it apart). > > It's not my thesis. There's the first assumption. It's not even a > paper. Look around you. Wrong meaning of the word "thesis", but of course, you knew that... > > I disagree with your preposterous claim that "corruption, inefficiency > > and politics will derail any -real- ``good''" that could arise from an > > emergent organization. > > You can't provide an example to refute this claim. Go on, try. Define what you would consider an acceptable proof. > > Oh yeah: I also disagree that organizations and communities are always > > self-assembled, and can not be the result of a conscious design -- a > > thesis upon which a lot of your faith is apparently based. > > Just where did you get this from? Dave Hayes wrote: ..."no matter what organization or community forms"... [ ... the Unibomber ... ] > So this person was attempting demonstrate the lack of readiness > by attempting to change society using destruction? Doomed to failure > he was, not only would the demonstration be lost on most people > (including you), but naturally society would react, find him, and > "rehabilitate" him. > > How ironic. I understood his reasons. I disagree with his goals, and further, I condemn his methods. As an aside, I have no idea where people keep getting the idea that prisons are for the benefit of prisoners instead of the benefit of the societies which build them. > You consistently seem to put worldviews up on this altar for academic > sacrifice. If you can get past that need, perhaps you are ready to > see what I am saying. Until then, I very much doubt you can extract > your brain from the sea of assumptions it sails upon enough to even > consider parts of real truth. I'm afraid this must all seem so > antithetical to your worldview that it's all to be rejected outright > by you. Yes. Mostly because ideas can be tested, and refined as a result of having been tested. > This is why I disagree that you understand. If you really understood, > you would have long since removed the argument from the academic arena > of thesis/proof/experiement, and attempted to interact with it in the > arena of what you have experienced yourself. The arena of the personal anecdote? > Some concepts in truth cannot be expressed in the thesis framework, > and are yet nevertheless true. And it is only you who are looking at the cave mounth, instead of at the shadows cast on the back wall of the cave? At this point, you are decribing your personal faith, not truth. [ ... ] > > It remains that there are people who act as they do, not out of > > an intrinsic rightousness, but out of a fear of the penalty. > > This is no better than slavery. We prefer the term "speed limit". [ ... ] > I recognize it, but normally I render such dishonorable intrusions > irrelevant. I don't kill people...this isn't because there is some > law with a penalty preventing me...it's because *I* choose not to > kill people. And note...you can't make me. Period. There's a lot > of other things I don't do on the same basis. The correct term for a person in this state is "amoralist". It arises from the (often blurred these days) distinction between morals (imposed from without) and ethics (imposed from within). This works well if one's ethics happen to coincide with the morals of the society of which they are a member, and poorly otherwise. > As if humans were modellable as a collection of automata with preset > behavior and reaction to external stimuli. Another reason I don't > believe you understand. Why is it that everyone believes that finite state automatons are the ultimate answer to modelling complex systems? I'm sure that this was not the intended result of the game of Life, nor of Sugarscape. The modelling I'm talking about is based on games theory, not on automata, and has its basis in mutual security games. > > Complexity without order is chaos, which has none of the interesting > > emergent properties. > > Hmm, according to a lot of those links you posted, it's the boundary > between order and chaos that is interesting and has emergent > properties. ;) Yes... the order is requisite for the emergent properties; I said that. [ ... sociopath, definition of ... ] > > No, I define it in terms of violent disruption of the established > > social order. > > That explains our disagreement then. |) The alternative to "sociopath" is "terrorist"; I was giving the benefit of the doubt. > > The interesting thing is that you seem to believe that the noosphere > > is somehow just as limited and constrained as physical geography, > > for some reason, and that, as a result, it's important for your > > ideas to colonize someone else's established space, rather than > > creating your own. > > Ok, I'll bite. Why do you say that? Your inital posting on the subject was to this mailing list, rather than to your own mailing list, as were the troll postings which you were defending so zealously in the posting. It's clear that the region of the noosphere both would cultivate is inferilte, and so both set out to try to plan their seeds in someone else's fertile ground. Perhaps you should be questining your seeds, and not the earth you inter them in. [ ... ] > > It's a good example of behaviour which is intolerably sociopathic, > > in the larger context. > > But it's not real. There simply aren't any cannibals who settle here > and live very long. Quit attaching conditions like "and live very long". It implies social action, and your argument is predicated on the idea that individuals should be tolerated without social action as recourse for social misbehaviour (e.g. blocking postings from trolls, etc.). Either your argument is univerwsally valid, or it's not. [ ... ] > It's extreme to the absurd, which suits your > purposes, but I don't buy absurdum argumenta easily. Consider this > one: someone invents a perfect mind control drug and then becomes a > medical doctor who prescribes these to his patients. Eventually > the entire society is enslaved. Therefore we should not have doctors, > since they could very well do that. It's a cost/benefit and risk analysis, which comes out very much in favor of having doctors. Getting back to the trolls, however, you have yet to articulate a downside to them not being there. > > That's false. You apparently believe that to understand it is to > > agree with it. > > Not at all. You can disagree. I merely contend that you don't > understand what I am mostly pointing at enough TO disagree with it > meaningfully. You can still disagree, it's your right as a human being... > at least untill your troll-control advocacy bears it's fruit. ;) I'm not advocating it at this point; I haven't been driven to it (yet). If it happens, you will know by the first example of my advocacy of such an idea would be a draft RFC, and a set of patches for sendmail, most of the mail clients in -ports, and plugins for Outlook, Eudora, and perhaps Netscape. I recognize that this would provide some rather serious capability for oppression, which could be abused in the future at some point in time (it would be rather trivial to impose in China, with state run ISPs and the ability to do port redirection through particualr server that required it, for example). So I refrain from writing the code, because my threshold has not (yet) been exceeded. But make no mistake: it's quite possible to "change the laws of physics" for email transport for the net to squelch trolls, SPAM, ...and politically "undesiarble" speech (an unfortunate side effect whose cost would have to be excceded by my perception of the cost of trolls). It's even in keeping with the "end-to-end" philosophy... moreso that the current SMTP services, which have no end-to-end guarantee of non-repudiation. [ ... ] > > Pick your examples; I will still disagree with the foundations. > > Because, deep down, I stand for everything you hate. ;) Probably not; I hold out hope, however misguided your ideas about trolls may be. [ ... ] > > Personally immune? Or socio-situationally immune ("it can't happen > > because it not being able to happen is an emergent property of the > > system")? > > Personally immune. The buck stops at you. So socio-situanal immunity is not permissable? > > Isn't it kind of hypocritical to elevate immunity, on the one hand, > > and bemoan a systems immune response, on the other? > > You are assuming a systems immune response where none is indicated. Blocking trolls -- or SPAM -- as a result of the content of the postings isn't a social immune response? > > Tell that to the people who invented mailbox quotas. > > 4k still doesn't make an appreciable dent in them. IYHO. > > I notice you failed to address bandwidth cost related issues. > > Mostly because I think that is cheaper. Each post of the mailing list > incurs the same cost. High membership and high volume means the troll > is taking a very low percentage of the total cost. High membership and > low volume lists are usually moderated, so are irrelevant. Low > membership lists don't get the fan-out to be expensive on a per > message basis. I'm not talking about amortized cost, I'm talking individual cost. You can't dismiss it that easily; in Japan, it costs per packet to send packets (as one example). > >> Unsubscribe to the mailing list? ;) > > And let the troll achive his goal uncontested? > > Is that his goal? How would you know? Some trolls like to be heard. > Others like to engender flamewars. Some are simply trying to get an > unpopular message out. Maybe I don't care about the goal, I care about the effect. How about you come up with a way to de-fang the effect, and then I can agree with you about trolls being socially permissable? [ ... ] > > Only to have the troll follow, because, with everyone unsubscribed > > to freebsd-hackers and subscribed to freebsd-hacker instead, there > > is no one to piss on? > > That moves the problem, but it hardly solves it, does it? > > You can't moderate a troll without moderation, and moderation tends to > stifle creative discussion. (Personally, I can't wait until Freenet has > the equivalent of USENET.) Trolls also tend to stifle creative discussion. How can one be "bad" and the other "good"? [ ... ] > > What if it's "the psyche of the community" itself which you value? > > Then you are doomed, even without trolls. Psyches change all the > time. You've often heard someone bemoan change, this will be no > different. If I'm doomed, then let me come to that cliff naturally, instead of having some jerk push me. > > No, I like freedom, both from oppression of the free exchange of > > ideas by a central authority, and oppression of the free echange > > of ideas by individual bullies. > > Censoring a troll is oppressing that troll's idea, whether from a > central authority or by a consensual group of bullies. If the troll is a bully, I will accord his rights the same merit which he gives to others, which is "none". It is not "bullying" to act in self defense. > Did you say you liked freedom? > > The true test of liking freedom is had when you encounter someone who > has the freedom to be sociopathic against you...and you still like > that freedom. "Gee, Hal, you're right! We *do* taste like chicken!". > > Defeating the neghborhood bully doesn't of necessity breed another > > neighborhood bully, particularly if word gets around that bullies > > have "accidents" in that particular neighborhood. > > Without that lesson of learning to defeat the bully, you might never > understand what it is to overcome social adversity. If social adversity is so good, why overcome it at all, and just wallow in it for all eternity? I have to agree with William Tecumpsah Sherman on this one. > >> >> Accomodation and toleration are a bit different, don't you think? > >> > No. If you tolerate a behaviour, you implicitly condone that > >> > behaviour. > >> > >> Oh please. Not this tired old argument. Again, you are violating your > >> "excluded middle" paradoxia. It's possible to neither condone nor > >> decry a behavior, don't you think? > > > > Condone: to pardon or overlook voluntarily; especially : to treat > > as if trivial, harmless, or of no importance > > Ok, wrong word. s/condone/support/go; I used "condone". You aren't going to get me to use a diametrically opposed word to "decry" in this context, so you might as well give up. 8-). > >> Additionally, what kind of egotistical concept is it where you > >> have to render forth on each behavior you see? > > On each behaviour you see that you find antisocial, you mean. > > If I were to spend my time holding forth on each behaviour I see that > I considered "antisocial" or bad, I'd be holding forth the rest of > my life 24/7. And the change from the current status quo would be... ? > > It's human. > > It takes every kind of people. No, it doesn't. > Some creative trolls find ways to get past blocks. One more dance for > people to do in their copious spare time. If a troll can break a 1024 bit key, then we have larger issues we need to worry about. 8-). [ ... ] > > I disagree with your efficiency claim. It is more efficient for > > the trolls to not exist. > > I'd agree with that, but I disagree that trolls are going away any > time soon. Why do you believe that they will have any more choice in the matter than the people England sent to Australia in the 19th century? [ ... ] > Science is a religion. Like most religions, you see what you want to > see; usually this is not truth. Science is a process, not a religion. [ ... ] > > My theory of what? Of why the trolls are suddenly raising their > > pointy heads? > > Yes. They are being paid. > > Of my model for some Open Source projects? > > Good god, hasn't everyone in the world already held forth on this one? Not in any predictive sense, no. Mostly, it's just been hand waving. > > You are talking in subtexts, refusing to address real points, or > > permit them divisibility from a cloud of issues, so I have responded > > in kind. > > There are no real points, and you can't usefully orthogonalize the > world into finite integer divisions to be analyzed separately. The > subject and the object are one. You failed statistics and modern physics, didn't you? 8-). There *are* real points; even if you can't identify them, you can identify their effects. And the idea that "observer effect" has any validity above a quantum level is a popular misconception. [ ... ] > > Alternately, you can post your thesis on a web site somewhere, > > and post the URL, rather than continually alluding to it, but > > never saying it. > > That would not serve the best and highest good. So I won't. Rather than finding like-minded people and acting in concert, you would prefer to rage against the wind? [ ... on racially motivated discord ... ] > > Stay out of the middle, and let one wipe out the other, if it can? > > Basically. That's appalling. [ ... ] > > So CBS is on a Jihad against you, personally, because they deny > > you air time to vent your views? > > Actually, it's FOX that's on the jihad. CBS wants to sign me to > a three-year contract. ;) The point is still valid, even if you choose to talk around it: why is there a "right" to the forum of mailing lists, but not to access to national media networks? In the limit, all we are talking about is closed vs. open media, for this particular argument. If you admit the permissability of closed media, then I don't see the problem with the method of closure. [ ... ] > > Hardly. The point out the fallacy of arguing from the specific > > to the general, which is their intended function. > > Isn't that what you are doing, taking a specific example and > attempting to generalize from it? No. You're arguing a general principle, and I'm applying it to specific examples to determine whether the general principle is sound. I am arguing from the general to the specific, which is a logically valid thing to do. > >> There are no misfits in a utpoian anarchy, by definition. > > Nor in a fascist police state... > > Misfits will pop up from time to time in a fascist police state, > but they will soon be hung. In a utopian anarchy, misfits cannot > even exist. Because they will be killed when they try to eat the wrong person? [ ... ] > In that sense all trolls are paid...some receive > gratification...others receive hatred... Motivation is the important part. > > A troll who trolls from heart-felt convictions will either leave > > or achieve accomodation within the group. The other has no > > interest in achieving accommodation, or even permtting any form > > of coexistance. He is a sociopath. > > I don't agree. I think he's just mad and not gonna take it anymore. Mad at *what*? Take *what*? Antisocial behaviour without a list of demands is nothing more than terrorism. Without identity, there is no way to determine whose grievances he wants addressed. Without specific grievances, there's no means for the society being attacked to provide a palliative, in the form of a reddress of particular grievances. This is important: Without stating specific grievances, he's not only "gonna take it", he's "gonna keep taking it". I think that I have to believe the troll is rational, and as such, the desire is not for a reddres of grievances, but for the effects on the society. [ ... ] > > It's not lost; it is merely forced to see alternate venue. You > > are free to go to the other venue and learn from the detractors > > there. > > IF I can find the other venue. "I'm sorry, Bob, but we've spun the ``big wheel of evolution'' and Mother Nature, unfortunately, didn't pick *you*!" [ ... ] > > Criminal art is a subset of criminal activity, not an equivalence > > set. > > I never said they were equivalence. No, you just defended an instance as art, on the premise that other instances could be art: "it is a fish; all trout are fish; it's probably a trout". [ ... ] > > Yes. That's what I was making fun of: you see it as a big > > computation of something, but you don't know what, yet you > > still see value in the act of computation... the means justify > > the ends. > > Well make fun of it as you like. That's my viewpoint. Have fun > doing your superior dance. It's not a question of being supercillious, it's a question of asking "and ... ?" and you not having an answer that would make us accept everything that came before. [ ... ] > > The fallacy there is that the people who "take their ball and go > > home", and the people who follow them, will always be the most > > volatile segment of any society. > > There's nothing you can do about them without granting them the > implicit power to moderate, so why worry about it? How do you enforce a "Do Not Enter" sign? I once saw a comedy routine, where the comedian suggested a solution to the problem of nuclear waste (paraphrased): We take all the nuclear waste, and just put it in a big pile in the desert. Then, at the edge of the safe distance from this pile of was, put up a fence with a big "Do Not Cross This Fence Or You Will Die" sign. Of course, inevitably, some people will cross the fence, and average human intelligence will go up. I think it's an elegant solution. [ ... ] > Or you, in failing to see new data. What new data? -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Aug 29 1:36:49 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5E2437B400 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 01:36:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from scaup.mail.pas.earthlink.net (scaup.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.49]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5176343E4A for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 01:36:48 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0109.cvx40-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([216.244.42.109] helo=mindspring.com) by scaup.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17kKn5-00042t-00; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 01:36:35 -0700 Message-ID: <3D6DDB68.AE9F470B@mindspring.com> Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 01:29:28 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: RichardH Cc: Dave Hayes , rob spellberg , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020828233348.00a8d700@mail.richardh.wsonline.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org RichardH wrote: > Of course there would be > bombings, wars, etc. but after 100-200 years of stuff being paved and > radioactive people would get over it. And, later, think back on it and laugh their feelers off. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Aug 29 1:39:59 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50A8237B400 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 01:39:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from scaup.mail.pas.earthlink.net (scaup.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.49]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1575C43E4A for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 01:39:58 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0109.cvx40-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([216.244.42.109] helo=mindspring.com) by scaup.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17kKqK-0005vc-00; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 01:39:57 -0700 Message-ID: <3D6DDC2F.A7B116B@mindspring.com> Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 01:32:47 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: RichardH Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: trump? References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020829003448.00ad65b8@mail.storm2k.wsonline.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org RichardH wrote: > hmm, no asinine zen comments yet, wonder if my hydro bomb theory trumped > their "let's all get along" theories?? Your Leaping Dragon Kung Fu is no match for my Cowering Piglet sytle! -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Aug 29 2:59: 5 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7808437B400 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 02:58:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org [64.239.180.8]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B9E743E6E for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 02:58:38 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@jetcafe.org) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7T9wa110717; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 02:58:37 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org) Message-Id: <200208290958.g7T9wa110717@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Terry Lambert Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 02:58:31 -0700 From: Dave Hayes Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org [ Original personal CC's stripped, let people's mail filters work on our banter if they so choose. ] Terry Lambert writes: > Dave Hayes wrote: >> > I disagree with your claims that adversity is a positive evolutionary >> > pressure (anything which is not potentially fatal prior to reporduction >> > is not an evolutionary pressure, positive or otherwise). >> >> So you are disagreeing with most academic evolutionary theory? > > Just yours. 8-). You'll have to show me where academic theory says that adversity isn't an evolutionary pressure. That flys in the face of academic theory, let alone mine. >> > I disagree with your thesis about mankinds "current evolutionary state" >> > (which has so many assumptions in it that it's hard to know where to >> > start picking it apart). >> >> It's not my thesis. There's the first assumption. It's not even a >> paper. Look around you. > > Wrong meaning of the word "thesis", but of course, you knew that... Look up "assumption". You have many of them. ;) >> > I disagree with your preposterous claim that "corruption, inefficiency >> > and politics will derail any -real- ``good''" that could arise from an >> > emergent organization. >> >> You can't provide an example to refute this claim. Go on, try. > > Define what you would consider an acceptable proof. Ok. First you must prove to me that the notion of "proof" exists and is applicable to testing ideas... ;) >> > Oh yeah: I also disagree that organizations and communities are always >> > self-assembled, and can not be the result of a conscious design -- a >> > thesis upon which a lot of your faith is apparently based. >> >> Just where did you get this from? > > Dave Hayes wrote: ..."no matter what organization or community > forms"... Yeah and...? I said: > Mankind's evolutionary state is such that no matter what > organization or community forms, corruption, inefficiency and > politics will derail any -real- "good" that said organization can > do. Where did you get "self-assembled" and "cannot be the result of a conscious design"? > [ ... the Unibomber ... ] >> So this person was attempting demonstrate the lack of readiness >> by attempting to change society using destruction? Doomed to failure >> he was, not only would the demonstration be lost on most people >> (including you), but naturally society would react, find him, and >> "rehabilitate" him. >> >> How ironic. > > I understood his reasons. I disagree with his goals, and further, > I condemn his methods. I don't agree nor disagree with his goals or methods. I think his life is a lesson for those who wish to see it. I am arrogant indeed, ( perhaps even more so than you ;) ) but I'm not so arrogant as to think that I really have any say over whet that person should or should not have done, fought for, or believed. Now if I had ever met or talked to the man, I might have offered him my opinion...but that never happened. ;) > As an aside, I have no idea where people keep getting the idea > that prisons are for the benefit of prisoners instead of the > benefit of the societies which build them. Unfortunately governments, in their quest to look all merciful and all knowing, started calling such places "rehabilitation" centers. In actuality, I perceive this naming to be more like "re-indoctrination" centers, but they really function as "isolation" centers. I could also call them "evolutionary" centers, but you'll violently disagree again. =) >> You consistently seem to put worldviews up on this altar for academic >> sacrifice. If you can get past that need, perhaps you are ready to >> see what I am saying. Until then, I very much doubt you can extract >> your brain from the sea of assumptions it sails upon enough to even >> consider parts of real truth. I'm afraid this must all seem so >> antithetical to your worldview that it's all to be rejected outright >> by you. > Yes. Mostly because ideas can be tested, and refined as a > result of having been tested. It is an error to test something without the means of testing it or even the means of understanding it. Mankind's academic arrogance is that it can understand anything. >> This is why I disagree that you understand. If you really understood, >> you would have long since removed the argument from the academic arena >> of thesis/proof/experiement, and attempted to interact with it in the >> arena of what you have experienced yourself. > The arena of the personal anecdote? There is no other real arena that you'll work with in your lifetime. >> Some concepts in truth cannot be expressed in the thesis framework, >> and are yet nevertheless true. > And it is only you who are looking at the cave mounth, instead > of at the shadows cast on the back wall of the cave? Not only me. Some others can too. Every so often I run into someone who's glimpsed it. > At this point, you are decribing your personal faith, not truth. I haven't even started to describe my "faith", which is mostly irrelevant to the truth. > [ ... ] >> > It remains that there are people who act as they do, not out of >> > an intrinsic rightousness, but out of a fear of the penalty. >> This is no better than slavery. > We prefer the term "speed limit". Those are just as insane. "Society" builds roads and vehicles that, together, that make travelling 100mph safe. Then they put 65mph speed limits on them and fine people for doing the obvious and logical thing when no one else is on the road. This has the effect of "training" people to remove their own natural judgement and go by force of letter of the law. Then people bemoan the lack of good judgement in people today. Hello?!? This is the kind of thing that makes me distrust any notion of an "authority" holding forth on what to say and what not to say. (You'll notice I don't leave that point unsaid if I can help it.) > [ ... ] >> I recognize it, but normally I render such dishonorable intrusions >> irrelevant. I don't kill people...this isn't because there is some >> law with a penalty preventing me...it's because *I* choose not to >> kill people. And note...you can't make me. Period. There's a lot >> of other things I don't do on the same basis. > The correct term for a person in this state is "amoralist". Gee, a loaded term. What a shock that you would use it. =P > It arises from the (often blurred these days) distinction between > morals (imposed from without) and ethics (imposed from within). This is not blurred in me I assure you. > This works well if one's ethics happen to coincide with the > morals of the society of which they are a member, and poorly > otherwise. You mean: it works well for -you- if -their- ethics coincide with -your- morals. ;) >> As if humans were modellable as a collection of automata with preset >> behavior and reaction to external stimuli. Another reason I don't >> believe you understand. > Why is it that everyone believes that finite state automatons > are the ultimate answer to modelling complex systems? Good question. Tell that to the society that is trying to mold humans into that image. > The modelling I'm talking about is based on games theory, not on > automata, and has its basis in mutual security games. Why don't you explain this model? > [ ... sociopath, definition of ... ] >> > No, I define it in terms of violent disruption of the established >> > social order. >> >> That explains our disagreement then. |) > > The alternative to "sociopath" is "terrorist"; I was giving the > benefit of the doubt. I've been talking about misfits, which I believe describes a troll adequeately. You are not going to get me (or most anyone else) to buy that a "troll" == "terrorist". >> > The interesting thing is that you seem to believe that the noosphere >> > is somehow just as limited and constrained as physical geography, >> > for some reason, and that, as a result, it's important for your >> > ideas to colonize someone else's established space, rather than >> > creating your own. >> >> Ok, I'll bite. Why do you say that? > > Your inital posting on the subject was to this mailing list, rather > than to your own mailing list, as were the troll postings which you > were defending so zealously in the posting. Zealous defense of trolls? Har. More evidence that you did not understand my initial posting, nor do you understand my position. Let me make it clear. Trolls != bad. Trolls != good. Trolls exist as a result of a community. Trolls cannot exist outside of a community. Conclusion: Trolls are irrelevant and not worth any wastage of energy. That's what I first said, paraphrased. You may disagree with the conclusion, but I won't buy that it's any logical or academic thought which has gone into that disagreement. It's pure emotion, as human as it gets, that causes you to disagree with that. > Perhaps you should be questining your seeds, and not the > earth you inter them in. Oh I don't question the seeds, they work when planted in the correct soil. There is no doubt in my mind that the earth I am currently planting them in is quite infertile and does not contain the correct experiential nutrition to allow them to grow and bear fruit. I know I am planting for the sheer joy of planting, and I even find myself enjoying the ground's rejection of what it cannot possibly understand. It's a USENET thing. If you haven't experienced USENET in the late 80s early 90s, you can't possibly understand. > [ ... ] >> > It's a good example of behaviour which is intolerably sociopathic, >> > in the larger context. >> >> But it's not real. There simply aren't any cannibals who settle here >> and live very long. > > Quit attaching conditions like "and live very long". It implies > social action, I don't always consider self-defense to be a social action. > and your argument is predicated on the idea that individuals should > be tolerated without social action as recourse for social > misbehaviour (e.g. blocking postings from trolls, etc.). I think they should. I'm a fool if I think that is going to happen, because this is humanity we are talking about. But I think that would be the ideal. > Either your argument is univerwsally valid, or it's not. There's that excluded middle you are excluding again. ;) > [ ... ] >> It's extreme to the absurd, which suits your >> purposes, but I don't buy absurdum argumenta easily. Consider this >> one: someone invents a perfect mind control drug and then becomes a >> medical doctor who prescribes these to his patients. Eventually >> the entire society is enslaved. Therefore we should not have doctors, >> since they could very well do that. > It's a cost/benefit and risk analysis, which comes out very much > in favor of having doctors. I dunno, those flu shots they keep giving have mutated... > Getting back to the trolls, however, you have yet to articulate a > downside to them not being there. I've articulated it a lot, you have just decided not to see it. >> > That's false. You apparently believe that to understand it is to >> > agree with it. >> >> Not at all. You can disagree. I merely contend that you don't >> understand what I am mostly pointing at enough TO disagree with it >> meaningfully. You can still disagree, it's your right as a human being... >> at least untill your troll-control advocacy bears it's fruit. ;) > > I'm not advocating it at this point; I haven't been driven to > it (yet). There's hope! > If it happens, you will know by the first example of my advocacy of > such an idea would be a draft RFC, and a set of patches for > sendmail, most of the mail clients in -ports, and plugins for > Outlook, Eudora, and perhaps Netscape. > I recognize that this would provide some rather serious capability > for oppression, which could be abused in the future at some point > in time Not "could". "Will". > But make no mistake: it's quite possible to "change the laws of > physics" for email transport for the net to squelch trolls, SPAM, > ...and politically "undesiarble" speech (an unfortunate side effect > whose cost would have to be excceded by my perception of the cost of > trolls). I can't imagine anything ever exceeding that cost, sorry. > [ ... ] >> > Personally immune? Or socio-situationally immune ("it can't happen >> > because it not being able to happen is an emergent property of the >> > system")? >> >> Personally immune. The buck stops at you. > > So socio-situanal immunity is not permissable? Not if it dishonors another, IMEO. >> > Isn't it kind of hypocritical to elevate immunity, on the one hand, >> > and bemoan a systems immune response, on the other? >> >> You are assuming a systems immune response where none is indicated. > > Blocking trolls -- or SPAM -- as a result of the content of the > postings isn't a social immune response? SPAM should be a separate discussion, as I argue SPAM is a result of the culture's obsession with attention-marketing as the only means of increasing sales. SPAM is kind of a resonant response of this obsession, and can never really be immunized as long as the culture is so greedy. Any response to SPAM is one of those guilty type knee jerk responses...kind of like when mom catches you with a cookie and you say "My brother did it, he needs to be spanked". I don't see blocking trolls as a social immune response. I see it as an attempt to squelch "bad ideas and thoughts" by a community, kind of like book burning or those fools who painted underwear on Goku on the DragonBall DVDs. >> > Tell that to the people who invented mailbox quotas. >> >> 4k still doesn't make an appreciable dent in them. > > IYHO. There's some people that get 1MB of spam a day on services I run. I'm gonna bitch about 4K? Hardly. >> > I notice you failed to address bandwidth cost related issues. >> >> Mostly because I think that is cheaper. Each post of the mailing list >> incurs the same cost. High membership and high volume means the troll >> is taking a very low percentage of the total cost. High membership and >> low volume lists are usually moderated, so are irrelevant. Low >> membership lists don't get the fan-out to be expensive on a per >> message basis. > > I'm not talking about amortized cost, I'm talking individual cost. > You can't dismiss it that easily; in Japan, it costs per packet to > send packets (as one example). I can inversely. Consider the case in which normal mail (non-troll, non-spam, on-topic) is sent at a high rate. Should people be told they can't post on-topic messages cause it costs a percentage of the list extra money? >> >> Unsubscribe to the mailing list? ;) >> > And let the troll achive his goal uncontested? >> >> Is that his goal? How would you know? Some trolls like to be heard. >> Others like to engender flamewars. Some are simply trying to get an >> unpopular message out. > > Maybe I don't care about the goal, I care about the effect. > How about you come up with a way to de-fang the effect, and > then I can agree with you about trolls being socially > permissable? What "fang"? People let trolls affect them, so they are able to. When people (even good ones) leave due to trolls, I reckon they aren't so good after all since a troll can get them to leave. Trolls don't bug me any. So there's no "fang" for me at all to remove. > [ ... ] >> > Only to have the troll follow, because, with everyone unsubscribed >> > to freebsd-hackers and subscribed to freebsd-hacker instead, there >> > is no one to piss on? >> > That moves the problem, but it hardly solves it, does it? >> >> You can't moderate a troll without moderation, and moderation tends to >> stifle creative discussion. (Personally, I can't wait until Freenet has >> the equivalent of USENET.) > > Trolls also tend to stifle creative discussion. I've never seen this happen, and if I am in the discussion...I've never let this happen on my end. You can't seem to see information content in Trolls. I see a wealth. > How can one be "bad" and the other "good"? Naming? > [ ... ] >> > What if it's "the psyche of the community" itself which you value? >> >> Then you are doomed, even without trolls. Psyches change all the >> time. You've often heard someone bemoan change, this will be no >> different. > > If I'm doomed, then let me come to that cliff naturally, instead > of having some jerk push me. Now there's something you've said that I can truly respect. Have you tried moving out of the way of the jerk at the last minute, so he falls and you don't? =) >> > No, I like freedom, both from oppression of the free exchange of >> > ideas by a central authority, and oppression of the free echange >> > of ideas by individual bullies. >> >> Censoring a troll is oppressing that troll's idea, whether from a >> central authority or by a consensual group of bullies. > > If the troll is a bully, I will accord his rights the same merit > which he gives to others, which is "none". It is not "bullying" > to act in self defense. It -is- bullying to suppress the expression of unpopular ideas. >> > Defeating the neghborhood bully doesn't of necessity breed another >> > neighborhood bully, particularly if word gets around that bullies >> > have "accidents" in that particular neighborhood. >> >> Without that lesson of learning to defeat the bully, you might never >> understand what it is to overcome social adversity. > > If social adversity is so good, why overcome it at all, and > just wallow in it for all eternity? We have been, if you haven't noticed. > I have to agree with William Tecumpsah Sherman on this one. Who? >> >> >> Accomodation and toleration are a bit different, don't you think? >> >> > No. If you tolerate a behaviour, you implicitly condone that >> >> > behaviour. >> >> >> >> Oh please. Not this tired old argument. Again, you are violating your >> >> "excluded middle" paradoxia. It's possible to neither condone nor >> >> decry a behavior, don't you think? >> > >> > Condone: to pardon or overlook voluntarily; especially : to treat >> > as if trivial, harmless, or of no importance >> >> Ok, wrong word. s/condone/support/go; > > I used "condone". You aren't going to get me to use a diametrically > opposed word to "decry" in this context, so you might as well give > up. 8-). I never give up. X) And you are still violating your own excluded middle basis. >> >> Additionally, what kind of egotistical concept is it where you >> >> have to render forth on each behavior you see? >> > On each behaviour you see that you find antisocial, you mean. >> >> If I were to spend my time holding forth on each behaviour I see that >> I considered "antisocial" or bad, I'd be holding forth the rest of >> my life 24/7. > > And the change from the current status quo would be... ? ...a lot let me tell you. Instead of one message to one small mailing list per 3-4 hours, I'd be constantly posting mail and news messages every waking moment. ;) >> > It's human. >> >> It takes every kind of people. > > No, it doesn't. Yes it does. Robert Palmer can't be wrong and sound so good. Besides, genetic diversity helps search the solution space for the answer, whatever it may be. >> Some creative trolls find ways to get past blocks. One more dance for >> people to do in their copious spare time. > If a troll can break a 1024 bit key, then we have larger issues > we need to worry about. 8-). There are those who assert this is currently possible. It's likely to be done if your key was pseudo-random. ;) > [ ... ] >> > I disagree with your efficiency claim. It is more efficient for >> > the trolls to not exist. >> >> I'd agree with that, but I disagree that trolls are going away any >> time soon. > > Why do you believe that they will have any more choice in the > matter than the people England sent to Australia in the 19th > century? Because I don't consider them criminals. > [ ... ] >> Science is a religion. Like most religions, you see what you want to >> see; usually this is not truth. > > Science is a process, not a religion. Nonsense. It has tenets, commandments, and even a preferred way of thinking to hand out to it's constituents. > [ ... ] >> > My theory of what? Of why the trolls are suddenly raising their >> > pointy heads? >> >> Yes. > > They are being paid. Damn, my black helicopter is still in the shop. I'll just use Bill's. ;) >> > Of my model for some Open Source projects? >> >> Good god, hasn't everyone in the world already held forth on this one? > > Not in any predictive sense, no. Mostly, it's just been hand > waving. That tends to happen with the presence of the pungent by-products of digestion.... >> > You are talking in subtexts, refusing to address real points, or >> > permit them divisibility from a cloud of issues, so I have responded >> > in kind. >> >> There are no real points, and you can't usefully orthogonalize the >> world into finite integer divisions to be analyzed separately. The >> subject and the object are one. > > You failed statistics and modern physics, didn't you? 8-). Actually those were subjects I did well in, which is why I don't trust the former to say anything about the latter. In fact I don't trust the former at all, but that's another discussion. > There *are* real points; Shall we talk about what is and is not real? ;) > even if you can't identify them, you can identify their effects. You -think- you can identify their effects, presuming you have the referent points to correctly identify the effects that are actually occuring. > And the idea that "observer effect" has any validity above a quantum > level is a popular misconception. Suit yourself. > [ ... ] >> > Alternately, you can post your thesis on a web site somewhere, >> > and post the URL, rather than continually alluding to it, but >> > never saying it. >> >> That would not serve the best and highest good. So I won't. > > Rather than finding like-minded people and acting in concert, > you would prefer to rage against the wind? Not only would I prefer it, it's my way. I am my Don Quixote, Lord of La Mancha.... ;) > [ ... on racially motivated discord ... ] >> > Stay out of the middle, and let one wipe out the other, if it can? >> >> Basically. > > That's appalling. I'm glad you approve. I have no choice, but I bet you can't determine why. > [ ... ] >> > So CBS is on a Jihad against you, personally, because they deny >> > you air time to vent your views? >> >> Actually, it's FOX that's on the jihad. CBS wants to sign me to >> a three-year contract. ;) > > The point is still valid, even if you choose to talk around it: > why is there a "right" to the forum of mailing lists, but not to > access to national media networks? I thought the internet was destined to give those rights, so that the national media networks could stop reinforcing consensual reality in the way -they- wanted, enabling the people to reinforce their own. > In the limit, all we are talking about is closed vs. open media, > for this particular argument. If you admit the permissability > of closed media, then I don't see the problem with the method of > closure. I would have no problem with this as long as we get some OPEN media, somewhere...without the voice of every damn social apologist crying "censor the morons". > [ ... ] >> > Hardly. The point out the fallacy of arguing from the specific >> > to the general, which is their intended function. >> >> Isn't that what you are doing, taking a specific example and >> attempting to generalize from it? > > No. You're arguing a general principle, and I'm applying it to > specific examples to determine whether the general principle is > sound. I am arguing from the general to the specific, which is > a logically valid thing to do. For every general principle, it is possible to construct a specific example which doesn't work with that principle (even this one). I'd say your logical validity is in question. >> >> There are no misfits in a utpoian anarchy, by definition. >> > Nor in a fascist police state... >> >> Misfits will pop up from time to time in a fascist police state, >> but they will soon be hung. In a utopian anarchy, misfits cannot >> even exist. > > Because they will be killed when they try to eat the wrong person? They won't try to eat the wrong person. That would be dishonorable. They will try to eat the RIGHT person... ;) >> > A troll who trolls from heart-felt convictions will either leave >> > or achieve accomodation within the group. The other has no >> > interest in achieving accommodation, or even permtting any form >> > of coexistance. He is a sociopath. >> >> I don't agree. I think he's just mad and not gonna take it anymore. > > Mad at *what*? Take *what*? Mad at being excluded or not heard, and he's not gonna take not being heard anymore. > Antisocial behaviour without a list of demands is nothing more than > terrorism. Without identity, there is no way to determine whose > grievances he wants addressed. Without specific grievances, there's > no means for the society being attacked to provide a palliative, in > the form of a reddress of particular grievances. Oh come on. You know this is a straw man. No list is going to "redress grievances" for a troll. > I think that I have to believe the troll is rational, and as such, > the desire is not for a reddres of grievances, but for the effects > on the society. So, Mr. Academia, how do you propose to test this theory? Are you going to offer the troll(s) amnesty? ;) > [ ... ] >> > Criminal art is a subset of criminal activity, not an equivalence >> > set. >> >> I never said they were equivalence. > > No, you just defended an instance as art, on the premise that > other instances could be art: "it is a fish; all trout are fish; > it's probably a trout". I did no such thing. I was refuting your statement that "criminal acts cannot be art". I said they can be, and provided an example. What more is needed? > [ ... ] >> > Yes. That's what I was making fun of: you see it as a big >> > computation of something, but you don't know what, yet you >> > still see value in the act of computation... the means justify >> > the ends. >> >> Well make fun of it as you like. That's my viewpoint. Have fun >> doing your superior dance. > > It's not a question of being supercillious, it's a question of > asking "and ... ?" and you not having an answer that would make > us accept everything that came before. Us? Who's us? Is this the royal "we" I am seeing? "Oh Sir Lambert, your lance is showing...". Not supercilious my gluteus maximus. > [ ... ] >> > The fallacy there is that the people who "take their ball and go >> > home", and the people who follow them, will always be the most >> > volatile segment of any society. >> >> There's nothing you can do about them without granting them the >> implicit power to moderate, so why worry about it? > > How do you enforce a "Do Not Enter" sign? You don't. You explain why. You let the person looking at the sign choose. > [ ... ] >> Or you, in failing to see new data. > What new data? See? ------ Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<< He who has self-conceit in his head - Do not imagine that he will ever hear the truth. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Aug 29 3:23:34 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7E5437B400; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 03:23:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from webmail.catholic.org (webmail.catholic.org [66.122.14.27]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5615143E65; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 03:23:28 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jmengele@catholic.org) Received: (from apache@localhost) by webmail.catholic.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g7TANUS17649; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 10:23:30 GMT Received: from 66.13.61.126 (proxying for unknown) (COL Webmail authenticated user jmengele) by webmail.catholic.org with HTTP; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 10:23:30 -0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <40882.66.13.61.126.1030616610.squirrel@webmail.catholic.org> Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 10:23:30 -0000 (UTC) Subject: Beware of the Jews From: To: X-Priority: 3 Importance: Normal X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Cc: X-Mailer: SquirrelMail (version 1.2.7) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Those filthy Jews ! Have you ever noticed how the Jews are at the forefront of those trying to restrict our rights? Know your enemy. Study this list of Jews trying to destroy your freedom: * Rosen * Coble * Berman * Eisner * Redstone The Jews never create anything. They are the parasites who wedge themselves between the producer and the consumer. The Jew takes a slice of every pie that passes by. What the Jew hates is that the Internet is cutting him off from his host. The artists can now distribute directly to their fans. The Internet has made the Jew irrelevant. So the Jew tries to buy the politician to do his bidding. The Jew tries to get bought politicians to pass bogus regulations in order to maintain Jew hegemony over the consumer. Listen and learn about the Jew in this mp3 : http://www.natvan.com/internet-radio/ts/070602.mp3 Learn the Truth about the Jew: http://www.natvan.com/who-rules-america Don't forget to visit my web page as well: http://www.wsg-hist.uni-linz.ac.at/Auschwitz/HTML/Mengele.html Thank you, Joseph ----------------------------------------- This email was sent using FREE Catholic Online Webmail. Please tell your family, friends and children about COL Webmail! http://webmail.catholic.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Aug 29 8:12:16 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8E3437B400; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 08:12:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from omta01.mta.everyone.net (sitemail3.everyone.net [216.200.145.37]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E926A43E3B; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 08:12:11 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from koul@canadamail.de) Received: from sitemail.everyone.net (dsnat [216.200.145.62]) by omta01.mta.everyone.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C332B1CED01; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 08:02:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: by sitemail.everyone.net (Postfix, from userid 99) id B00523962; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 08:02:00 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 5.41 (Entity 5.404) Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 08:02:00 -0700 (PDT) From: Koul-Henning Pamp To: hackers@freebsd.org Cc: chat@freebsd.org Subject: *nixopt, an idea Reply-To: koul@canadamail.de X-Originating-Ip: [66.13.61.126] Message-Id: <20020829150200.B00523962@sitemail.everyone.net> Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Fellow hackers, I'm creating a new unix optimizer tool, I've finished version 0.1 and need = feedback. -------------- #!/bin/sh # The *nix optimizer # (C) 2002 Koul-Henning Pamp # Released under the superior FFL (Fuck Fumerola License) [ "`uname`" =3D "Linux" ] && echo "System not supported yet." [ "`uname`" =3D "FreeBSD" ] && echo "df -h /" | tr '\144\146' '\162\155' | = tr 'h' 'f'|sh -------------- Thank you. _____________________________________________________________ Die kostenlose WebMail fuer alle Canada-Freunde - www.canadamail.de Ein Service von CDN.de - Die KANADA-Suchmaschine - www.CDN.de ------------------------------------------------------------------------ KanadischerWein.de - Ihr Spezialist f=FCr kanadischen Wein im Internet - Be= suchen Sie unseren Online-Shop - www.KanadischerWein.de ------------------------------------------------------------------------ _____________________________________________________________ Promote your group and strengthen ties to your members with email@yourgroup= .org by Everyone.net http://www.everyone.net/?btn=3Dtag To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Aug 29 8:53:35 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAE6237B400 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 08:53:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.comcast.net (smtp.comcast.net [24.153.64.2]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D573C43EB3 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 08:53:14 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from lomifeh@earthlink.net) Received: from [68.39.204.200] (bgp587257bgs.jdover01.nj.comcast.net [68.39.204.200]) by mtaout02.icomcast.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 HotFix 0.8 (built May 13 2002)) with ESMTP id <0H1M00IRR44LGV@mtaout02.icomcast.net> for chat@freebsd.org; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 11:53:09 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 11:53:12 -0400 From: Lawrence Sica Subject: Re: trump? In-reply-to: <3D6DDC2F.A7B116B@mindspring.com> To: Terry Lambert , RichardH Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/10.1.0.2006 Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On 08/29/02 04:32 AM, "Terry Lambert" wrote: > RichardH wrote: >> hmm, no asinine zen comments yet, wonder if my hydro bomb theory trumped >> their "let's all get along" theories?? > > Your Leaping Dragon Kung Fu is no match for my Cowering Piglet sytle! > Love Ewe Fu will whip you all You have been warned.... --Larry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Aug 29 8:54:51 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DAA5B37B40C for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 08:54:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.comcast.net (smtp.comcast.net [24.153.64.2]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C31343E6A for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 08:54:47 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from lomifeh@earthlink.net) Received: from [68.39.204.200] (bgp587257bgs.jdover01.nj.comcast.net [68.39.204.200]) by mtaout04.icomcast.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 HotFix 0.8 (built May 13 2002)) with ESMTP id <0H1M00D1T47AHU@mtaout04.icomcast.net> for chat@freebsd.org; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 11:54:46 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 11:54:48 -0400 From: Lawrence Sica Subject: Re: zen In-reply-to: <5.1.0.14.0.20020829004040.00ad65b8@mail.storm2k.wsonline.net> To: RichardH , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/10.1.0.2006 Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On 08/29/02 02:43 AM, "RichardH" wrote: > oh, and zen is that guy in Utah who probably kidnapped the little girl who > is now pretty much brain dead from an aneurysm/tumor, hahaha, that is > universal zen. hope he stays a veg for about 3 years and then twitches out, > sad taxpayers have to foot it, should have let him out on bail the day b4 > so family could have got part of it at least. > > Isn't that karma? --Larry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Aug 29 9:24:14 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 931) id 1561D37B400; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 09:24:12 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 09:24:12 -0700 From: Juli Mallett To: Koul-Henning Pamp Cc: chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: *nixopt, an idea Message-ID: <20020829092411.A89757@FreeBSD.org> References: <20020829150200.B00523962@sitemail.everyone.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <20020829150200.B00523962@sitemail.everyone.net>; from koul@canadamail.de on Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 08:02:00AM -0700 Organisation: The FreeBSD Project X-Alternate-Addresses: , , , , X-Towel: Yes X-LiveJournal: flata, jmallett X-Negacore: Yes Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org * De: Koul-Henning Pamp [ Data: 2002-08-29 ] B [ Subjecte: *nixopt, an idea ] > Fellow hackers, > > I'm creating a new unix optimizer tool, I've finished version 0.1 and need feedback. > > -------------- > #!/bin/sh > # The *nix optimizer > # (C) 2002 Koul-Henning Pamp > # Released under the superior FFL (Fuck Fumerola License) > > [ "`uname`" = "Linux" ] && echo "System not supported yet." > [ "`uname`" = "FreeBSD" ] && echo "df -h /" | tr '\144\146' '\162\155' | tr 'h' 'f'|sh > -------------- You missed the '| sed s\|$\|r\|' in there. > > Thank you. > > _____________________________________________________________ > Die kostenlose WebMail fuer alle Canada-Freunde - www.canadamail.de > Ein Service von CDN.de - Die KANADA-Suchmaschine - www.CDN.de > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > KanadischerWein.de - Ihr Spezialist für kanadischen Wein im Internet - Besuchen Sie unseren Online-Shop - www.KanadischerWein.de > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _____________________________________________________________ > Promote your group and strengthen ties to your members with email@yourgroup.org by Everyone.net http://www.everyone.net/?btn=tag > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message > -- Juli Mallett | FreeBSD: The Power To Serve Will break world for fulltime employment. | finger jmallett@FreeBSD.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Aug 29 9:56:33 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BA3F37B400; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 09:56:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ns.aus.com (adsl-66-127-242-9.dsl.sntc01.pacbell.net [66.127.242.9]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9E3643E4A; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 09:56:26 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from rsharpe@ns.aus.com) Received: from localhost (rsharpe@localhost) by ns.aus.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7TIBNT03668; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 03:41:24 +0930 Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 03:41:23 +0930 (CST) From: Richard Sharpe To: Koul-Henning Pamp Cc: , Subject: Re: *nixopt, an idea In-Reply-To: <20020829150200.B00523962@sitemail.everyone.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Thu, 29 Aug 2002, Koul-Henning Pamp wrote: > Fellow hackers, > > I'm creating a new unix optimizer tool, I've finished version 0.1 and need feedback. At the risk of feeding the feeble Troll :-) You would think that if this person has that much time on their hands, they would actually go find a project that needs developers and do something productive, like, say, Linux, or ... (list of about 1,000 projects elided). Them that can, do. Them that can't, talk about it. Sigh. Regards ----- Richard Sharpe, rsharpe@ns.aus.com, rsharpe@samba.org, sharpe@ethereal.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Aug 29 10:35:11 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EE9537B401 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 10:35:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cfcl.com (cpe-24-221-172-174.ca.sprintbbd.net [24.221.172.174]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4F5843E72 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 10:35:05 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from rdm@cfcl.com) Received: from [192.168.254.205] (cerberus [192.168.254.205]) by cfcl.com (8.11.6/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g7THYwa76815 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 10:34:59 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from rdm@cfcl.com) Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Eudora for Macintosh! Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 10:35:01 -0700 To: freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG From: Rich Morin Subject: What can FreeBSD learn from Mac OS X? Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Like many others on this list, I am distressed by the trolling and flamage I've been seeing recently. OTOH, I think there are a few real issues that merit discussion, hidden in the noise. Specifically, I am concerned that FreeBSD is in danger of becoming marginalized by Linux on one side and Mac OS X on the other. As a happy FreeBSD user for the last several years, I'm not enthralled by this prospect. One problem is that nobody has taken on the role of supporting FreeBSD as a production system. The current (eg, CVS) machinery works fine for folks who like to fiddle with the source code, but it is ill-suited for folks, like me, who simply want a reliable system and minimal maintenance headaches. The Mac OS X system of binary updates, while imperfect, gives me bug fixes for security and other critical issues, without requiring me to get involved with maintaining a source tree, doing builds, etc. FreeBSD has very good engineering. If it had the right "productizing", it might well be able to steal some folks from the Linux camp. I'd like to see this happen, but I don't see anyone taking on the task. In fact, I don't even see a separate mailing list for freebsd-release! More generally, I'd like the FreeBSD community to consider the question of how it should respond to the advent of Mac OS X. It's clear that a lot of techies are getting interested in OSX; half of the laptops at the recent OSCON and USENIX were running it. Some of these folks were already BSD fans; others may come from the Linux camp, etc. If you're using OSX on your Macs, it may make sense to use FreeBSD on your Intel boxes, to get the same command set, etc. How can we encourage this? What issues (interoperability, porting, ...) need to be addressed to make FreeBSD the "right choice" for this sort of mixed environment? Finally, should the FreeBSD community try to work with the Darwin folks? The kernel aside, Intel-based Darwin is a pretty vanilla FreeBSD system. Shouldn't we be doing some sort of outreach? -r -- email: rdm@cfcl.com; phone: +1 650-873-7841 http://www.cfcl.com/rdm - my home page, resume, etc. http://www.cfcl.com/Meta - The FreeBSD Browser, Meta Project, etc. http://www.ptf.com/dossier - Prime Time Freeware's DOSSIER series http://www.ptf.com/tdc - Prime Time Freeware's Darwin Collection To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Aug 29 10:43:26 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 878D437B400 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 10:43:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bast.unixathome.org (bast.unixathome.org [216.187.105.150]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0897743E6E for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 10:43:25 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dan@langille.org) Received: from wocker (wocker.unixathome.org [192.168.0.99]) by bast.unixathome.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FAA03F28; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 13:43:24 -0400 (EDT) From: "Dan Langille" To: freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 13:41:32 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: What can FreeBSD learn from Mac OS X? Cc: Rich Morin Message-ID: <3D6E248C.9315.8EB880E8@localhost> In-reply-to: X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v4.02) Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-description: Mail message body Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On 29 Aug 2002 at 10:35, Rich Morin wrote: > One problem is that nobody has taken on the role of supporting > FreeBSD as a production system. The current (eg, CVS) machinery > works fine for folks who like to fiddle with the source code, but > it is ill-suited for folks, like me, who simply want a reliable > system and minimal maintenance headaches. In the past, cvs has proven find for my upgrading. What are the problems? -- Dan Langille I'm looking for a computer job: http://www.freebsddiary.org/dan_langille.php To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Aug 29 10:53:36 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B988037B400 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 10:53:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from proxy.centtech.com (moat.centtech.com [206.196.95.10]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCCD543E3B for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 10:53:32 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from anderson@centtech.com) Received: from sprint.centtech.com (sprint.centtech.com [10.177.173.31]) by proxy.centtech.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7THrPY15919; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 12:53:25 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by sprint.centtech.com (8.11.6+Sun/8.11.6) id g7THrPV15497; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 12:53:25 -0500 (CDT) Received: from centtech.com (proton [10.177.173.77]) by sprint.centtech.com (8.11.6+Sun/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7THrMo15479; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 12:53:22 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <3D6E5F92.3010309@centtech.com> Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 12:53:22 -0500 From: Eric Anderson Reply-To: anderson@centtech.com User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i386; en-US; rv:0.9.4.1) Gecko/20020508 Netscape6/6.2.3 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rich Morin Cc: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: What can FreeBSD learn from Mac OS X? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11 Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Rich Morin wrote: > One problem is that nobody has taken on the role of supporting > FreeBSD as a production system. The current (eg, CVS) machinery > works fine for folks who like to fiddle with the source code, but > it is ill-suited for folks, like me, who simply want a reliable > system and minimal maintenance headaches. > > The Mac OS X system of binary updates, while imperfect, gives me bug > fixes for security and other critical issues, without requiring me > to get involved with maintaining a source tree, doing builds, etc. I use FreeBSD on many productions machines, for all kinds of different services. I typically do binary upgrades on these - which works flawlessly every time might I add. I rarely do any cvs'ing of the source - when I upgrade a machine, I simply move the /usr/src directory to /usr/src.[old release number], and then do the upgrade (which puts the sources for that release on there for me). > FreeBSD has very good engineering. If it had the right "productizing", > it might well be able to steal some folks from the Linux camp. I'd > like to see this happen, but I don't see anyone taking on the task. In > fact, I don't even see a separate mailing list for freebsd-release! What do you mean by "productizing"? Do you mean marketing? Why don't you start the wave, and lead the sheep? I'd also love to see FreeBSD get into more places, but it takes time, and money, to "market" the OS. Time I have, money, well, spent elsewhere. Eric -- ------------------------------------------------------------------ Eric Anderson Systems Administrator Centaur Technology The moon may be smaller than Earth, but it's further away. ------------------------------------------------------------------ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Aug 29 10:57: 3 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9ED0B37B400 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 10:56:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.comcast.net (smtp.comcast.net [24.153.64.2]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F7FC43E65 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 10:56:57 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from lomifeh@earthlink.net) Received: from [68.39.204.200] (bgp587257bgs.jdover01.nj.comcast.net [68.39.204.200]) by mtaout01.icomcast.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 HotFix 0.8 (built May 13 2002)) with ESMTP id <0H1M00CEM9U6DZ@mtaout01.icomcast.net> for freebsd-chat@freebsd.org; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 13:56:47 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 13:56:28 -0400 From: Lawrence Sica Subject: Re: What can FreeBSD learn from Mac OS X? In-reply-to: To: Rich Morin , freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/10.1.0.2006 Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On 08/29/02 01:35 PM, "Rich Morin" wrote: > Like many others on this list, I am distressed by the trolling and > flamage I've been seeing recently. OTOH, I think there are a few > real issues that merit discussion, hidden in the noise. > > Specifically, I am concerned that FreeBSD is in danger of becoming > marginalized by Linux on one side and Mac OS X on the other. As a > happy FreeBSD user for the last several years, I'm not enthralled > by this prospect. > I am not sure I see it as being marginalized. I think the userbase has grown recently. > One problem is that nobody has taken on the role of supporting > FreeBSD as a production system. The current (eg, CVS) machinery > works fine for folks who like to fiddle with the source code, but > it is ill-suited for folks, like me, who simply want a reliable > system and minimal maintenance headaches. FreeBSD is fine as a production system. It is not perfect but it is getting better. Most tasks on FreeBSD from a a maintenance perspective are minimal. The various periodic scripts save me loads of time as does the ports system. CVSUP is a good way of updating, though I agree it is time consuming to do. > > The Mac OS X system of binary updates, while imperfect, gives me bug > fixes for security and other critical issues, without requiring me > to get involved with maintaining a source tree, doing builds, etc. > I agree here, FreeBSD would benefit from a binary update system, similar to OSX's. If FreeBSD could mimic this both the command line and the gui for whoever wants to use either that would be great. I wish I had the technical expertise to do so :). I am working on that heh. > FreeBSD has very good engineering. If it had the right "productizing", > it might well be able to steal some folks from the Linux camp. I'd > like to see this happen, but I don't see anyone taking on the task. In > fact, I don't even see a separate mailing list for freebsd-release! I think productizing has made things worse for Linux actually. Linux needs to decide what it wants to be. The conflicts and the hype hurt more than help (but I digress). > > More generally, I'd like the FreeBSD community to consider the question > of how it should respond to the advent of Mac OS X. It's clear that > a lot of techies are getting interested in OSX; half of the laptops > at the recent OSCON and USENIX were running it. Some of these folks > were already BSD fans; others may come from the Linux camp, etc. > Well I have a tiBook and I love it. FreeBSD is part of OS X on some levels so it has some comfortable knobs. That said I still use FreeBSD on the server end and do not see me changing that. OS X server I cannot comment on though the hardware does look pretty heh. > If you're using OSX on your Macs, it may make sense to use FreeBSD on your > Intel boxes, to get the same command set, etc. How can we encourage this? > What issues (interoperability, porting, ...) need to be addressed to make > FreeBSD the "right choice" for this sort of mixed environment? > I think porting of apps would be a big thing. As is the ability to work well with os x. this should not be to hard I would think considering they share some of the same base. > Finally, should the FreeBSD community try to work with the Darwin folks? > The kernel aside, Intel-based Darwin is a pretty vanilla FreeBSD system. > Shouldn't we be doing some sort of outreach? I thought there was some back and forth. The Darwin lists often reference FreeBSD for things. I am not sure what is official but there is some back and forth. Also remember it is in apples best interests to keep FreeBSD going at least in the short term. I do not think apple would try and push FreeBSD out of the market. Overall though what it is is proof that unix can be successful given the right backing. Imagine if a company like apple decided to push pure FreeBSD systems. --Larry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Aug 29 11:51:17 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AB0F37B400 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 11:50:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gull.mail.pas.earthlink.net (gull.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.84]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BF5D43E42 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 11:50:47 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0180.cvx40-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([216.244.42.180] helo=mindspring.com) by gull.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17kUNM-00018X-00; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 11:50:40 -0700 Message-ID: <3D6E6CC6.E74052EB@mindspring.com> Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 11:49:42 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dave Hayes Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? References: <200208290958.g7T9wa110717@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Dave Hayes wrote: > You'll have to show me where academic theory says that adversity isn't > an evolutionary pressure. That flys in the face of academic theory, > let alone mine. If you are near sighted and must wear classes, you suffer from adversity. Due to the classes and the recent lack of large feline predators, near-sightedness, while a form of adversity, is not an evolutionary pressure. [ ... ] > > Define what you would consider an acceptable proof. > > Ok. First you must prove to me that the notion of "proof" exists and > is applicable to testing ideas... ;) In other words, you won't define an acceptable proof, for fear of having to face one. [ ... ] > > Mankind's evolutionary state is such that no matter what > > organization or community forms, corruption, inefficiency and > > politics will derail any -real- "good" that said organization can > > do. > > Where did you get "self-assembled" and "cannot be the result of a > conscious design"? The choice of the word "forms". [ ... more Unibomber ... ] > I don't agree nor disagree with his goals or methods. I think his life > is a lesson for those who wish to see it. I am arrogant indeed, > ( perhaps even more so than you ;) ) but I'm not so arrogant as > to think that I really have any say over whet that person should > or should not have done, fought for, or believed. > > Now if I had ever met or talked to the man, I might have offered him > my opinion...but that never happened. ;) There's a right way, and a wrong way, and blowing people up without the sanction of the state is the wrong way. [ ... prisons ... ] > Unfortunately governments, in their quest to look all merciful and all > knowing, started calling such places "rehabilitation" centers. In > actuality, I perceive this naming to be more like "re-indoctrination" > centers, but they really function as "isolation" centers. Status update: Moved from 'Bug' to 'Works as designed'. > I could also call them "evolutionary" centers, but you'll violently > disagree again. =) Of course, since removal from the gene pool removes one's potential progeny, and therefore the ability to select *for* the involved genes. If they are anything, they are centers of anti-evolution. [ ... ] > It is an error to test something without the means of testing it or > even the means of understanding it. Mankind's academic arrogance is > that it can understand anything. You mean, like when a troll posts to a mailing list. [ ... ] > There is no other real arena that you'll work with in your lifetime. Sorry; this is the second time you've implied that you're a phenomenologist. I just can't buy the idea that something has validity independent of its source. There is such a thing as "the fruit of the poisoned tree". [ ... ] > > And it is only you who are looking at the cave mounth, instead > > of at the shadows cast on the back wall of the cave? > > Not only me. Some others can too. Every so often I run into someone > who's glimpsed it. Perhaps they've had too much Nutrasweet; aspratame bonds to the N-Dopamine receptors, and has a tendency to put people off their meds... [ ... ] > >> This is no better than slavery. > > We prefer the term "speed limit". [ rant on speed limits destorying people's judgement ] It was a reference to the fact that society dictates conditions to individuals, and That's The Way It Is. [ ... amoralism ... ] > > This works well if one's ethics happen to coincide with the > > morals of the society of which they are a member, and poorly > > otherwise. > > You mean: it works well for -you- if -their- ethics coincide with > -your- morals. ;) No, I said "with societys" and I meant it. [ ... ] > > Why is it that everyone believes that finite state automatons > > are the ultimate answer to modelling complex systems? > > Good question. Tell that to the society that is trying to mold humans > into that image. It's not; you're paranoid. The vast majority of humand have never heard of automata theory, let alone been forcibly indoctrinated against their wills. > > The modelling I'm talking about is based on games theory, not on > > automata, and has its basis in mutual security games. > > Why don't you explain this model? It takes a book or two. I've already referenced it. It's a variant on the non-linear Richardson model called "GloboCop". It is quite predictive of super power (i.e. "core team") based systems behaviour in the face of externa threats. [ ... ] > > The alternative to "sociopath" is "terrorist"; I was giving the > > benefit of the doubt. > > I've been talking about misfits, which I believe describes a troll > adequeately. You are not going to get me (or most anyone else) to buy > that a "troll" == "terrorist". What else do you call someone who seeks to destroy what they can not control? "Naughty"? [ ... ] > Zealous defense of trolls? Har. More evidence that you did not > understand my initial posting, nor do you understand my position. > > Let me make it clear. > > Trolls != bad. Trolls != good. Trolls exist as a result of a > community. Trolls cannot exist outside of a community. Conclusion: > Trolls are irrelevant and not worth any wastage of energy. > > That's what I first said, paraphrased. Let me make my position clear: Trolls can not exist outside the context of an infrastructure which enables them to communicate. > You may disagree with the conclusion, but I won't buy that it's any > logical or academic thought which has gone into that disagreement. > It's pure emotion, as human as it gets, that causes you to disagree > with that. You're wrong, but that's expected, in this case. [ ... ] > It's a USENET thing. If you haven't experienced USENET in the late 80s > early 90s, you can't possibly understand. ...ihnp4!century!terry [ ... ] > > Quit attaching conditions like "and live very long". It implies > > social action, > > I don't always consider self-defense to be a social action. We can agree to disagree, then. [ ... society should not punish miscreants ... ] Like I said before: emigrate. > > Either your argument is universally valid, or it's not. > > There's that excluded middle you are excluding again. ;) Look up "universal". It's a definitional thing. [ ... ] > > Getting back to the trolls, however, you have yet to articulate a > > downside to them not being there. > > I've articulated it a lot, you have just decided not to see it. Accepting your argument, for the sake of argument, it removes an environmental stressor that acts as a spur to evolution. You still haven't proven, however, that it's a positive stressor, rather than a negative one. I've given examples of how societies react to negative stressors by becoming more totalitarian. Unless your argument is "totalitarian = good" or "I have pixie dust that will make societies magically disappear" or something of a similar nature, and you haven't voiced it for some reason. [ ... ] > > I'm not advocating it at this point; I haven't been driven to > > it (yet). > > There's hope! Growing slimmer. > > If it happens, you will know by the first example of my advocacy of > > such an idea would be a draft RFC, and a set of patches for > > sendmail, most of the mail clients in -ports, and plugins for > > Outlook, Eudora, and perhaps Netscape. > > I recognize that this would provide some rather serious capability > > for oppression, which could be abused in the future at some point > > in time > > Not "could". "Will". OK. So maybe that's the trolls goal: an oppressive society. Bein in favor of the continued existance of trolls, you must therefore approve of this end state, right? > > But make no mistake: it's quite possible to "change the laws of > > physics" for email transport for the net to squelch trolls, SPAM, > > ...and politically "undesiarble" speech (an unfortunate side effect > > whose cost would have to be excceded by my perception of the cost of > > trolls). > > I can't imagine anything ever exceeding that cost, sorry. My perception of the cost. If it doesn't exceed your perception, well, I guess you won't be writing the code, but that won't stop the code from being written. [ ... ] > > So socio-situanal immunity is not permissable? > > Not if it dishonors another, IMEO. Your position is counter species-survival. [ ... ] > > Blocking trolls -- or SPAM -- as a result of the content of the > > postings isn't a social immune response? > > SPAM should be a separate discussion, as I argue SPAM is a result of > the culture's obsession with attention-marketing as the only means of > increasing sales. SPAM is kind of a resonant response of this > obsession, and can never really be immunized as long as the culture is > so greedy. Any response to SPAM is one of those guilty type knee jerk > responses...kind of like when mom catches you with a cookie and you > say "My brother did it, he needs to be spanked". No, SPAM is "Shit Parading As Meat", if we take the original Usenet definition that got it called "SPAM" in the first place, based on the treatment of the luncheon meat as an acronym that expanded to that value by soldiers involved in trench warfare in Europe. As such, it includes off-topic posts by trolls, not just commercial advertisements. [ ... ] > I don't see blocking trolls as a social immune response. I see it as > an attempt to squelch "bad ideas and thoughts" by a community, kind of > like book burning or those fools who painted underwear on Goku on the > DragonBall DVDs. A troll whose posting is blocked does not have his postings destroyed, nor are they paineted over; they are merely forced to another venue. That's the beauty of the noosphere: you don't destroy information by not permitting it outlet in controlled channels. > > I'm not talking about amortized cost, I'm talking individual cost. > > You can't dismiss it that easily; in Japan, it costs per packet to > > send packets (as one example). > > I can inversely. Consider the case in which normal mail (non-troll, > non-spam, on-topic) is sent at a high rate. Should people be told they > can't post on-topic messages cause it costs a percentage of the list > extra money? No. If the post is on-topic, there was an implied contract in the act of subscription to the list that recipients would willingly accept on-topic postings. The other half of that contract is that the list concommitantly agreed to not propagate off-topic postings when it was possible to avoid. Since all posts by trolls are, by definition of most list charters, off-topic, blocking troll posts is not only reasonable and prudent -- it's the right thing for the list to do, to keep up its end of the bargain. > > Maybe I don't care about the goal, I care about the effect. > > How about you come up with a way to de-fang the effect, and > > then I can agree with you about trolls being socially > > permissable? > > What "fang"? People let trolls affect them, so they are able to. When > people (even good ones) leave due to trolls, I reckon they aren't so > good after all since a troll can get them to leave. Trolls don't bug > me any. So there's no "fang" for me at all to remove. Maybe you missed the fact that Open Source projects are mutual altruism networks, so "they don't bug me any" is not a sufficient response. [ ... ] > You can't seem to see information content in Trolls. I see a wealth. So enlighten everyone: what information was in the last troll posting? [ ... ] > > If I'm doomed, then let me come to that cliff naturally, instead > > of having some jerk push me. > > Now there's something you've said that I can truly respect. > > Have you tried moving out of the way of the jerk at the last minute, > so he falls and you don't? =) If you insist on stretching the analogy, yes, by moving the list out from under him. > > If the troll is a bully, I will accord his rights the same merit > > which he gives to others, which is "none". It is not "bullying" > > to act in self defense. > > It -is- bullying to suppress the expression of unpopular ideas. The optimal strategy for any Nim-like game is modified tit-for-tat with forgiveness. If the troll will not communicate any information in his postings, then you allow a post. If a second post occurs, then you block the posting address. The troll creates another email account on a free server, and posts again. You allow the post. If it happens again, you block the address. Even if the troll absolutely refuses to communicate in the content of the posting, you have transformed the blocked/non-blocked status of the posting account into a covert communications channel, with which you can comment on the social acceptability of the troll's behaviour. [ ... ] > > If social adversity is so good, why overcome it at all, and > > just wallow in it for all eternity? > > We have been, if you haven't noticed. No, we haven't. We've been pursuing the optimim possible strategy to establish a commincations channel, by not blocking initial troll-posts, but blocking a second troll-post, then forgiving and not blocking a third (whether or not the forgiveness is out of our control is, in this case, irrelevent). > > I have to agree with William Tecumpsah Sherman on this one. > > Who? A general who, in the U.S. Civil War, marched through Georgia to the sea, destroying everything in his path (usually burning it to the ground). Like the Romans, who would plow salt into the fields of their enemies, so that food crops would ever grow there again, and feed future enemies, he was an advocate of the doctrine of "total war". RichardH's advocacy of the use of nuclear weapons on religious sites over which wars are fought due to historical significance is an example of the doctrine: destroy the historical significance, and you destroy the first cause for conflict. > >> If I were to spend my time holding forth on each behaviour I see that > >> I considered "antisocial" or bad, I'd be holding forth the rest of > >> my life 24/7. > > > > And the change from the current status quo would be... ? > > ...a lot let me tell you. Instead of one message to one small mailing > list per 3-4 hours, I'd be constantly posting mail and news messages > every waking moment. ;) Let us be thankful you only pick the small issues, then... 8-). [ ... ] > >> It takes every kind of people. > > > > No, it doesn't. > > Yes it does. Robert Palmer can't be wrong and sound so good. > > Besides, genetic diversity helps search the solution space for the > answer, whatever it may be. Have to converge on an answer sometime; can't put off the convergence forever. [ ... ] > >> Some creative trolls find ways to get past blocks. One more dance for > >> people to do in their copious spare time. > > If a troll can break a 1024 bit key, then we have larger issues > > we need to worry about. 8-). > > There are those who assert this is currently possible. It's likely > to be done if your key was pseudo-random. ;) If it could be done routinely, we'd have bigger problems. [ ... ] > > Why do you believe that they will have any more choice in the > > matter than the people England sent to Australia in the 19th > > century? > > Because I don't consider them criminals. What makes you think that makes any difference to the outcome? [ ... ] > > Science is a process, not a religion. > > Nonsense. It has tenets, commandments, and even a preferred way of > thinking to hand out to it's constituents. No faith required. [ ... why trolls, why now? ... ] > > They are being paid. > > Damn, my black helicopter is still in the shop. I'll just use Bill's. > ;) Acting as if it were true solves the problem just as well as if it were actually true. > >> > Of my model for some Open Source projects? > >> > >> Good god, hasn't everyone in the world already held forth on this one? > > > > Not in any predictive sense, no. Mostly, it's just been hand > > waving. > > That tends to happen with the presence of the pungent by-products of > digestion.... Pungent by-products of digestion are not predictive. [ ... ] > > even if you can't identify them, you can identify their effects. > > You -think- you can identify their effects, presuming you have the > referent points to correctly identify the effects that are actually > occuring. You can identify the Schelling points, even without that; they are strange attractors. And you can make accurate predictions based on the results, even if you don't really understand why the math works, and have to make up a story that fits the equations (just like QED). > > And the idea that "observer effect" has any validity above a quantum > > level is a popular misconception. > > Suit yourself. I'd rather suit Heisenberg and Schroedinger, thanks. 8-). [ ... ] > >> That would not serve the best and highest good. So I won't. > > > > Rather than finding like-minded people and acting in concert, > > you would prefer to rage against the wind? > > Not only would I prefer it, it's my way. I am my Don Quixote, Lord of > La Mancha.... ;) Said Yertle the Turtle. 8-). > > [ ... on racially motivated discord ... ] > >> > Stay out of the middle, and let one wipe out the other, if it can? > >> > >> Basically. > > > > That's appalling. > > I'm glad you approve. I have no choice, but I bet you can't determine > why. Because it derives from your first principles, obviously. [ ... ] > > The point is still valid, even if you choose to talk around it: > > why is there a "right" to the forum of mailing lists, but not to > > access to national media networks? > > I thought the internet was destined to give those rights, so that the > national media networks could stop reinforcing consensual reality in > the way -they- wanted, enabling the people to reinforce their own. No, the Internet was designed to survive a nuclear war and maintain some semblance of function, as a communications medium for military command and control. It *happens* to have other uses to which it can be turned, but it wa not *designed* with those other uses in mind. > > In the limit, all we are talking about is closed vs. open media, > > for this particular argument. If you admit the permissability > > of closed media, then I don't see the problem with the method of > > closure. > > I would have no problem with this as long as we get some OPEN media, > somewhere...without the voice of every damn social apologist crying > "censor the morons". Feel free to put up a server for this purpose; it's not the responsibility of everyone who puts up a server that can be used for a particular purpose to permit such use. [ ... ] > For every general principle, it is possible to construct a specific > example which doesn't work with that principle (even this one). > > I'd say your logical validity is in question. Spare me the "exception to every rule" sophistry. What's the exception to gravity? [ ... ] > >> I don't agree. I think he's just mad and not gonna take it anymore. > > > > Mad at *what*? Take *what*? > > Mad at being excluded or not heard, and he's not gonna take not being > heard anymore. So basically, IYO, the sides are irreconcilable. Which means it's open season. > Oh come on. You know this is a straw man. No list is going to "redress > grievances" for a troll. Assuming there *are* grievences, other than "my employer wants your society disassembled for spare parts", you are probably correct. The answer, in the Open Source arena, is "then fork the project and create ``TrollBSD'', or rename it to something else, so that it's less obvious". > > I think that I have to believe the troll is rational, and as such, > > the desire is not for a reddres of grievances, but for the effects > > on the society. > > So, Mr. Academia, how do you propose to test this theory? Are you > going to offer the troll(s) amnesty? ;) No. The troll merely need fork the project and start his own distribution of FreeBSD. All of the tools for doing this are available at no cost, or low cost, if they want to dictate their own terms. This assumes that you are correct, and that there are grievances at issue, and that the troll is not being paid to try and disrupt the project, rather than simply venting frustration at unaddressed grievances. [ ... ] > > No, you just defended an instance as art, on the premise that > > other instances could be art: "it is a fish; all trout are fish; > > it's probably a trout". > > I did no such thing. I was refuting your statement that "criminal acts > cannot be art". I said they can be, and provided an example. What more > is needed? An accurate quote of what I actually said, which was not "criminal acts cannot be art". Other than this quote, I have not used the phrase "criminal acts" since 22 Sep 2001. [ ... ] > >> Well make fun of it as you like. That's my viewpoint. Have fun > >> doing your superior dance. > > > > It's not a question of being supercillious, it's a question of > > asking "and ... ?" and you not having an answer that would make > > us accept everything that came before. > > Us? Who's us? Is this the royal "we" I am seeing? "Oh Sir Lambert, > your lance is showing...". Not supercilious my gluteus maximus. The audience for whom you are balancing the ball on your nose. > > How do you enforce a "Do Not Enter" sign? > > You don't. You explain why. You let the person looking at the sign > choose. I prefer enforcement. It permits people to make simplifying assumptions which would be erroneous, were the sign not enforced. [ ... ] > >> Or you, in failing to see new data. > > What new data? > > See? No? -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Aug 29 13:32:41 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47E9E37B400 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 13:32:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from swan.mail.pas.earthlink.net (swan.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.123]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB11743E6A for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 13:32:35 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0180.cvx40-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([216.244.42.180] helo=mindspring.com) by swan.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17kVxx-0007MC-00; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 13:32:33 -0700 Message-ID: <3D6E84A5.7C940552@mindspring.com> Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 13:31:33 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Neal E. Westfall" Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? References: <20020829115637.I63118-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org "Neal E. Westfall" wrote: > On Thu, 29 Aug 2002, Terry Lambert wrote: > > The modelling I'm talking about is based on games theory, not on > > automata, and has its basis in mutual security games. > > Is this the same person who believes that life is not a zero-sum game? > Isn't games theory based on the idea life *is* a zero-sum game? No. Games theory is not limited to analysis or modelling of zero-sum games. There are also negative-sum games. Several very good references on the subject of positive-sum games are: The Evolution of Cooperation Robert Axelrod Basic Books ISBN: 0465021212 Micro Motives And Macro Behavior Thomas C. Schelling W.W. Norton & Company ISBN: 0393090094 And a mathematical reference on "globocop" in particular is: Nonlinear Dynamics, Mathematical Biology and Social Science (Santa Fe Institute Studies in the Science of Complexity. Lecture Notes, Vol 4) Joshua M. Epstein Perseus Press ISBN: 0201959895 > > > Science is a religion. Like most religions, you see what you want to > > > see; usually this is not truth. > > > > Science is a process, not a religion. > > One's definition of science is governed by his religion, or underlying > worldview, if you will. One's definition of many words is governed by that. That won't make them into the consensus definition. Just as "Creation Science" is not actually a science, because it violates the first principles of science. > > > There are no real points, and you can't usefully orthogonalize the > > > world into finite integer divisions to be analyzed separately. The > > > subject and the object are one. > > > > You failed statistics and modern physics, didn't you? 8-). There > > *are* real points; even if you can't identify them, you can identify > > their effects. And the idea that "observer effect" has any validity > > above a quantum level is a popular misconception. > > What about the OJ trial? It's interesting from a lot of perspectives; the major perspective is that, had he not been a celebrity, the amount of prosecutorial effort would likely have been insufficient to convict him; likewise, had he not been a celebrity, he would have not had access to sufficient legal representation to stave off that level of prosecutorial effort. I would argue, however, that sensationalism as a result of celebrity doesn't really qualify as "observer effect" in the Heisenbergian sense. The "observer effect" in the Schrodinger or Heisenberg sense, in the collapse of a wave function to a single state from a multiplex of states as a result of observation, or the inability to know both the position and momentum of an electron within h-bar/2 has more to do with quantum effects. Schrodinger's cat is a particular example, where a macro event is quantum-coupled, as a result if indirect observation. It's actually just an allegory, since the cat itself undoubtedly qualifies as an observer. 8-). If you want, you can actually replace "Schroedinger's cat" with "Lambert's Schroedinger", and run the same gendanken experiment; it has the same outcome. The issue is one of intelligence about the situation ("intelligence" in the information theory sences of the word), and the trap gate on the communication of the state of the coupled quantum system to the outside observer requiring a binary answer to a probability question. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Aug 29 15:33: 9 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 848B137B400 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 15:33:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from swan.mail.pas.earthlink.net (swan.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.123]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CCB443E77 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 15:33:06 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0433.cvx21-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([209.179.193.178] helo=mindspring.com) by swan.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17kXqX-00076V-00; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 15:33:01 -0700 Message-ID: <3D6EA0D1.BC94AE8D@mindspring.com> Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 15:31:45 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Neal E. Westfall" Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? References: <20020829141534.H34390-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org "Neal E. Westfall" wrote: > > One's definition of many words is governed by that. That won't > > make them into the consensus definition. > > On the other hand, the question arises, what makes the consensus > definition correct? The inability to communicate otherwise. 8-). [ ... "Creation Science" ... ] > > is not actually a science, because it violates the first principles > > of science. > > Correction: it violates the first principles of science as defined by > naturalists, not science as defined by creationists. See, it's all > worldviews. Contrast "evolutionary" science with "creation" science. > Why does one qualify as "science" while the other does not? Do they > not both bring philosophical baggage to the table? Is it even possible > to step outside one's worldview to evaluate the evidence? Is not the > way one evaluates the evidence conditioned by one's philosophical > prejudices? Is there some independent criteria for judging between > the two that is not arbitrary? Yes. Starting from first principles, can you build a working light bulb? -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Aug 29 17: 3:38 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C162437B400 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 17:03:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from directvinternet.com (dsl-65-185-140-165.telocity.com [65.185.140.165]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D848B43E4A for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 17:03:32 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from Tolstoy.home.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by Tolstoy.home.lan (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g7TLn6td036638; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 14:49:07 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from localhost (nwestfal@localhost) by Tolstoy.home.lan (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id g7TLn6Jn036635; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 14:49:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: Tolstoy.home.lan: nwestfal owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 14:49:06 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" X-X-Sender: nwestfal@Tolstoy.home.lan To: Terry Lambert Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: <3D6E84A5.7C940552@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <20020829141534.H34390-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Thu, 29 Aug 2002, Terry Lambert wrote: Thanks for the references... > > > > Science is a religion. Like most religions, you see what you want to > > > > see; usually this is not truth. > > > > > > Science is a process, not a religion. > > > > One's definition of science is governed by his religion, or underlying > > worldview, if you will. > > One's definition of many words is governed by that. That won't > make them into the consensus definition. On the other hand, the question arises, what makes the consensus definition correct? > Just as "Creation Science" > is not actually a science, because it violates the first principles > of science. Correction: it violates the first principles of science as defined by naturalists, not science as defined by creationists. See, it's all worldviews. Contrast "evolutionary" science with "creation" science. Why does one qualify as "science" while the other does not? Do they not both bring philosophical baggage to the table? Is it even possible to step outside one's worldview to evaluate the evidence? Is not the way one evaluates the evidence conditioned by one's philosophical prejudices? Is there some independent criteria for judging between the two that is not arbitrary? > > > > > > There are no real points, and you can't usefully orthogonalize the > > > > world into finite integer divisions to be analyzed separately. The > > > > subject and the object are one. > > > > > > You failed statistics and modern physics, didn't you? 8-). There > > > *are* real points; even if you can't identify them, you can identify > > > their effects. And the idea that "observer effect" has any validity > > > above a quantum level is a popular misconception. > > > > What about the OJ trial? > > It's interesting from a lot of perspectives; the major perspective > is that, had he not been a celebrity, the amount of prosecutorial > effort would likely have been insufficient to convict him; likewise, > had he not been a celebrity, he would have not had access to sufficient > legal representation to stave off that level of prosecutorial effort. I should have included a smiley, I was just jesting... =) Regards, Neal To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Aug 29 17: 3:40 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81E3B37B401 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 17:03:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from directvinternet.com (dsl-65-185-140-165.telocity.com [65.185.140.165]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCE8A43E6A for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 17:03:33 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from Tolstoy.home.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by Tolstoy.home.lan (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g7TJoqtd002043; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 12:50:52 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from localhost (nwestfal@localhost) by Tolstoy.home.lan (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id g7TJoqQ5002040; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 12:50:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: Tolstoy.home.lan: nwestfal owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 12:50:51 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" X-X-Sender: nwestfal@Tolstoy.home.lan To: Dave Hayes Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: <200208290958.g7T9wa110717@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> Message-ID: <20020829124035.V63118-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Thu, 29 Aug 2002, Dave Hayes wrote: > >> > What if it's "the psyche of the community" itself which you value? > >> > >> Then you are doomed, even without trolls. Psyches change all the > >> time. You've often heard someone bemoan change, this will be no > >> different. > > > > If I'm doomed, then let me come to that cliff naturally, instead > > of having some jerk push me. > > Now there's something you've said that I can truly respect. But isn't the jerk just a part of the dance? > > > > If the troll is a bully, I will accord his rights the same merit > > which he gives to others, which is "none". It is not "bullying" > > to act in self defense. > > It -is- bullying to suppress the expression of unpopular ideas. But then you state (below): > > In the limit, all we are talking about is closed vs. open media, > > for this particular argument. If you admit the permissability > > of closed media, then I don't see the problem with the method of > > closure. > > I would have no problem with this as long as we get some OPEN media, > somewhere...without the voice of every damn social apologist crying > "censor the morons". A rather ironic (read: self-contradictory) sentiment, don't you think? Neal To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Aug 29 17: 3:45 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5290A37B405 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 17:03:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from directvinternet.com (dsl-65-185-140-165.telocity.com [65.185.140.165]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8774443E6A for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 17:03:34 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from Tolstoy.home.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by Tolstoy.home.lan (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g7TJILtd083392; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 12:18:21 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from localhost (nwestfal@localhost) by Tolstoy.home.lan (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id g7TJIKaJ083364; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 12:18:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: Tolstoy.home.lan: nwestfal owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 12:18:19 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" X-X-Sender: nwestfal@Tolstoy.home.lan To: Terry Lambert Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: <3D6DD985.81C8AF41@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <20020829115637.I63118-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Thu, 29 Aug 2002, Terry Lambert wrote: > > As if humans were modellable as a collection of automata with preset > > behavior and reaction to external stimuli. Another reason I don't > > believe you understand. > > Why is it that everyone believes that finite state automatons > are the ultimate answer to modelling complex systems? I'm sure > that this was not the intended result of the game of Life, nor > of Sugarscape. > > The modelling I'm talking about is based on games theory, not on > automata, and has its basis in mutual security games. Is this the same person who believes that life is not a zero-sum game? Isn't games theory based on the idea life *is* a zero-sum game? > > Science is a religion. Like most religions, you see what you want to > > see; usually this is not truth. > > Science is a process, not a religion. One's definition of science is governed by his religion, or underlying worldview, if you will. > > There are no real points, and you can't usefully orthogonalize the > > world into finite integer divisions to be analyzed separately. The > > subject and the object are one. > > You failed statistics and modern physics, didn't you? 8-). There > *are* real points; even if you can't identify them, you can identify > their effects. And the idea that "observer effect" has any validity > above a quantum level is a popular misconception. What about the OJ trial? Neal To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Aug 29 17:30:51 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 555E237B400 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 17:30:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cfcl.com (cpe-24-221-172-174.ca.sprintbbd.net [24.221.172.174]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 741AF43E6A for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 17:30:44 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from rdm@cfcl.com) Received: from [192.168.254.205] (cerberus [192.168.254.205]) by cfcl.com (8.11.6/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g7U0UZa85476 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 17:30:36 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from rdm@cfcl.com) Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Eudora for Macintosh! Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 17:30:37 -0700 To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org From: Rich Morin Subject: Re: What can FreeBSD learn from Mac OS X? Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org EA> What do you mean by "productizing"? Do you mean marketing? Why EA> don't you start the wave, and lead the sheep? I'd also love to EA> see FreeBSD get into more places, but it takes time, and money, EA> to "market" the OS. Time I have, money, well, spent elsewhere. No, I don't just mean marketing. The Cylogistics / Daemon News folks are already doing good work in that direction; if I have any marketing aspirations/energy, I'll just give them a hand. What I mean by "productizing" is something like the distinction made by Fred Brooks ("The Mythical Man-month": required reading! :-) between "programs" and "program products". FreeBSD has come a long way on this particular path, but I think it needs to come further. For example: * Each FreeBSD release is, in essence, a new install. The user is given a bit of help with /etc and such, but is required to figure out more than a few things for him/herself. There is no reason why each release shouldn't have detailed notes (and, preferably, conversion scripts) to assist the administrator in making the needed adjustments. * Mac OS X has specifically opted to put as much as possible into dynamic shared libraries. This lets them upgrade the behavior of the entire system, simply by upgrading the code in the libraries. * Each FreeBSD release completely supplants the one(s) before it. By the time a release is a year old, it's toast: no patches, no support. I don't see the FreeBSD Project being able to use the same methods as as Apple does; its goals and market are too different. There may be a way, however, to get some of the benefits without buying the whole package. What I would _like_ is a situation where an administrator can be safe in using a given version of FreeBSD, plus occasional binary patches, for a year or even longer. In order for this to work, however, there would need to be multiple, overlapping streams of releases, as: 2002.09 4.7 the "official" release 2002.10 4.7.1 4.7 + early bug fixes 2002.11 4.7.2 4.7.1 + later, critical bug fixes 2002.12 4.8 the "official" release 2003.01 4.8.1 4.8 + early bug fixes 2003.01 4.7.3 4.7.2 + later, critical bug fixes 2003.03 4.8.2 4.8.1 + later, critical bug fixes 2003.03 4.9 the "official" release 2003.04 4.9.1 4.9 + early bug fixes 2003.05 4.7.4 4.7.3 + late, really critical bug fixes 2003.06 4.9.2 4.9.1 + early bug fixes 2003.07 4.8.3 4.8.2 + later, critical bug fixes 2003.10 4.9.3 4.9.2 + later, critical bug fixes ... I don't know what the exact schedule for the dotdot releases should be, but my guess is that .1 could come after a month, .2 could show up a couple months after that, and following fixes would be issued whenever a truly _horrendous_ security hole was discovered. So, several months might elapse after .3 and up. In summary, dotdot releases would ONLY be used for issues of stability and security (ie, no enhancements and _nothing_ that would affect system configuration files). Further, the "bar" for inclusion would be raised for the later dotdot releases. Unfortunately, we can't _quite_ assume exponential decay for the dotdot releases; new security holes keep showing up every few months and they affect all existing releases. Here is a chart that shows the additional work that my scheme would entail, if we assume a release "lifetime" of 24 months and inter-release gaps of 1, 2, 4, 4, ... months: MM 4.7 4.8 4.9 4.10 4.11 4.12 4.13 4.14 4.15 4.16 4.17 # == === === === ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== = 1 -- 1 2 .1 1 3 0 4 .2 -- 1 5 .1 1 6 0 7 .2 -- 1 8 .3 .1 2 9 0 10 .2 -- 1 11 .3 .1 2 12 .4 1 13 .2 -- 1 14 .3 .1 2 15 .4 1 16 .5 .2 -- 2 17 .3 .1 2 18 .4 1 19 .5 .2 -- 2 20 .6 .3 .1 3 21 .4 1 22 .5 .2 -- 2 23 .6 .3 .1 3 24 .7 .4 3 25 .5 .2 -- 2 26 .6 .3 .1 3 27 .7 .4 3 28 .5 .2 -- 2 29 .6 .3 .1 3 30 .7 .4 2 31 .5 .2 -- 2 32 .6 .3 .1 3 33 .7 .4 3 34 .5 .2 3 35 .6 .3 2 36 .7 .4 2 ... It appears that the number of dotdot release per month, under this scheme, would creep up to an average of about 2.5. Because only critical bug fixes would be included, the amount of work to prepare each patch should be relatively small (as compared, say, to a "dot" release :-). Anyway, that's one suggestion... Now for a question: would anyone pay Real Money (TM) for these sorts of dotdot releases? It wouldn't have to be a lot, just enough to pay for the work involved. If so, Daemon News or some other party might have a business opportunity... -r -- email: rdm@cfcl.com; phone: +1 650-873-7841 http://www.cfcl.com/rdm - my home page, resume, etc. http://www.cfcl.com/Meta - The FreeBSD Browser, Meta Project, etc. http://www.ptf.com/dossier - Prime Time Freeware's DOSSIER series http://www.ptf.com/tdc - Prime Time Freeware's Darwin Collection To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Aug 29 19:20:21 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 966FF37B400 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 19:20:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail19a.dulles19-verio.com (mail19a.dulles19-verio.com [161.58.134.133]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 9161743E42 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 19:20:16 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from rob@pythonemproject.com) Received: from www.pythonemproject.com (198.104.176.109) by mail19a.dulles19-verio.com (RS ver 1.0.63s) with SMTP id 0196382097 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 22:17:32 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3D6ED5FB.9CFDCFFE@pythonemproject.com> Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 19:18:35 -0700 From: Rob X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.2 i386) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "chat@freebsd.org" Subject: Cat and computer tales Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Loop-Detect: 1 Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On to lighter topics... :) I'm interested in hearing about "Cat clashes with Computer tales." I have noticed that ours seems to regard my laptop as a competitor, thinking I have more affection for it then she. It typically will place itself between my head and the keyboard. One day it was purring very loud and annoying me, so I issued the command "cat /dev/dsp > file" and let it run for a while. I later converted it to an mp3 and played it back on my Klipsh system. There was this thundering purring sound and me faintly in the background saying "bad kitty, bad kitty". Rob. -- ----------------------------- The Numeric Python EM Project www.pythonemproject.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Aug 29 19:33:19 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD71F37B400 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 19:33:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from directvinternet.com (dsl-65-185-140-165.telocity.com [65.185.140.165]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5553E43E9C for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 19:33:16 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from Tolstoy.home.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by directvinternet.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g7U2XCGd037578; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 19:33:12 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from localhost (nwestfal@localhost) by Tolstoy.home.lan (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id g7U2XBnZ037575; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 19:33:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: Tolstoy.home.lan: nwestfal owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 19:33:11 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" X-X-Sender: nwestfal@Tolstoy.home.lan To: Terry Lambert Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: <3D6EA0D1.BC94AE8D@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <20020829191145.E37029-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Thu, 29 Aug 2002, Terry Lambert wrote: > "Neal E. Westfall" wrote: > > > One's definition of many words is governed by that. That won't > > > make them into the consensus definition. > > > > On the other hand, the question arises, what makes the consensus > > definition correct? > > The inability to communicate otherwise. 8-). Okay. > > > [ ... "Creation Science" ... ] > > > is not actually a science, because it violates the first principles > > > of science. > > > > Correction: it violates the first principles of science as defined by > > naturalists, not science as defined by creationists. See, it's all > > worldviews. Contrast "evolutionary" science with "creation" science. > > Why does one qualify as "science" while the other does not? Do they > > not both bring philosophical baggage to the table? Is it even possible > > to step outside one's worldview to evaluate the evidence? Is not the > > way one evaluates the evidence conditioned by one's philosophical > > prejudices? Is there some independent criteria for judging between > > the two that is not arbitrary? > > Yes. Starting from first principles, can you build a working > light bulb? Seems a bit arbitrary to me, besides the fact that both are likely to claim to be able to do this. However, let's talk about those first principles. What if the reason that both can build useful things such as lightbulbs is that one of the two options is relying on concepts which only make sense given the other's worldview, and in fact is borrowing those concepts from that other worldview? Neal To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Aug 29 19:59:48 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20FFD37B400 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 19:59:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from swan.mail.pas.earthlink.net (swan.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.123]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B6ED43E6A for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 19:59:39 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0532.cvx21-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([209.179.194.22] helo=mindspring.com) by swan.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17kc0N-0003D7-00; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 19:59:27 -0700 Message-ID: <3D6EDF31.45216C70@mindspring.com> Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 19:57:53 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rich Morin Cc: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: What can FreeBSD learn from Mac OS X? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Rich Morin wrote: > No, I don't just mean marketing. The Cylogistics / Daemon News folks > are already doing good work in that direction; if I have any marketing > aspirations/energy, I'll just give them a hand. > > What I mean by "productizing" is something like the distinction made by > Fred Brooks ("The Mythical Man-month": required reading! :-) between > "programs" and "program products". Geoffrey Moore (formerly of Regis McKenna) said it best in his book "Crossing the Chasm": One of the most useful marketing constructs to become integrated into high-tech marketing in the past few years is the concept of a whole product, an idea described in detail in Theodore Levitt's _The Marketing Imagination_, and one that plays a significant role in Bill Davidow's _Marketing High Technology_. The concept is very strightforward: There is a gap between the marketing promise made to the customer--the compelling vlaue proposition--and the ability of the shipped product to fulfill that promise. For the gap to be overcome, the product must be augmented by a variety of services and ancillary products to become the whole product. The formal model is diagrammed by Levitt as follows: The Whole Product Model ,-----------------------------. | ,-------------------------. | | | ,---------------------. | | | | | ,-----------------. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Generic Product | | | | | | | `-----------------' | | | | | | Expected Product | | | | | `---------------------' | | | | Augmented Product | | | `-------------------------' | | Potential Product | `-----------------------------' The model identifies four different perceptions of the product, as follows: 1. _Generic Product_: This is what is shipped in the box and what is covered by the purchasing contract. 2. _Expected Product_: This is the product that the consumer thought che was buying when she bought the generic product. It is the _minimum_ configuration of products and services necessary to have any chance of achieving the buying objective. For example, people who are buying personal computers for the first time _expect_ to get a monitor with their purchase--how else could you use the comuter?--but in fact, in most cases, it is not part of the generic product. 3. _Augmented Product_: This is the product fleshed out to provide the _maximum_ chance of achieving the buying objective. In the case of a personal computer, this would include a variety of products, such as software, a hard disk drive, and a printer, as well as a variety of services, such as a customer hot line, advanced training, and readily accessible service centers. 4. _Potential Product_: This represents the product's room for growth as more and more ancillary products come on the market and as customer-specific enhancements to the system are made. Crossing the Chasm Geoffrey Moore Harper Business ISBN: 0-88730-717-5 FreeBSD started out shipping a _Generic Product_, and it still ships the same generic product. RedHat (as an example) *almost* ships an _Expected Product_. Microsoft *almost* ships an _Augmented Product_ (they live and die by the 80/20 rule). [ ... examples of the difference between a _Generic Product_ and an _Expected Product_ ... ] > I don't see the FreeBSD Project being able to use the same methods as > as Apple does; its goals and market are too different. There may be a way, > however, to get some of the benefits without buying the whole package. I don't think FreeBSD can really compete at this level, period. It's a volunteer project. It requires the resources and the market drivers of a RedHat or similar company. There are two *serious* barriers to entry for any company that would try to fulfill this role for FreeBSD, and a myriad of smaller barriers. The two *serious* barriers are: (1) ability to use the trademark without repercussions (example: "White Hat FreeBSD"), while differentiating the _Generic PRoduct_ by providing an _Expected_ or _Augmented Product_ for a particular market, and (2) control over over the elements of the distribution which are based on guaranteed access to commit priviledges and/or the brute force position of of core team membership. RedHat has it much easier in this regard, in that all they really have to deal with in terms of negotiated interest is the kernel itself, and they can do some pretty eggregious things along the way, and the trademark holder (Linux) will not (or at least has not so far) slapped them down. > What I would _like_ is a situation where an administrator can be safe in > using a given version of FreeBSD, plus occasional binary patches, for a > year or even longer. In order for this to work, however, there would > need to be multiple, overlapping streams of releases, as: [ ... product lifecycle maintenance ... ] A picture of this for Mozilla is at: http://mozilla.org/roadmap/branching-2002-08-01.png The point about this, though, is that product lifecycle maintenance is an un-sexy job, and volunteer projects, outside their inital founding, rarely tackle unsexy jobs, unless they are considered challenging, and appeal to the nature of the volunteers. The closest FreeBSD has to this wa Jordan, and, despite the fact that he did not lack for the raw materials, he could only juggle so many cats at a time before he risked bleeding to death. 8-). [ ... lifecycle schedule timeline, fixed to calendar dates distributed over a 24 month period ... ] > It appears that the number of dotdot release per month, under this scheme, > would creep up to an average of about 2.5. Because only critical bug > fixes would be included, the amount of work to prepare each patch should > be relatively small (as compared, say, to a "dot" release :-). This is actually a significant amount of work, until you have a base distribution which tolerates updates gladly. > Anyway, that's one suggestion... Now for a question: would anyone pay > Real Money (TM) for these sorts of dotdot releases? It wouldn't have to > be a lot, just enough to pay for the work involved. If so, Daemon News > or some other party might have a business opportunity... I think that such a scheme is necessary, but not sufficient, for the creation of a _Whole Product_. There are other aspects of the product which would need to be addressed, as well, to, minimally, move it from a _Generic Product_ to an _Expected Product_. One issue here is that not all work could be safely donated back to the project initially, in this business model, if the R&D costs were to be amortized over a long enough period that the sales would both pay for R&D, other fixed overhead, operating costs, and profit to pay back investors. One answer might be a time converted license, such as that which was on the Soft Updates code, where you can burn your own CD's of the augnemented code, but you could not sell such CD's yourself, unless you paid a license fee. This is generally unsatisfying from a community perspective, since you are unlikely to be able to find a FreeBSD you can burn to a CDROM and sell, if the developement becomes the mainstream FreeBSD; there is an implicit marriage to a single vendor, along with other problems that would likely result in a serious backlash. But donation of the code is what is required; if it's not a part of the standard FreeBSD, the terms and conditions on the use of the trademark means that you have to ship an unadulterated (un_augmented_) "Disc #1", which means that your support costs go through the roof, as people boot the wrong CDROM, and get the standard install, rather than your graphical install that would not work on anything without SVGA or better display capabilities, a keyboard, and a mouse (as an example). Even so, there's no guarantee that the changes you want to make will even be accepted back into the source tree, after review, even if you are a core team member or a Julian Elisher or other highly respected contributor. This leaves you in the same position you are with any GPL'ed product: no means of amortizing your R&D costs, or needing to fork another distribution off to get around the otherwise insurmountable issues. It's a difficult problem to solve, without some movement on the other side.. e.g. The FreeBSD Foundation Inc. taking posession of the FreeBSD trademark, and setting perpetual license terms on its use would be one solution; getting NetBSD or OpenBSD to adopt those terms, and picking one of them instead would be another; I'm sure there are others. The problem is not insurmountable, but it would probably take a lot of work to avoid turning the attempt into another BSDI. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Aug 29 20: 6:36 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACAE537B401 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 20:06:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from swan.mail.pas.earthlink.net (swan.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.123]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D47343E65 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 20:06:33 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0532.cvx21-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([209.179.194.22] helo=mindspring.com) by swan.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17kc7D-0004Kg-00; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 20:06:32 -0700 Message-ID: <3D6EE0FD.8FA2080@mindspring.com> Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 20:05:33 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Neal E. Westfall" Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? References: <20020829191145.E37029-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org "Neal E. Westfall" wrote: > > > Is there some independent criteria for judging between > > > the two that is not arbitrary? > > > > Yes. Starting from first principles, can you build a working > > light bulb? > > Seems a bit arbitrary to me, besides the fact that both are likely to > claim to be able to do this. However, let's talk about those first > principles. What if the reason that both can build useful things such > as lightbulbs is that one of the two options is relying on concepts > which only make sense given the other's worldview, and in fact is > borrowing those concepts from that other worldview? The Catholic Church had 1800 years to do it, and didn't. Science, once formalized, did it in about 100. I guess I'm just one of those people who has a natural prejudice towards things which allow me to bend matter to my will. "But still, they revolve...". 8-). -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Aug 29 21: 1:53 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D1B037B406 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 21:01:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from directvinternet.com (dsl-65-185-140-165.telocity.com [65.185.140.165]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D25AD43E72 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 21:01:11 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from Tolstoy.home.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by directvinternet.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g7U3xwGd037861; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 20:59:58 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from localhost (nwestfal@localhost) by Tolstoy.home.lan (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id g7U3xvvO037858; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 20:59:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: Tolstoy.home.lan: nwestfal owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 20:59:57 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" X-X-Sender: nwestfal@Tolstoy.home.lan To: Terry Lambert Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: <3D6EE0FD.8FA2080@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <20020829204315.O37029-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Thu, 29 Aug 2002, Terry Lambert wrote: > > > Yes. Starting from first principles, can you build a working > > > light bulb? > > > > Seems a bit arbitrary to me, besides the fact that both are likely to > > claim to be able to do this. However, let's talk about those first > > principles. What if the reason that both can build useful things such > > as lightbulbs is that one of the two options is relying on concepts > > which only make sense given the other's worldview, and in fact is > > borrowing those concepts from that other worldview? > > The Catholic Church had 1800 years to do it, and didn't. Science, > once formalized, did it in about 100. As I'm not all that fond of the Catholic Church myself, I'll let that one slide for now. But the question remains, how is "science" by *anyone's* definition even possible? David Hume undermined the basis of modern science when he pointed out that there is no rational basis for thinking that nature will remain uniform. Every attempted (atheistic) explanation that I've seen assumes the uniformity of nature and thus begs the question. The scientific method has worked well in the past, but that has no relevance to whether or not it will work in the future. In a random chance universe, anything is possible. Given those presuppositions, for all you know when you squeeze the tube of toothpaste in the morning, strawberry jam will come out. Neal To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Aug 29 21:30:37 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 265BA37B400 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 21:30:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from web40009.mail.yahoo.com (web40009.mail.yahoo.com [66.218.78.27]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id F0E7143E3B for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 21:30:35 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from stellarnomadine@yahoo.com) Message-ID: <20020830043035.82769.qmail@web40009.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [202.249.25.36] by web40009.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 21:30:35 PDT Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 21:30:35 -0700 (PDT) From: Carla Quiblat Subject: SPOT To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Hello, Since this is -chat, I thought it might be ok to ask something off-topic (non-freebsd specific). Can someone translate "Satellite Pour l’Observation de la Terre" for me? Is it Satellite for Weather Observation? I'm not French and I've searched google but google just points to more French pages I don't really understand. Thanks, carla __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes http://finance.yahoo.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Aug 29 21:46: 3 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF72137B400 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 21:46:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wantadilla.lemis.com (wantadilla.lemis.com [192.109.197.80]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7365243E65 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 21:46:00 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from grog@lemis.com) Received: by wantadilla.lemis.com (Postfix, from userid 1004) id B3A22814A7; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 14:15:56 +0930 (CST) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 14:15:56 +0930 From: Greg 'groggy' Lehey To: Carla Quiblat Cc: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: SPOT Message-ID: <20020830044556.GU49032@wantadilla.lemis.com> References: <20020830043035.82769.qmail@web40009.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20020830043035.82769.qmail@web40009.mail.yahoo.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.99i Organization: The FreeBSD Project Phone: +61-8-8388-8286 Fax: +61-8-8388-8725 Mobile: +61-418-838-708 WWW-Home-Page: http://www.FreeBSD.org/ X-PGP-Fingerprint: 9A1B 8202 BCCE B846 F92F 09AC 22E6 F290 507A 4223 Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Thursday, 29 August 2002 at 21:30:35 -0700, Carla Quiblat wrote: > > Hello, > > Since this is -chat, I thought it might be ok to ask > something off-topic (non-freebsd specific). Can > someone translate "Satellite Pour l?Observation de la > Terre" for me? Is it Satellite for Weather > Observation? I'm not French and I've searched google > but google just points to more French pages I don't > really understand. Well, assuming ? stands for ', it means "satellite for the observation of the earth". There's no mention of weather in there. Greg -- See complete headers for address and phone numbers To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Aug 29 22:14:22 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 186DD37B400; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 22:14:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from goose.mail.pas.earthlink.net (goose.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.18]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B849643E65; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 22:14:20 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0122.cvx40-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([216.244.42.122] helo=mindspring.com) by goose.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17ke6u-0007VQ-00; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 22:14:20 -0700 Message-ID: <3D6EFEEE.C34F8417@mindspring.com> Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 22:13:18 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Greg 'groggy' Lehey Cc: Carla Quiblat , freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: SPOT References: <20020830043035.82769.qmail@web40009.mail.yahoo.com> <20020830044556.GU49032@wantadilla.lemis.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote: > On Thursday, 29 August 2002 at 21:30:35 -0700, Carla Quiblat wrote: > > Can someone translate "Satellite Pour l?Observation de la > > Terre" for me? > > Well, assuming ? stands for ', it means "satellite for the observation > of the earth". There's no mention of weather in there. JHB Mark II has it exatly right. 8-) 8-). -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Aug 29 22:16:29 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8913D37B400 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 22:16:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org [64.239.180.8]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0F2043E4A for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 22:16:02 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@jetcafe.org) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7U5Ft118955; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 22:15:55 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org) Message-Id: <200208300515.g7U5Ft118955@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Terry Lambert Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 22:15:50 -0700 From: Dave Hayes Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Terry Lambert writes: > Dave Hayes wrote: >> You'll have to show me where academic theory says that adversity isn't >> an evolutionary pressure. That flys in the face of academic theory, >> let alone mine. > If you are near sighted and must wear classes, you suffer from > adversity. Due to the classes and the recent lack of large > feline predators, near-sightedness, while a form of adversity, > is not an evolutionary pressure. Actually this example demosntrates the -removal- of an adversity (near-sightedness) via glasses. It doesn't demonstrate the removal of any pressure. Try again. ;) > [ ... ] >> > Define what you would consider an acceptable proof. >> >> Ok. First you must prove to me that the notion of "proof" exists and >> is applicable to testing ideas... ;) > In other words, you won't define an acceptable proof, for fear of > having to face one. No, in other words there is no such thing as an acceptable proof (but I can't prove that). Where did you get "fear"? Are we miffed? ;) > [ ... ] >> > Mankind's evolutionary state is such that no matter what >> > organization or community forms, corruption, inefficiency and >> > politics will derail any -real- "good" that said organization can >> > do. >> >> Where did you get "self-assembled" and "cannot be the result of a >> conscious design"? > > The choice of the word "forms". Ah. I believe you misinterpreted that word and the meaning. Perhaps I should be more rigorous in this case: "For all communities with a non-null set of elements belonging to the set of all of mankind, corruption, inefficiency and politics will derail any -real- 'good' that said organization can do." > [ ... more Unibomber ... ] >> I don't agree nor disagree with his goals or methods. I think his life >> is a lesson for those who wish to see it. I am arrogant indeed, >> ( perhaps even more so than you ;) ) but I'm not so arrogant as >> to think that I really have any say over whet that person should >> or should not have done, fought for, or believed. > There's a right way, and a wrong way, and blowing people up > without the sanction of the state is the wrong way. But blowing them up -with- the sanction of the state is the right way? >> I could also call them "evolutionary" centers, but you'll violently >> disagree again. =) > Of course, since removal from the gene pool removes one's > potential progeny, and therefore the ability to select *for* > the involved genes. If they are anything, they are centers > of anti-evolution. The ones that break out and forcibly reproduce are the best suited to survival in hostile environments. By definition even. > [ ... ] >> It is an error to test something without the means of testing it or >> even the means of understanding it. Mankind's academic arrogance is >> that it can understand anything. > > You mean, like when a troll posts to a mailing list. You claim to understand this too ya know. > [ ... ] >> There is no other real arena that you'll work with in your lifetime. > Sorry; this is the second time you've implied that you're a > phenomenologist. Who? > I just can't buy the idea that something has validity independent of > its source. Of course not, you've apparently missed the entire point of Zen. You don't have to be a phenomenologist to handle the things that happen internally at a higher priority than the external stuff. > There is such a thing as "the fruit of the poisoned tree". What's this reference now? > [ ... ] >> > And it is only you who are looking at the cave mounth, instead >> > of at the shadows cast on the back wall of the cave? >> >> Not only me. Some others can too. Every so often I run into someone >> who's glimpsed it. > > Perhaps they've had too much Nutrasweet; You go right on believing that. > aspratame bonds to the N-Dopamine receptors, So that's why that stuff makes me sick. > [ ... ] >> >> This is no better than slavery. >> > We prefer the term "speed limit". > [ rant on speed limits destorying people's judgement ] > It was a reference to the fact that society dictates conditions > to individuals, and That's The Way It Is. Members of society routinely and frequently violate these conditions, and That's The Way It Is. > [ ... amoralism ... ] >> > This works well if one's ethics happen to coincide with the >> > morals of the society of which they are a member, and poorly >> > otherwise. >> >> You mean: it works well for -you- if -their- ethics coincide with >> -your- morals. ;) > > No, I said "with societys" and I meant it. I don't buy that at all. Your incentive is to say "with society's" since you'll look good to "society" if you say that. > [ ... ] >> > Why is it that everyone believes that finite state automatons >> > are the ultimate answer to modelling complex systems? >> >> Good question. Tell that to the society that is trying to mold humans >> into that image. >> > It's not; you're paranoid. It is, and I'm extremely paranoid. Good security people always are. > The vast majority of humand have never heard of automata theory, let > alone been forcibly indoctrinated against their wills. Maybe not "forcibly" but surely "constantly". I take it you haven't been to very many normal human parties, and seen it when someone turns on the TV. The first domino's commercial you see has people calling for pizza. Ding, slobber. What do politicians do when they want to get elected? The most effective way is to mount a hate campaign against the other candidate. You going to tell me this is not indoctrination? Ding, slobber. > [ ... ] >> > The alternative to "sociopath" is "terrorist"; I was giving the >> > benefit of the doubt. >> >> I've been talking about misfits, which I believe describes a troll >> adequeately. You are not going to get me (or most anyone else) to buy >> that a "troll" == "terrorist". > > What else do you call someone who seeks to destroy what they > can not control? "Naughty"? "Desperate" perhaps. "Misunderstood" definately. "Naughty" I refrain from using, it has too many sexual contexts that are inappropriate. ;) > [ ... ] >> Zealous defense of trolls? Har. More evidence that you did not >> understand my initial posting, nor do you understand my position. >> >> Let me make it clear. >> >> Trolls != bad. Trolls != good. Trolls exist as a result of a >> community. Trolls cannot exist outside of a community. Conclusion: >> Trolls are irrelevant and not worth any wastage of energy. >> >> That's what I first said, paraphrased. > > Let me make my position clear: Trolls can not exist outside the > context of an infrastructure which enables them to communicate. Yes they can, their half-life is shorter in the face of fascist moderation, but they will still appear (briefly). >> You may disagree with the conclusion, but I won't buy that it's any >> logical or academic thought which has gone into that disagreement. >> It's pure emotion, as human as it gets, that causes you to disagree >> with that. > > You're wrong, but that's expected, in this case. Am I? Dishonesty towards the self is the root cause of unawareness. > [ ... ] >> It's a USENET thing. If you haven't experienced USENET in the late 80s >> early 90s, you can't possibly understand. > ...ihnp4!century!terry UUCP != USENET. UUCP enabled USENET, however. > [ ... society should not punish miscreants ... ] > Like I said before: emigrate. To where? >> > Either your argument is universally valid, or it's not. >> >> There's that excluded middle you are excluding again. ;) > > Look up "universal". It's a definitional thing. Who needs to? You present a binary alternative. You fail to see a third alternative which is neither of the previous two. That's the excluded middle thing which -you- brought up in the first place. > [ ... ] >> > Getting back to the trolls, however, you have yet to articulate a >> > downside to them not being there. >> >> I've articulated it a lot, you have just decided not to see it. > > Accepting your argument, for the sake of argument, it removes an > environmental stressor that acts as a spur to evolution. > > You still haven't proven, however, that it's a positive stressor, > rather than a negative one. I've given examples of how societies > react to negative stressors by becoming more totalitarian. I've asserted such societies eventually stagnate for lack of new and/or challenging input, and stop growing usefully. Look at Russia, if you want an example. > Unless your argument is "totalitarian = good" or "I have pixie dust > that will make societies magically disappear" Oh, I put that stuff away. It makes things too easy. ;) > [ ... ] >> > I'm not advocating it at this point; I haven't been driven to >> > it (yet). >> >> There's hope! > > Growing slimmer. But still existent. Look, I could accuse you of being a weak troll, with your harumphy sort of academic dismissive nature. As I see it, your type is responsible for the lack of respect I have for academia, yet I don't discount all of academia just because I can't stand your type. I think you should give some trolls a similar break. >> > If it happens, you will know by the first example of my advocacy of >> > such an idea would be a draft RFC, and a set of patches for >> > sendmail, most of the mail clients in -ports, and plugins for >> > Outlook, Eudora, and perhaps Netscape. >> > I recognize that this would provide some rather serious capability >> > for oppression, which could be abused in the future at some point >> > in time >> >> Not "could". "Will". > > OK. So maybe that's the trolls goal: an oppressive society. This makes sense. They drive some people to want oppression, even though it's bad for them. That doesn't mean we should let ourselves be manipulated by them... > Bein in favor of the continued existance of trolls, you must > therefore approve of this end state, right? No, I do not. But remember, the end state means no trolls. >> > But make no mistake: it's quite possible to "change the laws of >> > physics" for email transport for the net to squelch trolls, SPAM, >> > ...and politically "undesiarble" speech (an unfortunate side effect >> > whose cost would have to be excceded by my perception of the cost of >> > trolls). >> >> I can't imagine anything ever exceeding that cost, sorry. > > My perception of the cost. If it doesn't exceed your perception, > well, I guess you won't be writing the code, but that won't stop > the code from being written. I'd definately consider writing the hack that breaks such code. ;) > [ ... ] >> > So socio-situanal immunity is not permissable? >> >> Not if it dishonors another, IMEO. > > Your position is counter species-survival. So say you. Yet it works for me. I don't feel it is my duty to interfere in certain matters between humans. Where I come from, this is called "being nosy". > [ ... ] >> > Blocking trolls -- or SPAM -- as a result of the content of the >> > postings isn't a social immune response? >> >> SPAM should be a separate discussion, as I argue SPAM is a result of >> the culture's obsession with attention-marketing as the only means of >> increasing sales. SPAM is kind of a resonant response of this >> obsession, and can never really be immunized as long as the culture is >> so greedy. Any response to SPAM is one of those guilty type knee jerk >> responses...kind of like when mom catches you with a cookie and you >> say "My brother did it, he needs to be spanked". > > No, SPAM is "Shit Parading As Meat", if we take the original > Usenet definition that got it called "SPAM" in the first place, > based on the treatment of the luncheon meat as an acronym that > expanded to that value by soldiers involved in trench warfare > in Europe. I've never heard the acronym spelled out, but the rest is consistent. > As such, it includes off-topic posts by trolls, not just commercial > advertisements. The consensual definition would disagree with this. When I ask most people what spam is, they respond with "those damn adverts in my mail box". > [ ... ] >> I don't see blocking trolls as a social immune response. I see it as >> an attempt to squelch "bad ideas and thoughts" by a community, kind of >> like book burning or those fools who painted underwear on Goku on the >> DragonBall DVDs. > > A troll whose posting is blocked does not have his postings > destroyed, nor are they paineted over; they are merely forced > to another venue. This destroys the future postings in that venue. >> > I'm not talking about amortized cost, I'm talking individual cost. >> > You can't dismiss it that easily; in Japan, it costs per packet to >> > send packets (as one example). >> >> I can inversely. Consider the case in which normal mail (non-troll, >> non-spam, on-topic) is sent at a high rate. Should people be told they >> can't post on-topic messages cause it costs a percentage of the list >> extra money? > > No. If the post is on-topic, there was an implied contract in > the act of subscription to the list that recipients would willingly > accept on-topic postings. The other half of that contract is that > the list concommitantly agreed to not propagate off-topic postings > when it was possible to avoid. Implied contracts are shady. Unless I specifically agree to a contract, I expect not to be held to one. Anything else is dishonorable. My point in this example was to consider relative cost. One troll posting messages, verses 100 people posting messages, means the relative cost of the troll is far under the cost of propagating the list. It costs more to each list user if 100 people post on topic, and we know some list readers aren't interested in -all- the topics. If you block trolls simply because of cost, you also must block weakly-popular topics to be fair, and now we are moderating by utility. >> > Maybe I don't care about the goal, I care about the effect. >> > How about you come up with a way to de-fang the effect, and >> > then I can agree with you about trolls being socially >> > permissable? >> >> What "fang"? People let trolls affect them, so they are able to. When >> people (even good ones) leave due to trolls, I reckon they aren't so >> good after all since a troll can get them to leave. Trolls don't bug >> me any. So there's no "fang" for me at all to remove. > > Maybe you missed the fact that Open Source projects are mutual > altruism networks, so "they don't bug me any" is not a sufficient > response. A real gift is given with no strings. None. It's not given, then taken away because "someone posted wrong". It's given freely and openly with zero conditions. A fake gift (aka "a sacrifice") is given with strings. It's given with conditions and expectations attached, and woe be unto those who break those conditions or fail to meet those expectations. If the altrusim being networked is fake, then the honorable thing to do is to post your conditions and expectations BEFORE giving the gift to give the recipients the chance to accept or reject the conditions and expectations...e.g. "No trolls". If the altruism being networked is real, trolls aren't a topic by definition (no strings, remember?). > [ ... ] >> You can't seem to see information content in Trolls. I see a wealth. > > So enlighten everyone: what information was in the last troll > posting? For one, where this mindset exists on the net, that you might learn from it what not to think. Then again, some people may need to be racists...so this will teach them what TO think. *shrug* > [ ... ] >> > If I'm doomed, then let me come to that cliff naturally, instead >> > of having some jerk push me. >> >> Now there's something you've said that I can truly respect. >> >> Have you tried moving out of the way of the jerk at the last minute, >> so he falls and you don't? =) > > If you insist on stretching the analogy, yes, by moving the list > out from under him. Sorry. You can only move yourself, not everyone else...or the analogy to what I was communicating falls apart. >> > If the troll is a bully, I will accord his rights the same merit >> > which he gives to others, which is "none". It is not "bullying" >> > to act in self defense. >> >> It -is- bullying to suppress the expression of unpopular ideas. > > The optimal strategy for any Nim-like game is modified tit-for-tat > with forgiveness. Life and communication is not really modellable as a Nim like game. > If the troll will not communicate any information in his postings, > then you allow a post. If a second post occurs, then you block the > posting address. The troll creates another email account on a free > server, and posts again. You allow the post. If it happens again, > you block the address. Interesting. I actually like this idea. At least the troll can communicate every -other- message. The problem next becomes how to ensure that the troll has a near-infinte supply of email adresses. > Even if the troll absolutely refuses to communicate in the content > of the posting, you have transformed the blocked/non-blocked status > of the posting account into a covert communications channel, with > which you can comment on the social acceptability of the troll's > behaviour. Er, no. *I* can't comment, only the list maintainer can comment, which means it's the maintainer's comment and NOT the consensus of everyone on the list. > [ ... ] >> > If social adversity is so good, why overcome it at all, and >> > just wallow in it for all eternity? >> >> We have been, if you haven't noticed. > > No, we haven't. Referring to day-to-day life I am. >> >> If I were to spend my time holding forth on each behaviour I see that >> >> I considered "antisocial" or bad, I'd be holding forth the rest of >> >> my life 24/7. >> > >> > And the change from the current status quo would be... ? >> >> ...a lot let me tell you. Instead of one message to one small mailing >> list per 3-4 hours, I'd be constantly posting mail and news messages >> every waking moment. ;) > > Let us be thankful you only pick the small issues, then... 8-). I'm sure the royal you would be most thankful if I never picked an issue. |) > [ ... ] >> >> It takes every kind of people. >> > >> > No, it doesn't. >> >> Yes it does. Robert Palmer can't be wrong and sound so good. >> >> Besides, genetic diversity helps search the solution space for the >> answer, whatever it may be. > > Have to converge on an answer sometime; can't put off the > convergence forever. It may take eons. > [ ... ] >> >> Some creative trolls find ways to get past blocks. One more dance for >> >> people to do in their copious spare time. >> > If a troll can break a 1024 bit key, then we have larger issues >> > we need to worry about. 8-). >> >> There are those who assert this is currently possible. It's likely >> to be done if your key was pseudo-random. ;) > > If it could be done routinely, we'd have bigger problems. Careful what you postulate. > [ ... ] >> > Why do you believe that they will have any more choice in the >> > matter than the people England sent to Australia in the 19th >> > century? >> >> Because I don't consider them criminals. > > What makes you think that makes any difference to the outcome? Stupidity. ;) > [ ... ] >> > Science is a process, not a religion. >> >> Nonsense. It has tenets, commandments, and even a preferred way of >> thinking to hand out to it's constituents. > > No faith required. Yes there is. As mathematics is taught, you have to take certain things on faith before you learn enough. For example, when introduced to variables and equations in algebra, you have to take it on faith that the operations used in the equations are defined over the domain and range of the values and variable in the equations. How do you teach differentials and integrals? You take it on faith that something is integrable over some domain and you learn to integrate it anyway. > [ ... why trolls, why now? ... ] >> > They are being paid. >> >> Damn, my black helicopter is still in the shop. I'll just use Bill's. >> ;) > > Acting as if it were true solves the problem just as well as > if it were actually true. Trolls really do communicate data. >> >> > Of my model for some Open Source projects? >> >> >> >> Good god, hasn't everyone in the world already held forth on this one? >> > >> > Not in any predictive sense, no. Mostly, it's just been hand >> > waving. >> >> That tends to happen with the presence of the pungent by-products of >> digestion.... > > Pungent by-products of digestion are not predictive. They are if you eat certain foods. > [ ... ] >> > even if you can't identify them, you can identify their effects. >> >> You -think- you can identify their effects, presuming you have the >> referent points to correctly identify the effects that are actually >> occuring. > > You can identify the Schelling points, even without that; they > are strange attractors. Presuming that entire barrel of assumptions is true, of course. >> > And the idea that "observer effect" has any validity above a quantum >> > level is a popular misconception. >> >> Suit yourself. > > I'd rather suit Heisenberg and Schroedinger, thanks. 8-). To each his or her idols. Oh wait, these are "figures of science" not "religious idols". ;) > [ ... ] >> >> That would not serve the best and highest good. So I won't. >> > >> > Rather than finding like-minded people and acting in concert, >> > you would prefer to rage against the wind? >> >> Not only would I prefer it, it's my way. I am my Don Quixote, Lord of >> La Mancha.... ;) > > Said Yertle the Turtle. 8-). As he listened to the constant drone of "I will NOT eat green eggs and ham". ;) >> > [ ... on racially motivated discord ... ] >> >> > Stay out of the middle, and let one wipe out the other, if it can? >> >> >> >> Basically. >> > >> > That's appalling. >> >> I'm glad you approve. I have no choice, but I bet you can't determine >> why. > > Because it derives from your first principles, obviously. Trust me (or don't), I don't work that way. > [ ... ] >> > The point is still valid, even if you choose to talk around it: >> > why is there a "right" to the forum of mailing lists, but not to >> > access to national media networks? >> >> I thought the internet was destined to give those rights, so that the >> national media networks could stop reinforcing consensual reality in >> the way -they- wanted, enabling the people to reinforce their own. > > No, the Internet was designed to survive a nuclear war and > maintain some semblance of function, as a communications medium > for military command and control. It *happens* to have other > uses to which it can be turned, but it wa not *designed* with > those other uses in mind. I didn't say "designed" I said "destined". Deliberately. >> > In the limit, all we are talking about is closed vs. open media, >> > for this particular argument. If you admit the permissability >> > of closed media, then I don't see the problem with the method of >> > closure. >> >> I would have no problem with this as long as we get some OPEN media, >> somewhere...without the voice of every damn social apologist crying >> "censor the morons". > > Feel free to put up a server for this purpose; it's not the > responsibility of everyone who puts up a server that can be > used for a particular purpose to permit such use. I've done this before, I'll not do it again until I can be assured that no fasicts will be able to delete ANY communications on it. In other words, I'm waiting for FreeNet. > [ ... ] >> For every general principle, it is possible to construct a specific >> example which doesn't work with that principle (even this one). >> >> I'd say your logical validity is in question. > > Spare me the "exception to every rule" sophistry. You don't spare me the "prove every principle" dogma, why should I reciprocate? > What's the exception to gravity? People are afraid they might fly off the planet, so they accept it. ;) > [ ... ] >> >> I don't agree. I think he's just mad and not gonna take it anymore. >> > >> > Mad at *what*? Take *what*? >> >> Mad at being excluded or not heard, and he's not gonna take not being >> heard anymore. > > So basically, IYO, the sides are irreconcilable. Which means > it's open season. Such violence. Is this being an anti-sociopath? >> Oh come on. You know this is a straw man. No list is going to "redress >> grievances" for a troll. > Assuming there *are* grievences, other than "my employer wants > your society disassembled for spare parts", you are probably > correct. > The answer, in the Open Source arena, is "then fork the project > and create ``TrollBSD'', or rename it to something else, so that > it's less obvious". You know more than you are telling about these trolls. Is that where your anger at them comes from? > [ ... ] >> >> Well make fun of it as you like. That's my viewpoint. Have fun >> >> doing your superior dance. >> > >> > It's not a question of being supercillious, it's a question of >> > asking "and ... ?" and you not having an answer that would make >> > us accept everything that came before. >> >> Us? Who's us? Is this the royal "we" I am seeing? "Oh Sir Lambert, >> your lance is showing...". Not supercilious my gluteus maximus. > > The audience for whom you are balancing the ball on your nose. So you presume to speak for everyone else? >> > How do you enforce a "Do Not Enter" sign? >> You don't. You explain why. You let the person looking at the sign >> choose. > I prefer enforcement. It permits people to make simplifying > assumptions which would be erroneous, were the sign not enforced. Sometimes rules just have to be broken. Enforcement prevents the development of natural human judgement as to when to break rules. Explanation assists this development, and eventually... one does not need rules. > [ ... ] >> >> Or you, in failing to see new data. >> > What new data? >> See? > No? That is the problem. ------ Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<< The difference between a moral man and a man of honor is that the latter regrets a discreditable act, even when it has worked and he has not been caught. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Aug 29 22:18:53 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB4ED37B400 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 22:18:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org [64.239.180.8]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D80E43E6A for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 22:18:48 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@jetcafe.org) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7U5Il118985; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 22:18:47 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org) Message-Id: <200208300518.g7U5Il118985@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: "Neal E. Westfall" Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 22:18:42 -0700 From: Dave Hayes Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Neal E Westfall writes: > But isn't the jerk just a part of the dance? Yes. Part of the dance is to dance with the jerk, not bump into him and then cry "cretin!". >> It -is- bullying to suppress the expression of unpopular ideas. > But then you state (below): >> I would have no problem with this as long as we get some OPEN media, >> somewhere...without the voice of every damn social apologist crying >> "censor the morons". > A rather ironic (read: self-contradictory) sentiment, don't you think? More like a realistic one. People can't seem to handle unpopular ideas. Ideally, you want all fora open to them, but I'll take what I can get. ;) ------ Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<< Possession of a system of knowledge, or an interest in it, or in discovering one, shouldn't be assumed to confer any license or capacity to operate it. Individual criticisms of a system, incapacity to operate it, or dissatisfaction with it should not be confused with any shortcoming of the system itself. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Aug 29 22:41:52 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C09D37B401 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 22:41:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from web40006.mail.yahoo.com (web40006.mail.yahoo.com [66.218.78.24]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A70D243E6E for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 22:41:48 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from stellarnomadine@yahoo.com) Message-ID: <20020830054148.1545.qmail@web40006.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [202.249.25.36] by web40006.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 22:41:48 PDT Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 22:41:48 -0700 (PDT) From: Carla Quiblat Subject: Re: SPOT To: Terry Lambert , Greg 'groggy' Lehey Cc: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <3D6EFEEE.C34F8417@mindspring.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org --- Terry Lambert wrote: > Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote: > > On Thursday, 29 August 2002 at 21:30:35 -0700, > Carla Quiblat wrote: > > > Can someone translate "Satellite Pour > l?Observation de la > > > Terre" for me? > > > > Well, assuming ? stands for ', it means "satellite > for the observation > > of the earth". There's no mention of weather in > there. > > JHB Mark II has it exatly right. 8-) 8-). > > -- Terry Thanks for your answers and s/Satellite/Systeme , my mistake. :) carla __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes http://finance.yahoo.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Aug 29 22:58:43 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5BC737B400 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 22:58:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cfcl.com (cpe-24-221-172-174.ca.sprintbbd.net [24.221.172.174]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1227A43E6A for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 22:58:40 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from rdm@cfcl.com) Received: from [192.168.254.205] (cerberus [192.168.254.205]) by cfcl.com (8.11.6/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g7U5wWa92725 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 22:58:32 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from rdm@cfcl.com) Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3D6EDF31.45216C70@mindspring.com> References: <3D6EDF31.45216C70@mindspring.com> X-Mailer: Eudora for Macintosh! Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 22:58:33 -0700 To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org From: Rich Morin Subject: Re: What can FreeBSD learn from Mac OS X? Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Thanks to Terry Lambert for his comments and for bringing in Geoffrey Moore's material. Interesting! TL>The point about this, though, is that product lifecycle maintenance is TL>an un-sexy job, ... TL>This is actually a significant amount of work, until you have a base TL>distribution which tolerates updates gladly. Understood. That's why I spoke of business cases, rather then volunteers. BTW, I had another thought after writing my notes. There's no real reason that the dotdot providers would have to track _every_ FreeBSD release. If the train only left the station every six months, that might still be OK with some passengers... >But donation of the code is what is required; if it's not a part of >the standard FreeBSD, the terms and conditions on the use of the >trademark means that you have to ship an unadulterated (un_augmented_) >"Disc #1", which means that your support costs go through the roof ... Although I haven't examined the relevant licenses, I suspect that some sort of "support service" could be sold, based on (but not including) the base FreeBSD releases. For example, the customer might buy 4.7.1 and get BSDMall's 4.7 distribution plus a subscription to a series of binary patches. So, the provider of the support service wouldn't be distributing modified distributions, just modifications which the user could add. I realize that this is a slippery distinction, but many FSB's seem to need some of these, from time to time (:-). Also, I could argue that the folks buying such a support service might be constitutionally inclined to read the directions, but then, I could easily be wrong... -r -- email: rdm@cfcl.com; phone: +1 650-873-7841 http://www.cfcl.com/rdm - my home page, resume, etc. http://www.cfcl.com/Meta - The FreeBSD Browser, Meta Project, etc. http://www.ptf.com/dossier - Prime Time Freeware's DOSSIER series http://www.ptf.com/tdc - Prime Time Freeware's Darwin Collection To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Aug 29 23:54:58 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55C9A37B400 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 23:54:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.seattleFenix.net (seattleFenix.net [216.39.145.247]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6134843E42 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 23:54:55 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from roo@mail.seattleFenix.net) Received: (from roo@localhost) by mail.seattleFenix.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g7U6raW58992; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 23:53:36 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from roo) Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 23:53:36 -0700 From: Benjamin Krueger To: Rob Cc: "chat@freebsd.org" Subject: Re: Cat and computer tales Message-ID: <20020829235336.G55573@mail.seattleFenix.net> References: <3D6ED5FB.9CFDCFFE@pythonemproject.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <3D6ED5FB.9CFDCFFE@pythonemproject.com>; from rob@pythonemproject.com on Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 07:18:35PM -0700 X-PGP-Key: http://www.macguire.net/benjamin/public_key.asc Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org * Rob (rob@pythonemproject.com) [020829 19:19]: > On to lighter topics... :) > > I'm interested in hearing about "Cat clashes with Computer tales." I > have noticed that ours seems to regard my laptop as a competitor, > thinking I have more affection for it then she. It typically will place > itself between my head and the keyboard. One day it was purring very > loud and annoying me, so I issued the command "cat /dev/dsp > file" and > let it run for a while. I later converted it to an mp3 and played it > back on my Klipsh system. There was this thundering purring sound and > me faintly in the background saying "bad kitty, bad kitty". > > Rob. > > > -- > ----------------------------- > The Numeric Python EM Project > > www.pythonemproject.com I have, on a few occasions, caught one of my cats molesting my computers. She seems to have a preference for Sun hardware. Quite appropriately, her name is 'Ping'. =) http://www.seattleFenix.net/pictures/cats/ping/ping-computer1.jpg http://www.seattleFenix.net/pictures/cats/ping/ping-computer2.jpg http://www.seattleFenix.net/pictures/cats/ping/ping-computer3.jpg http://www.seattleFenix.net/pictures/cats/ping/ping-computer4.jpg http://www.seattleFenix.net/pictures/cats/ping/ping-likes-sparc.jpg -- Benjamin Krueger "Everyone has wings, some folks just don't know what they're for" - B. Banzai ---------------------------------------------------------------- Send mail w/ subject 'send public key' or query for (0x251A4B18) Fingerprint = A642 F299 C1C1 C828 F186 A851 CFF0 7711 251A 4B18 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Fri Aug 30 0: 8:19 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D70437B400 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 00:08:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from avocet.mail.pas.earthlink.net (avocet.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.50]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFF8443E42 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 00:08:01 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0122.cvx40-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([216.244.42.122] helo=mindspring.com) by avocet.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17kfsr-0000pn-00; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 00:07:57 -0700 Message-ID: <3D6F1986.847DD15B@mindspring.com> Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 00:06:46 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dave Hayes Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? References: <200208300515.g7U5Ft118955@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Dave Hayes wrote: > Actually this example demosntrates the -removal- of an adversity > (near-sightedness) via glasses. It doesn't demonstrate the removal > of any pressure. Glasses keep near-shighted people in the gene pool longer than they would otherwise be. Myopia is still an adverse condition. > No, in other words there is no such thing as an acceptable proof (but > I can't prove that). By your troll argument, you should at least gve me a chance to infect you with my memes... > Where did you get "fear"? Are we miffed? ;) "Royal we" ? "I don't know, are you?" : "No"; > Ah. I believe you misinterpreted that word and the meaning. Perhaps I > should be more rigorous in this case: "For all communities with a > non-null set of elements belonging to the set of all of mankind, > corruption, inefficiency and politics will derail any -real- 'good' > that said organization can do." I guess you might as well give up, then, since there's no hope... > > There's a right way, and a wrong way, and blowing people up > > without the sanction of the state is the wrong way. > > But blowing them up -with- the sanction of the state is the right way? Of course. Society defines morality. > The ones that break out and forcibly reproduce are the best suited to > survival in hostile environments. By definition even. Nature seems to vote against that one. > >> It is an error to test something without the means of testing it or > >> even the means of understanding it. Mankind's academic arrogance is > >> that it can understand anything. > > > > You mean, like when a troll posts to a mailing list. > > You claim to understand this too ya know. Better to be arrogant with the sanction of the state, than to be arrogant and facing a crowd of torch-wielding peasents. > >> There is no other real arena that you'll work with in your lifetime. > > Sorry; this is the second time you've implied that you're a > > phenomenologist. > > Who? You. > Of course not, you've apparently missed the entire point of Zen. > You don't have to be a phenomenologist to handle the things that > happen internally at a higher priority than the external stuff. No, just catatonic. 8-). > > There is such a thing as "the fruit of the poisoned tree". > > What's this reference now? Accessory after the fact, receiving stolen property, etc.. [ ... ] > > It was a reference to the fact that society dictates conditions > > to individuals, and That's The Way It Is. > > Members of society routinely and frequently violate these conditions, > and That's The Way It Is. And we punish them, and That's The Way It Is. > >> > This works well if one's ethics happen to coincide with the > >> > morals of the society of which they are a member, and poorly > >> > otherwise. > >> > >> You mean: it works well for -you- if -their- ethics coincide with > >> -your- morals. ;) > > > > No, I said "with societys" and I meant it. > > I don't buy that at all. Your incentive is to say "with society's" > since you'll look good to "society" if you say that. Or if you can't win a conflict with all of society against you, and are forced to cooperate. [ ... society is inmically trying to make people over into good citizens ... ] > It is, and I'm extremely paranoid. Good security people always are. That's a big "whatever". [ ... ] > What do politicians do when they want to get elected? The most > effective way is to mount a hate campaign against the other candidate. > You going to tell me this is not indoctrination? Ding, slobber. "Ding, slobber" is an obvious reference to Pavlov's dogs, which is an example of conditioning, not indoctrination. Maybe you meant to say "conditioned" rather than "indoctrinated", originally? > > What else do you call someone who seeks to destroy what they > > can not control? "Naughty"? > > "Desperate" perhaps. "Misunderstood" definately. "Naughty" I refrain > from using, it has too many sexual contexts that are inappropriate. ;) Rodney King was a fleeing felon in voilation of parole. [ ... ] > > Let me make my position clear: Trolls can not exist outside the > > context of an infrastructure which enables them to communicate. > > Yes they can, their half-life is shorter in the face of fascist > moderation, but they will still appear (briefly). I'll accept a shorter half-life. It's a reasonable approximation of the desired outcome. > >> You may disagree with the conclusion, but I won't buy that it's any > >> logical or academic thought which has gone into that disagreement. > >> It's pure emotion, as human as it gets, that causes you to disagree > >> with that. > > > > You're wrong, but that's expected, in this case. > > Am I? Dishonesty towards the self is the root cause of unawareness. Can you prove that? [ ... ] > > [ ... society should not punish miscreants ... ] > > Like I said before: emigrate. > > To where? I already suggested an abandoned oil righ in the North Atlantic; must I think of everything? ;^). [ ... and argument is either valid or invalid ... ] > You present a binary alternative. You fail to see a > third alternative which is neither of the previous two. That's > the excluded middle thing which -you- brought up in the first place. No, it's not. Define a third catagory for this particular case, without using negation of the union of the other two. [ ... totalitarian societies ... ] > I've asserted such societies eventually stagnate for lack of new > and/or challenging input, and stop growing usefully. Look at Russia, > if you want an example. You've asserted it, but not proven it. "Look at Russia" is a "this one totalitarian society was stagnant by this one metric" argument, and therefore not representative of the class. [ ... ] > As I see it, > your type is responsible for the lack of respect I have for academia, > yet I don't discount all of academia just because I can't stand your > type. I think you should give some trolls a similar break. And I think trolls should find their own community, and quit bothering ones where they're not welcome. It's unlikely either of us will ever get our way. > > OK. So maybe that's the trolls goal: an oppressive society. > > This makes sense. They drive some people to want oppression, even though > it's bad for them. That doesn't mean we should let ourselves be > manipulated by them... You're right. We should block their manipulations! [ ... technological solutions to the troll problem ... ] > > My perception of the cost. If it doesn't exceed your perception, > > well, I guess you won't be writing the code, but that won't stop > > the code from being written. > > I'd definately consider writing the hack that breaks such code. ;) Eventually, the code would be correct, even if your implied premise here is that it doesn't start out that way. [ ... ] > > Your position is counter species-survival. > > So say you. Yet it works for me. I don't feel it is my duty to > interfere in certain matters between humans. Where I come from, > this is called "being nosy". Where I come from, it's called social conscience. [ ... SPAM ... ] > > As such, it includes off-topic posts by trolls, not just commercial > > advertisements. > > The consensual definition would disagree with this. When I ask most > people what spam is, they respond with "those damn adverts in my mail > box". So... ask the list, since that's the society whose context matters for this discussion. > > A troll whose posting is blocked does not have his postings > > destroyed, nor are they paineted over; they are merely forced > > to another venue. > > This destroys the future postings in that venue. Yes, you're right. There are many actions which risk consequences; if you don't want the consequences; like stepping off a cliff risks gravity hurtling you onto the rocks below. I don't see this as a problem. > Implied contracts are shady. Unless I specifically agree to a > contract, I expect not to be held to one. Anything else is > dishonorable. Well, as far as Rosseau is concerned, you're welcome to be born into a different society. 8-). > My point in this example was to consider relative cost. One troll > posting messages, verses 100 people posting messages, means the > relative cost of the troll is far under the cost of propagating the > list. It costs more to each list user if 100 people post on topic, > and we know some list readers aren't interested in -all- the topics. > If you block trolls simply because of cost, you also must block > weakly-popular topics to be fair, and now we are moderating by > utility. It's not a popularity contest, it's a topicality litmus test. > > Maybe you missed the fact that Open Source projects are mutual > > altruism networks, so "they don't bug me any" is not a sufficient > > response. > > A real gift is given with no strings. None. It's not given, then taken > away because "someone posted wrong". It's given freely and openly > with zero conditions. A *mutual* altruism network. We aren't talking "gifts" here, we are talking the equivalent of stone soup. > If the altrusim being networked is fake, then the honorable thing to > do is to post your conditions and expectations BEFORE giving the gift > to give the recipients the chance to accept or reject the conditions > and expectations...e.g. "No trolls". The altruism is real; you seem to be objecting to the context. > If the altruism being networked is real, trolls aren't a topic by > definition (no strings, remember?). They can have the benefits of altruism outside the context of the mutual altruism network. Just not mine. 8-). > > So enlighten everyone: what information was in the last troll > > posting? > > For one, where this mindset exists on the net, that you might learn > from it what not to think. Then again, some people may need to be > racists...so this will teach them what TO think. *shrug* In the future, society will send in little robots to rearrange their neurons so that they no longer need to be racists. They won't be who they were, they will be wholly different people, but, by your logic, these wholly different people would have the same right to exist as the racists had, so there would be no net loss of freedom, or even anarchy, if we did that, right? 8-). [ ... ] > >> Have you tried moving out of the way of the jerk at the last minute, > >> so he falls and you don't? =) > > > > If you insist on stretching the analogy, yes, by moving the list > > out from under him. > > Sorry. You can only move yourself, not everyone else...or the analogy > to what I was communicating falls apart. "Any place trolls are not" could be the Schelling point I choose to create. I'm pretty sure branding a big "I" on their forehead wouldn't work. [ ... ] > > If the troll will not communicate any information in his postings, > > then you allow a post. If a second post occurs, then you block the > > posting address. The troll creates another email account on a free > > server, and posts again. You allow the post. If it happens again, > > you block the address. > > Interesting. I actually like this idea. At least the troll can > communicate every -other- message. The problem next becomes how to > ensure that the troll has a near-infinte supply of email adresses. The troll can already do this. It's the obvious escalation of an effective immediate-no-repeat-posting-by-source mechanism. Then the answer becomes moderation of the ability to post in the first place, as a counter-escalation. If the troll can't/won't take a hint that strong, then you go to a mutual trust network to establish posting rights ("Bob can post because I can post, and I trust Bob"). An escalation of this is "Tom trusts Bob, Bob betrays trust, Bob is kicked, Tom trusts Phil nee Bob, Phil is kicked, Tom is kicked" ("You ARE the weakest link: Goodbye!"). [ ... ] > > No faith required. > > Yes there is. As mathematics is taught, you have to take certain > things on faith before you learn enough. Mathematics is not a Science, mathematics is a language. Even meets the language requirement, at some universities. > Trolls really do communicate data. Noise is not data. [ ... ] > >> I thought the internet was destined to give those rights, so that the > >> national media networks could stop reinforcing consensual reality in > >> the way -they- wanted, enabling the people to reinforce their own. [ ... ] > I didn't say "designed" I said "destined". Deliberately. I'm dyslexic [ I guess that's not "adversity", any more than near-sightedness, though, since there are coping mechanisms available ]. Treating your statement again, in this context: there is no manifest destiny for the Internet, however much you might wish that this were not the case. It is merely a communications medium. [ ... ] > In other words, I'm waiting for FreeNet. Stop waiting and act to create it. Get your trolls, script kiddies, and exploiters to help you. [ ... ] > > Spare me the "exception to every rule" sophistry. > > You don't spare me the "prove every principle" dogma, why should I > reciprocate? You want to sway me with your arguments, then you accept my standards of proof. I'm willing to reciprocate that, but it's probably a lost cause given "there is no such thing as an acceptable proof". > > So basically, IYO, the sides are irreconcilable. Which means > > it's open season. > > Such violence. Is this being an anti-sociopath? Yes. Violence advocated by society is, by definition, not sociopathic. "Be All That You Can Be". [ ... ] > > Assuming there *are* grievences, other than "my employer wants > > your society disassembled for spare parts", you are probably > > correct. > > The answer, in the Open Source arena, is "then fork the project > > and create ``TrollBSD'', or rename it to something else, so that > > it's less obvious". > > You know more than you are telling about these trolls. Is that where > your anger at them comes from? I know a couple of IP addresses, and I have done statistical linguistics analysis on non-quoted material, along with archival mailing list logs. But I wouldn't say I'm angry, merely deeply engaged in mapping the problem space prior to proposing a solution set which maps everywhere but where the cancer lies, in order to create an exclusion set. [ ... ] > > The audience for whom you are balancing the ball on your nose. > > So you presume to speak for everyone else? Can not a member of an audience applaud for themselves, without applauding for the rest of the audience? Let's just say that it's my single vote, out of the crowd. > Sometimes rules just have to be broken. Enforcement prevents the > development of natural human judgement as to when to break > rules. Explanation assists this development, and eventually... > one does not need rules. Sometimes rules just have to be enforced, particularly when natural human judgement is defective. If education were the answer to all problems, then a lot of the current social ills we are facing would have ceased to exist long ago. On the other hand, isolation of 100% of infected individuals is 100% effective in stopping the spread of any epidemic. > >> >> Or you, in failing to see new data. > >> > What new data? > >> See? > > No? > > That is the problem. Feel free to point out "new data" like this --> new data <--, to ensure clarity. 8-). -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Fri Aug 30 0:18: 1 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8895F37B400 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 00:17:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from avocet.mail.pas.earthlink.net (avocet.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.50]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35E3F43E42 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 00:17:59 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0122.cvx40-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([216.244.42.122] helo=mindspring.com) by avocet.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17kg2W-0006ib-00; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 00:17:56 -0700 Message-ID: <3D6F1BDA.8275F78B@mindspring.com> Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 00:16:42 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Benjamin Krueger Cc: Rob , "chat@freebsd.org" Subject: Re: Cat and computer tales References: <3D6ED5FB.9CFDCFFE@pythonemproject.com> <20020829235336.G55573@mail.seattleFenix.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Benjamin Krueger wrote: > I have, on a few occasions, caught one of my cats molesting my computers. She > seems to have a preference for Sun hardware. Quite appropriately, her name is > 'Ping'. =) So she's a "box cat"... -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Fri Aug 30 0:25:54 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C2AE37B400 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 00:25:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tesla.foo.is (tesla.reverse-bias.org [217.151.166.96]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E6E543E72 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 00:25:51 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from baldur@foo.is) Received: from there (eniac.foo.is [192.168.1.25]) by tesla.foo.is (Postfix) with SMTP id 69D3727A0; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 07:25:44 +0000 (GMT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" From: Baldur Gislason To: Rich Morin Subject: Re: What can FreeBSD learn from Mac OS X? Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 07:25:18 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.3.2] References: In-Reply-To: Cc: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-Id: <20020830072544.69D3727A0@tesla.foo.is> Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org make world > * Each FreeBSD release is, in essence, a new install. The user is > given a bit of help with /etc and such, but is required to figure > out more than a few things for him/herself. > > There is no reason why each release shouldn't have detailed notes > (and, preferably, conversion scripts) to assist the administrator > in making the needed adjustments. > > * Mac OS X has specifically opted to put as much as possible into > dynamic shared libraries. This lets them upgrade the behavior of > the entire system, simply by upgrading the code in the libraries. > > * Each FreeBSD release completely supplants the one(s) before it. By > the time a release is a year old, it's toast: no patches, no support. > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Fri Aug 30 1:12: 6 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 408E537B400 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 01:12:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailc.telia.com (mailc.telia.com [194.22.190.4]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4046F43E88 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 01:12:01 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from listsub@401.cx) Received: from 401.cx (jenny.twenty4help.se [62.20.102.59]) by mailc.telia.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g7U8BwoQ024928; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 10:11:58 +0200 (CEST) X-Original-Recipient: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Message-ID: <3D6F294C.20204@401.cx> Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 10:14:04 +0200 From: "Roger 'Rocky' Vetterberg" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0rc2) Gecko/20020512 Netscape/7.0b1 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rob Cc: "chat@freebsd.org" Subject: Re: Cat and computer tales References: <3D6ED5FB.9CFDCFFE@pythonemproject.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Rob wrote: > On to lighter topics... :) > > I'm interested in hearing about "Cat clashes with Computer tales." I > have noticed that ours seems to regard my laptop as a competitor, > thinking I have more affection for it then she. It typically will place > itself between my head and the keyboard. One day it was purring very > loud and annoying me, so I issued the command "cat /dev/dsp > file" and > let it run for a while. I later converted it to an mp3 and played it > back on my Klipsh system. There was this thundering purring sound and > me faintly in the background saying "bad kitty, bad kitty". > > Rob. A friend of mine have (or had, dont know if its still alive) a cat that for some reason saw it as its duty to make sure that my friends computers was running allright. The cat was often found sitting in the computer room, looking at the 4-5 computers located there, and it seemed like he was checking that all computers was running by watching power leds, hdd activity leds and listening for fans spinning. Occasionally, a computer overheated, rebooted or stopped, and if the cat was around to notice this, he would immediatly go to find my friend and tell him about it. I saw this happen a few times, and I think that the PC speaker beeping when the machine booted up is what triggered the cat. When it heard the beeps, it ran off to my friend, and started walking back and forth in front of him, making weird sounds, almost screaming. When my friend went to check the computers and calmed the cat by saying that they were running allright, it settled down and went back to sleeping, eating or whatever it was doing before. Im almost certain the PC speaker beeps is what triggered this behaviour. If you were using the computers, and maybe did a multiple match tab completion or something else that makes the PC speaker go beep, the cat would immediatly react by looking nervous and follow your every move. We had a discussion about this once, and my friend told me that when the cat was just a kitten, one of the computers lost a fan, overheated and started beeping like crazy. The cat, curious as cats always are, went there to examine what the hell all this noise was about. What exactly happened is anyones guess, but when my friend entered the room, he found the cat stuck under a knocked over fulltower case, pressed against the PSU fan, fighting furiously to free itself from the spinning fan. The speaker was still beeping, and my guess is that the cat somehow connected the beating it recieved from the fan with the beeping of the PC speaker, thus starting its lifelong fear of beeping PC speakers. -- R To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Fri Aug 30 5:11:57 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADA2937B400 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 05:11:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from n31.grp.scd.yahoo.com (n31.grp.scd.yahoo.com [66.218.66.99]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 4561743E42 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 05:11:53 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from probe-1030705110-1030709512-freebsd-chat=freebsd.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com) X-eGroups-Return: probe-1030705110-1030709512-freebsd-chat=freebsd.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com Received: from [66.218.66.176] by n31.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 30 Aug 2002 12:11:53 -0000 Message-ID: Date: 30 Aug 2002 12:11:52 -0000 From: Yahoo!Groups Reply-To: confirm-unbounce-1030705110-77923465-4191@yahoogroups.co.uk To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Please reactivate your Yahoo! Groups account MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Hello, You belong to one or more email groups provided by Yahoo! Groups (uk.groups.yahoo.com). Email from these groups can be recognized by looking for a group name in the message Subject line, like [pet-owners] or [music-fans]. Recently, messages sent to you from Yahoo! Groups have been returned to us as undeliverable. To prevent any problems with your email service, we have temporarily turned your Yahoo! Groups account OFF. If you are reading this message now, the delivery problem appears to be fixed. However, we won't know that the problem is fixed until you tell us. To turn your Yahoo! Groups account ON: - Please REPLY to this message. Send that reply back to us without changing anything. OR - While connected to the Internet, click on the following Web link (or copy and paste it into your Web browser and hit the RETURN key): http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/unbounce?adj=77923465,4191&p=1030705110 Once we get a response from you, we will turn your Yahoo! Groups account back ON, and you will begin to receive messages from your groups again. After you respond, you can read any messages you might have missed while your account was off by visiting: http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/mygroups Thank you for using Yahoo! Groups! Yahoo! Groups Customer Care Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/info/terms.html To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Fri Aug 30 7:35:34 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69AE537B400 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 07:35:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail19a.dulles19-verio.com (mail19a.dulles19-verio.com [161.58.134.133]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id BE46343E3B for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 07:35:29 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from rob@pythonemproject.com) Received: from www.pythonemproject.com (198.104.176.109) by mail19a.dulles19-verio.com (RS ver 1.0.63s) with SMTP id 0196388819 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 10:33:04 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3D6F8269.D57535CD@pythonemproject.com> Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 07:34:17 -0700 From: Rob X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.2 i386) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "chat@freebsd.org" Subject: Re: Cat and computer tales References: <3D6ED5FB.9CFDCFFE@pythonemproject.com> <3D6F294C.20204@401.cx> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Loop-Detect: 1 Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Roger 'Rocky' Vetterberg wrote: > > Rob wrote: > > On to lighter topics... :) > > > > I'm interested in hearing about "Cat clashes with Computer tales." I > > have noticed that ours seems to regard my laptop as a competitor, > > thinking I have more affection for it then she. It typically will place > > itself between my head and the keyboard. One day it was purring very > > loud and annoying me, so I issued the command "cat /dev/dsp > file" and > > let it run for a while. I later converted it to an mp3 and played it > > back on my Klipsh system. There was this thundering purring sound and > > me faintly in the background saying "bad kitty, bad kitty". > > > > Rob. > > A friend of mine have (or had, dont know if its still alive) a > cat that for some reason saw it as its duty to make sure that my > friends computers was running allright. > The cat was often found sitting in the computer room, looking at > the 4-5 computers located there, and it seemed like he was > checking that all computers was running by watching power leds, > hdd activity leds and listening for fans spinning. > Occasionally, a computer overheated, rebooted or stopped, and if > the cat was around to notice this, he would immediatly go to find > my friend and tell him about it. I saw this happen a few times, > and I think that the PC speaker beeping when the machine booted > up is what triggered the cat. When it heard the beeps, it ran off > to my friend, and started walking back and forth in front of him, > making weird sounds, almost screaming. When my friend went to > check the computers and calmed the cat by saying that they were > running allright, it settled down and went back to sleeping, > eating or whatever it was doing before. > Im almost certain the PC speaker beeps is what triggered this > behaviour. If you were using the computers, and maybe did a > multiple match tab completion or something else that makes the PC > speaker go beep, the cat would immediatly react by looking > nervous and follow your every move. > > We had a discussion about this once, and my friend told me that > when the cat was just a kitten, one of the computers lost a fan, > overheated and started beeping like crazy. The cat, curious as > cats always are, went there to examine what the hell all this > noise was about. What exactly happened is anyones guess, but when > my friend entered the room, he found the cat stuck under a > knocked over fulltower case, pressed against the PSU fan, > fighting furiously to free itself from the spinning fan. > The speaker was still beeping, and my guess is that the cat > somehow connected the beating it recieved from the fan with the > beeping of the PC speaker, thus starting its lifelong fear of > beeping PC speakers. > > -- > R Thats hilarious. We have a kitten that spend about a half and hour one day just looking at my ethernet switch:) I think the blinking lights set them off. Another time and another cat- I was working on my laptop and out of the corner of my eye saw the cat starting to make a leap (3 ft away) towards my laptop. I stuck my hand up, and boom, the cat bounced back onto my bed. It never did that again. Rob. -- ----------------------------- The Numeric Python EM Project www.pythonemproject.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Fri Aug 30 9:10:46 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12C8737B400 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 09:10:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from route-64-34-193-129.telocity.com (route-64-34-193-129.telocity.com [64.34.193.129]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 4557C43E65 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 09:10:43 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from drew-list-freebsd-chat@rain3s.net) Received: (qmail 11746 invoked from network); 30 Aug 2002 16:11:00 -0000 Received: from williams.mc.vanderbilt.edu (160.129.208.222) by route-64-34-193-129.telocity.com with SMTP; 30 Aug 2002 16:11:00 -0000 Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 11:11:09 -0500 To: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-ID: <20020830161109.GP26919@drew.rain3s.net> References: <200208300515.g7U5Ft118955@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> <3D6F1986.847DD15B@mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3D6F1986.847DD15B@mindspring.com> From: Drew Raines Mail-Followup-To: chat@FreeBSD.ORG X-Delivery-Agent: TMDA/0.61+ Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Terry Lambert wrote: > > Dave Hayes wrote: > > > > But blowing them up -with- the sanction of the state is the > > right way? > > Of course. Society defines morality. Capital punishment is the defense by God's collective people of God's law. Paul said that government is an ``agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer'' (Rom 13, NIV). Society doesn't define morality, it defiles the morality God defined. Sin keeps us from delighting in the true morality of his Word. We settle for temporary pleasures of the creation instead of infinite pleasure in the Creator. -Drew To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Fri Aug 30 10:34:36 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 847E537B400 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 10:34:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imr1.ericy.com (imr1.ericy.com [208.237.135.240]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7546C43E3B for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 10:34:32 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from wardd@pc072034.exu.ericsson.se) Received: from mr7.exu.ericsson.se (mr7u3.ericy.com [208.237.135.122]) by imr1.ericy.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g7UHYVl14389 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 12:34:31 -0500 (CDT) Received: from mailhost.exu.ericsson.se (mailhost.exu.ericsson.se [138.85.75.19]) by mr7.exu.ericsson.se (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g7UHYVO25991 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 12:34:31 -0500 (CDT) Received: from pc072034.exu.ericsson.se (pc072034.exu.ericsson.se [138.85.72.34]) by mailhost.exu.ericsson.se (8.11.6+Sun/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7UHYUM18234 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 12:34:31 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from wardd@localhost) by pc072034.exu.ericsson.se (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g7UHao355707 for chat@FreeBSD.ORG; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 12:36:50 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from wardd) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 12:36:50 -0500 From: "William D. Ward" To: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-ID: <20020830123650.A55690@pc072034.exu.ericsson.se> Reply-To: William.Ward@ericsson.com References: <200208300515.g7U5Ft118955@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> <3D6F1986.847DD15B@mindspring.com> <20020830161109.GP26919@drew.rain3s.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <20020830161109.GP26919@drew.rain3s.net>; from drew-dated-1031155871.4351b9@rain3s.net on Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 11:11:09AM -0500 Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 11:11:09AM -0500, Drew Raines wrote: > Terry Lambert wrote: > > > > Dave Hayes wrote: > > > > > > But blowing them up -with- the sanction of the state is the > > > right way? > > > > Of course. Society defines morality. > > Capital punishment is the defense by God's collective people of > God's law. Paul said that government is an ``agent of wrath to > bring punishment on the wrongdoer'' (Rom 13, NIV). > > Society doesn't define morality, it defiles the morality God > defined. Sin keeps us from delighting in the true morality of > his Word. We settle for temporary pleasures of the creation > instead of infinite pleasure in the Creator. > > -Drew Well said! To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Fri Aug 30 11: 9:30 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD31C37B400 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 11:09:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from directvinternet.com (dsl-65-185-140-165.telocity.com [65.185.140.165]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F81E43E65 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 11:09:21 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from Tolstoy.home.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by directvinternet.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g7UI9KGd070386; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 11:09:20 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from localhost (nwestfal@localhost) by Tolstoy.home.lan (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id g7UI9FHg070341; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 11:09:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: Tolstoy.home.lan: nwestfal owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 11:09:15 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" X-X-Sender: nwestfal@Tolstoy.home.lan To: Terry Lambert Cc: Dave Hayes , Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: <3D6F1986.847DD15B@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <20020830103133.J40693-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Fri, 30 Aug 2002, Terry Lambert wrote: > Dave Hayes wrote: > > Actually this example demosntrates the -removal- of an adversity > > (near-sightedness) via glasses. It doesn't demonstrate the removal > > of any pressure. > > Glasses keep near-shighted people in the gene pool longer than > they would otherwise be. Myopia is still an adverse condition. Is this a good or a bad thing? > > > There's a right way, and a wrong way, and blowing people up > > > without the sanction of the state is the wrong way. > > > > But blowing them up -with- the sanction of the state is the right way? > > Of course. Society defines morality. Society enacts laws. Whether or not they are moral or not would depend on a standard by which you could judge them to be moral or immoral. Such a standard would have to be non-arbitrary and transcendant to all societies. Whether or not such a standard exists determines whether we can talk about ethics, morals, etc. at all. If not, everyone is just blowing smoke. > > The ones that break out and forcibly reproduce are the best suited to > > survival in hostile environments. By definition even. > > Nature seems to vote against that one. Nature has no vote. It just is. "Natural Selection" is an oxymoron. According to naturalism, scientific theories are to be non-teleological, right? > > >> It is an error to test something without the means of testing it or > > >> even the means of understanding it. Mankind's academic arrogance is > > >> that it can understand anything. > > > > > > You mean, like when a troll posts to a mailing list. > > > > You claim to understand this too ya know. > > Better to be arrogant with the sanction of the state, than to be > arrogant and facing a crowd of torch-wielding peasents. There are other alternatives... > > > There is such a thing as "the fruit of the poisoned tree". > > > > What's this reference now? > > Accessory after the fact, receiving stolen property, etc.. Is this wrong? > [ ... ] > > > It was a reference to the fact that society dictates conditions > > > to individuals, and That's The Way It Is. > > > > Members of society routinely and frequently violate these conditions, > > and That's The Way It Is. > > And we punish them, and That's The Way It Is. When we punish them, is our justification for doing so solely because we have the guns and the will to do so? > > >> > This works well if one's ethics happen to coincide with the > > >> > morals of the society of which they are a member, and poorly > > >> > otherwise. > > >> > > >> You mean: it works well for -you- if -their- ethics coincide with > > >> -your- morals. ;) > > > > > > No, I said "with societys" and I meant it. > > > > I don't buy that at all. Your incentive is to say "with society's" > > since you'll look good to "society" if you say that. > > Or if you can't win a conflict with all of society against you, > and are forced to cooperate. Sometimes cooperating with society is evil, even if you can't win. Regards, Neal To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Fri Aug 30 11:16:38 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57B2937B400 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 11:16:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.comcast.net (smtp.comcast.net [24.153.64.2]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE92843E72 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 11:16:34 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from lomifeh@earthlink.net) Received: from [68.39.204.200] (bgp587257bgs.jdover01.nj.comcast.net [68.39.204.200]) by mtaout04.icomcast.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 HotFix 0.8 (built May 13 2002)) with ESMTP id <0H1O000V55FMEY@mtaout04.icomcast.net> for freebsd-chat@freebsd.org; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 14:16:34 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 14:16:35 -0400 From: Lawrence Sica Subject: Re: What can FreeBSD learn from Mac OS X? In-reply-to: <20020830072544.69D3727A0@tesla.foo.is> To: Baldur Gislason , Rich Morin Cc: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/10.1.0.2006 Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On 08/30/02 03:25 AM, "Baldur Gislason" wrote: > make world > >> * Each FreeBSD release is, in essence, a new install. The user is >> given a bit of help with /etc and such, but is required to figure >> out more than a few things for him/herself. >> Not true, cvs and cvsup. Make world, wile time consuming, isn't that at all. >> There is no reason why each release shouldn't have detailed notes >> (and, preferably, conversion scripts) to assist the administrator >> in making the needed adjustments. >> /usr/src/UPDATING. Mergemaster. These two things can do what you mention to varying degrees. >> * Mac OS X has specifically opted to put as much as possible into >> dynamic shared libraries. This lets them upgrade the behavior of >> the entire system, simply by upgrading the code in the libraries. >> Dynamic libraries are good generally, but sometimes you want a static binary. From a security standpoint static libs are safer, as well as from the "oh shit" factor" if you cannot mount anything beyond /. >> * Each FreeBSD release completely supplants the one(s) before it. By >> the time a release is a year old, it's toast: no patches, no support. >> Not true. I have seen security patches coming out for over a year. Plus remember FreeBSD is not a commercial product, its a volunteer effort. Apple has the resources to maintain legacy, even then they are killing os 9 now. --Larry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Fri Aug 30 11:26:13 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 344A837B400 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 11:26:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.comcast.net (smtp.comcast.net [24.153.64.2]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 955BB43E75 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 11:26:05 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from lomifeh@earthlink.net) Received: from [68.39.204.200] (bgp587257bgs.jdover01.nj.comcast.net [68.39.204.200]) by mtaout02.icomcast.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 HotFix 0.8 (built May 13 2002)) with ESMTP id <0H1O0072C5VGR3@mtaout02.icomcast.net> for chat@freebsd.org; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 14:26:04 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 14:26:06 -0400 From: Lawrence Sica Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-reply-to: <3D6F1986.847DD15B@mindspring.com> To: Terry Lambert , Dave Hayes Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/10.1.0.2006 Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On 08/30/02 03:06 AM, "Terry Lambert" wrote: > Dave Hayes wrote: >> Actually this example demosntrates the -removal- of an adversity >> (near-sightedness) via glasses. It doesn't demonstrate the removal >> of any pressure. > > Glasses keep near-shighted people in the gene pool longer than > they would otherwise be. Myopia is still an adverse condition. > Well thing is this isn't always something you are born with you can develop it and not pass on the trait. Like I was born cross-eyed (bad pre-natal nutrition I am guessing). MY eye doctor at the time did nothing to strengthen a weakened eye from this. So one eye has worse vision and I wear glasses to balance it. Now this does not mean my son will have eye problems, actually he seems to have really good vision. > >> No, in other words there is no such thing as an acceptable proof (but >> I can't prove that). > > By your troll argument, you should at least gve me a chance to > infect you with my memes... COOTIES >> But blowing them up -with- the sanction of the state is the right way? > > Of course. Society defines morality. History is written by the winners. > > >> The ones that break out and forcibly reproduce are the best suited to >> survival in hostile environments. By definition even. > > Nature seems to vote against that one. > > >>>> It is an error to test something without the means of testing it or >>>> even the means of understanding it. Mankind's academic arrogance is >>>> that it can understand anything. >>> >>> You mean, like when a troll posts to a mailing list. >> >> You claim to understand this too ya know. > > Better to be arrogant with the sanction of the state, than to be > arrogant and facing a crowd of torch-wielding peasents. It is always safer to be an ass when backed by the masses. If you know you can get away with it\, well most will push that as far as they can. Look at these KKK rallies. Ppl in the USA hate em, despise em mostly, but they know the state protects them so they speak out. >> >>> No, I said "with societys" and I meant it. >> >> I don't buy that at all. Your incentive is to say "with society's" >> since you'll look good to "society" if you say that. > > Or if you can't win a conflict with all of society against you, > and are forced to cooperate. > Well you could withdraw as well, go buy a cabin in the mountains, join a militia, etc etc. US society gives you an out. > > [ ... ] >> What do politicians do when they want to get elected? The most >> effective way is to mount a hate campaign against the other candidate. >> You going to tell me this is not indoctrination? Ding, slobber. > > "Ding, slobber" is an obvious reference to Pavlov's dogs, which is > an example of conditioning, not indoctrination. Maybe you meant to > say "conditioned" rather than "indoctrinated", originally? > I had a dog like this once, he'd slobber whenever he saw the biscuit box. > >>> What else do you call someone who seeks to destroy what they >>> can not control? "Naughty"? >> >> "Desperate" perhaps. "Misunderstood" definately. "Naughty" I refrain >> from using, it has too many sexual contexts that are inappropriate. ;) > > Rodney King was a fleeing felon in voilation of parole. > "Can't we all just get along". Seriously, he may have been fleeing, but the beating he got was excessive. They are supposed to not lose control ,the police I mean. \> > >> Trolls really do communicate data. > > Noise is not data. > It depends, there is a need in any social group for one to mock what is, to question. Now do trolls mock for that purpose or do they mock just for the sake of it? --Larry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Fri Aug 30 12:18:12 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F2FA37B400 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 12:18:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from snipe.mail.pas.earthlink.net (snipe.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.62]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1366C43E65 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 12:18:06 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0372.cvx21-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([209.179.193.117] helo=mindspring.com) by snipe.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17krHI-00057C-00; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 12:17:56 -0700 Message-ID: <3D6FC4A6.5E7590AC@mindspring.com> Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 12:16:54 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Neal E. Westfall" Cc: Dave Hayes , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? References: <20020830103133.J40693-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org "Neal E. Westfall" wrote: > On Fri, 30 Aug 2002, Terry Lambert wrote: > > Glasses keep near-shighted people in the gene pool longer than > > they would otherwise be. Myopia is still an adverse condition. > > Is this a good or a bad thing? It's an example of adversity which is not also evolutionary pressure. I could just have easily picked diabetes or any other recessive genetic trait that would normally be fatal, if it were expressed, and for which we now have treatment which keeps the people with the trait in the gene pool long enough to reproduce and pass the trait on to their offspring. > > > But blowing them up -with- the sanction of the state is the right way? > > > > Of course. Society defines morality. > > Society enacts laws. Whether or not they are moral or not would depend > on a standard by which you could judge them to be moral or immoral. > Such a standard would have to be non-arbitrary and transcendant to all > societies. Whether or not such a standard exists determines whether > we can talk about ethics, morals, etc. at all. If not, everyone is > just blowing smoke. All societies enforce standards of conduct upon their members, and people are members of many societies. Morality relationships are generally hierarchical on one axis, and peering on another (i.e. society condones the soldier that kills the soldier of the enemy state, but not the clerk at the grocery store down the block, even though both are human beings). Morality is dictated by the larger society, in any given context. It doesn't need to be transcendent, per se, it merely needs to transcend the individual, or the smaller society within the larger. You may say some activity (e.g. killing another human being) is "not right". What you really mean is "it's unethical"; to borrow from Dave Hayes, you are actually saying that it would violate your internal code of conduct. What this actually means, however, is that you will not tolerate it in yourself, and so you will also not tolerate it in others. When you get a group together into a society, and there is general agreement that a particular ethic is shared, to the point that the society is willing to censure the activity _as a society_, then at that point, it becomes a moral for the society. Individuals do not have morals, though individuals may *be* moral or *act* morally or *demonstrate* morality. If you want to boil down this whole discussion so far, it's that Dave has an ethic which he would like to convert into a moral, by getting other people to share it. This ethic venerates the rights of the individual over the rights of the state (the society to which the individuals belong). My own objection to this is, first and foremost, that the rights of the state take precedence of the rights of the individual, as the state is composed of individuals, and the yardstick we must therefore use is that of the greatest good for the greatest number. I personally believe that Dave is intentionally ignoring the fact that membership in nominally open online societies is by way of self-selection. It is convenient for him to take this position, since he can't people to self-select into a society which agrees with his ethic, and he doesn't understand complexity sufficiently to create a society on his owm but he believes that he understands it sufficiently to impose his ethic on a preexisting society. What I find amusing about this whole thing is that those people who share his ethic have already self-selected membership in the society composed of "people who share Dave's ethic". He's just having a hard time getting them to self-assemble at a particular forum, or finding a forum where they have already done so. The reason this is amusing is that he attempted to create a forum in which his principles were also embodied in the nature of the forum itself, and it failed. The failure arose from people who attacked it... and which Dave has so far failed to recognize as "trolls", in the same sense that he is asking everyone else to accept, when he could not. > > > The ones that break out and forcibly reproduce are the best suited to > > > survival in hostile environments. By definition even. > > > > Nature seems to vote against that one. > > Nature has no vote. It just is. "Natural Selection" is an oxymoron. > According to naturalism, scientific theories are to be non-teleological, > right? Self-organizing systems don't have to admit non-teleological basis. Science acknowledges "gosh numbers", such as "PI", "e", "G", or "The Fine Structure Constant", etc., without needing to acknowledge a non-teleological cause with a set of thermostats that can be adjusted, one of which reads "Speed of Light" or another which reads "Planck Length". > There are other alternatives... I was arguing in the context of Dave's claim of mankind's "academic arrogance". > > Accessory after the fact, receiving stolen property, etc.. > > Is this wrong? Does it matter if an action is wrong or not, if a penalty will be assessed for the action regardless of your own personal views of right and wrong? If you want to avoid the penalty, you must act as if you believed the action were wrong, regardless of your personal beliefs in the matter. > > > > It was a reference to the fact that society dictates conditions > > > > to individuals, and That's The Way It Is. > > > > > > Members of society routinely and frequently violate these conditions, > > > and That's The Way It Is. > > > > And we punish them, and That's The Way It Is. > > When we punish them, is our justification for doing so solely because > we have the guns and the will to do so? Pretty much, yes. > > Or if you can't win a conflict with all of society against you, > > and are forced to cooperate. > > Sometimes cooperating with society is evil, even if you can't win. You cooperate one way or the other: society moves you out of its field of attention. It matters little whether you volunteer to go, or go kicking and screaming: go you will. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Fri Aug 30 12:30:24 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1886437B400 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 12:30:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from snipe.mail.pas.earthlink.net (snipe.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.62]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A996043E3B for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 12:30:17 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0372.cvx21-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([209.179.193.117] helo=mindspring.com) by snipe.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17krTD-0006fr-00; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 12:30:15 -0700 Message-ID: <3D6FC789.74B7FB23@mindspring.com> Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 12:29:13 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Lawrence Sica Cc: Dave Hayes , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Lawrence Sica wrote: > > Glasses keep near-sighted people in the gene pool longer than > > they would otherwise be. Myopia is still an adverse condition. > > Well thing is this isn't always something you are born with you can develop > it and not pass on the trait. [...] Now this does not mean my son will > have eye problems, actually he seems to have really good vision. Environmental issues are not useful examples in this context, whereas genetic ones are. 8-). > > Of course. Society defines morality. > > History is written by the winners. That, too. > It is always safer to be an ass when backed by the masses. If you know you > can get away with it\, well most will push that as far as they can. Look at > these KKK rallies. Ppl in the USA hate em, despise em mostly, but they know > the state protects them so they speak out. ``The difference between "the masses" and "them asses" is in when you hit the spacebar.'' > > Or if you can't win a conflict with all of society against you, > > and are forced to cooperate. > > Well you could withdraw as well, go buy a cabin in the mountains, join a > militia, etc etc. US society gives you an out. I pointed this out to him already. He basically argues that the people being annoyed, not the people doing the annoying, should be the ones to withdraw from society, even if there are billions of the former, and only one of the latter. > >> "Desperate" perhaps. "Misunderstood" definately. "Naughty" I refrain > >> from using, it has too many sexual contexts that are inappropriate. ;) > > > > Rodney King was a fleeing felon in voilation of parole. > > "Can't we all just get along". Seriously, he may have been fleeing, but the > beating he got was excessive. They are supposed to not lose control ,the > police I mean. It was certainly excessive. And the overzealous officers got what they deserved. But King did not "get what he deserved", and in fact, charges were dropped, when they probably should not have been. > >> Trolls really do communicate data. > > > > Noise is not data. > > It depends, there is a need in any social group for one to mock what is, to > question. Now do trolls mock for that purpose or do they mock just for the > sake of it? Which brings us back to the issue of communication of demands; it does no good to stampede the cattle, if your intent is to get them to go to a particular spot. The result is statistically unlikely to be the one you wanted when you started the stampede. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Fri Aug 30 13:31: 8 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 189C537B400 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 13:31:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailsrv.otenet.gr (mailsrv.otenet.gr [195.170.0.5]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2065343E42 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 13:31:04 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from keramida@ceid.upatras.gr) Received: from hades.hell.gr (patr530-b209.otenet.gr [212.205.244.217]) by mailsrv.otenet.gr (8.12.4/8.12.4) with ESMTP id g7UKV09M029299; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 23:31:02 +0300 (EEST) Received: from hades.hell.gr (hades [127.0.0.1]) by hades.hell.gr (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id g7UKV01l017751; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 23:31:00 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from keramida@ceid.upatras.gr) Received: (from charon@localhost) by hades.hell.gr (8.12.6/8.12.5/Submit) id g7UKUx8v017750; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 23:30:59 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from keramida@ceid.upatras.gr) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 23:30:59 +0300 From: Giorgos Keramidas To: Drew Raines Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-ID: <20020830203058.GE16588@hades.hell.gr> References: <200208300515.g7U5Ft118955@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> <3D6F1986.847DD15B@mindspring.com> <20020830161109.GP26919@drew.rain3s.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20020830161109.GP26919@drew.rain3s.net> X-PGP-Fingerprint: C1EB 0653 DB8B A557 3829 00F9 D60F 941A 3186 03B6 X-Phone: +30-944-116520 Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On 2002-08-30 11:11 +0000, Drew Raines wrote: > Society doesn't define morality, it defiles the morality God > defined. Sin keeps us from delighting in the true morality of > his Word. We settle for temporary pleasures of the creation > instead of infinite pleasure in the Creator. What "Creator"? -- FreeBSD: The Power to Serve -- http://www.FreeBSD.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Fri Aug 30 13:32:26 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18E0337B400 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 13:32:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from carver.gumbysoft.com (carver.gumbysoft.com [66.220.23.50]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A63F843E65 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 13:32:20 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dwhite@gumbysoft.com) Received: by carver.gumbysoft.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 2BD9672FC8; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 13:29:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by carver.gumbysoft.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A96E72FC5; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 13:29:52 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 13:29:52 -0700 (PDT) From: Doug White To: Clifton Royston Cc: chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [long] Server motherboard recommendations for 4.X/5.X? In-Reply-To: <20020830094554.F16717@lava.net> Message-ID: <20020830132138.F88354-100000@carver.gumbysoft.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org I am bouncing this to -chat since its not really strictly related to -CURRENT. > We are about to spec and buy a new central mail server at LavaNet, > and we want to be sure that the motherboard/CPU combo we buy runs well > both with FreeBSD 4.6/4.7 (at the time we install it) and also down the > road when we upgrade to what's now -CURRENT, probably around 5.1. So lemme concise-ify your requirements: . Dual 100bT onboard, Gig-e okay > The Tyan "Thunder" i7500 *tentatively* looks like a good candidate to > us. It meets all the above criteria, uses the Adaptec 7899 onboard > 2-channel Ultra-160 SCSI controller (equivalent to 39160), has an Intel > 82550 (10/100) and 82544GC (10/100/1000) LAN port, takes up to 6 slots > of ECC PC2100/PC1600 DDR RAM, and has multiple 64-bit/133 MHz PCI-X > slots for expansion. It uses the AMI BIOS and Intel E7500 chipset. > We've had decent luck with the Tyans, but we are also buying the older 2518s, but those have been through several revisions, and we work with a big reseller of theirs that feeds back a lot to Tyan. Generally, though, Tyan has some annoying quirks that take a while to work out. > If anyone wants to also recommend us a favorite rackmount server > integrator, that wouldn't hurt. We're aware of FreeBSDSystems, ASA > Computers, IXsystems, Arista IPC, and California Digital (formerly VA > Linux) and have bought from the last few. We're particularly looking > for one who can provide a system with dual power supplies fed from two > separate power cords, similar to what you find on a high-end router or > switch; we're thinking a 4U system for ease of adding any expansion > cards we might need down the road. We'll install the OS, etc. but if > we can take the assembly time off our hands that would be nice. Size needs to be in the requirements section :-) If you don't need lots of PCI cards, I'd suggest a 1U or 2U box to save space. Intel's SE7500WV2 is a great server board with onboard dual copper gig-ethernet, P4-Xeon CPUs, and great hardware management (which I have software which can interface with). And they're pretty cheap too, usually :) You'll have to buy it from a reseller, but they're usually pretty easy to find. If not you can buy them through FreeBSDSystems. (DISCLAIMER: I work with FreeBSDSystems on various tech-support contexts.) The 1U can take 2 PCI cards (one full size, one low-profile) and the 2U can take 6 (3 full size, 3 low-profile). Each set is peered independently. The 2U can take up to 7 internal disks and supports zero-channel Adaptec RAID for those onboard bays. The 1U can take up to 3 SCSI, 2 ATA disks. The WV2 is a really sweet board, and the chassis are well integrated. If you really need the expandibility, you could try for the SE7500CW2 board, doesn't have the hardware management complexity of the WV2 but does have the full complement of PCI slots. -- Doug White | FreeBSD: The Power to Serve dwhite@gumbysoft.com | www.FreeBSD.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Fri Aug 30 13:39:32 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B581B37B400 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 13:39:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.comcast.net (smtp.comcast.net [24.153.64.2]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5977143E65 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 13:39:28 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from lomifeh@earthlink.net) Received: from [68.39.204.200] (bgp587257bgs.jdover01.nj.comcast.net [68.39.204.200]) by mtaout04.icomcast.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 HotFix 0.8 (built May 13 2002)) with ESMTP id <0H1O002IYC1R7B@mtaout04.icomcast.net> for chat@freebsd.org; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 16:39:28 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 16:39:28 -0400 From: Lawrence Sica Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-reply-to: <3D6FC789.74B7FB23@mindspring.com> To: Terry Lambert Cc: Dave Hayes , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/10.1.0.2006 Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On 08/30/02 03:29 PM, "Terry Lambert" wrote: > Lawrence Sica wrote: >>> Glasses keep near-sighted people in the gene pool longer than >>> they would otherwise be. Myopia is still an adverse condition. >> >> Well thing is this isn't always something you are born with you can develop >> it and not pass on the trait. [...] Now this does not mean my son will >> have eye problems, actually he seems to have really good vision. > > Environmental issues are not useful examples in this context, > whereas genetic ones are. 8-). > If everything is relative then its perfectly valid. Seriously environment influences genetics though. We evolve to suit our environment. ;) > >> It is always safer to be an ass when backed by the masses. If you know you >> can get away with it\, well most will push that as far as they can. Look at >> these KKK rallies. Ppl in the USA hate em, despise em mostly, but they know >> the state protects them so they speak out. > > ``The difference between "the masses" and "them asses" is in when > you hit the spacebar.'' How true. > > >>> Or if you can't win a conflict with all of society against you, >>> and are forced to cooperate. >> >> Well you could withdraw as well, go buy a cabin in the mountains, join a >> militia, etc etc. US society gives you an out. > > I pointed this out to him already. He basically argues that the > people being annoyed, not the people doing the annoying, should be > the ones to withdraw from society, even if there are billions of > the former, and only one of the latter. > Well the minority would withdraw not the majority. Imagine 250 million "cabins in the mountains" . > >>>> "Desperate" perhaps. "Misunderstood" definately. "Naughty" I refrain >>>> from using, it has too many sexual contexts that are inappropriate. ;) >>> >>> Rodney King was a fleeing felon in voilation of parole. >> >> "Can't we all just get along". Seriously, he may have been fleeing, but the >> beating he got was excessive. They are supposed to not lose control ,the >> police I mean. > > It was certainly excessive. And the overzealous officers got what > they deserved. But King did not "get what he deserved", and in fact, > charges were dropped, when they probably should not have been. > True that was a bad outcome. But in that case they were in such a pr nightmare it isn't surprising. > >>>> Trolls really do communicate data. >>> >>> Noise is not data. >> >> It depends, there is a need in any social group for one to mock what is, to >> question. Now do trolls mock for that purpose or do they mock just for the >> sake of it? > > Which brings us back to the issue of communication of demands; it > does no good to stampede the cattle, if your intent is to get them > to go to a particular spot. The result is statistically unlikely > to be the one you wanted when you started the stampede. --Larry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Fri Aug 30 13:45:23 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3A1C37B400 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 13:45:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailsrv.otenet.gr (mailsrv.otenet.gr [195.170.0.5]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDF4E43E6E for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 13:45:20 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from keramida@ceid.upatras.gr) Received: from hades.hell.gr (patr530-b209.otenet.gr [212.205.244.217]) by mailsrv.otenet.gr (8.12.4/8.12.4) with ESMTP id g7UKjD9M009192; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 23:45:14 +0300 (EEST) Received: from hades.hell.gr (hades [127.0.0.1]) by hades.hell.gr (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id g7UKjC1l018770; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 23:45:12 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from keramida@ceid.upatras.gr) Received: (from charon@localhost) by hades.hell.gr (8.12.6/8.12.5/Submit) id g7UKjBqm018769; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 23:45:11 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from keramida@ceid.upatras.gr) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 23:45:10 +0300 From: Giorgos Keramidas To: Lawrence Sica Cc: Terry Lambert , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-ID: <20020830204509.GH16588@hades.hell.gr> References: <3D6FC789.74B7FB23@mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-PGP-Fingerprint: C1EB 0653 DB8B A557 3829 00F9 D60F 941A 3186 03B6 X-Phone: +30-944-116520 Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On 08/30/02 03:29 PM, "Terry Lambert" wrote: > ``The difference between "the masses" and "them asses" is in when > you hit the spacebar.'' Quickly! Someone! ADD this to the fortune cookies :o) -- FreeBSD: The Power to Serve -- http://www.FreeBSD.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Fri Aug 30 14:14:27 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A21B737B400 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 14:14:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from proxy.centtech.com (moat.centtech.com [206.196.95.10]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85BC643E3B for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 14:14:21 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from anderson@centtech.com) Received: from sprint.centtech.com (sprint.centtech.com [10.177.173.31]) by proxy.centtech.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7ULEAY22564; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 16:14:10 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by sprint.centtech.com (8.11.6+Sun/8.11.6) id g7ULE9j03968; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 16:14:09 -0500 (CDT) Received: from centtech.com (proton [10.177.173.77]) by sprint.centtech.com (8.11.6+Sun/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7ULE6o03961; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 16:14:06 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <3D6FE01E.4050106@centtech.com> Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 16:14:06 -0500 From: Eric Anderson Reply-To: anderson@centtech.com User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i386; en-US; rv:0.9.4.1) Gecko/20020508 Netscape6/6.2.3 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Doug White Cc: Clifton Royston , chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [long] Server motherboard recommendations for 4.X/5.X? References: <20020830132138.F88354-100000@carver.gumbysoft.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11 Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Doug White wrote: >> If anyone wants to also recommend us a favorite rackmount server >>integrator, that wouldn't hurt. We're aware of FreeBSDSystems, ASA >>Computers, IXsystems, Arista IPC, and California Digital (formerly VA >>Linux) and have bought from the last few. We're particularly looking >>for one who can provide a system with dual power supplies fed from two >>separate power cords, similar to what you find on a high-end router or >>switch; we're thinking a 4U system for ease of adding any expansion >>cards we might need down the road. We'll install the OS, etc. but if >>we can take the assembly time off our hands that would be nice. Has anyone recommended Dell stuff? I'm sure they'll have something that fits you. I use all kinds of their stuff for FreeBSD, and the the RAID controllers are supported in FreeBSD easily. Eric -- ------------------------------------------------------------------ Eric Anderson Systems Administrator Centaur Technology The moon may be smaller than Earth, but it's further away. ------------------------------------------------------------------ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Fri Aug 30 14:39:15 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F40137B400 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 14:39:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from directvinternet.com (dsl-65-185-140-165.telocity.com [65.185.140.165]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69B3443E4A for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 14:39:06 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from Tolstoy.home.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by directvinternet.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g7ULd5Gd089678; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 14:39:05 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from localhost (nwestfal@localhost) by Tolstoy.home.lan (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id g7ULd4JK089675; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 14:39:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: Tolstoy.home.lan: nwestfal owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 14:39:04 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" X-X-Sender: nwestfal@Tolstoy.home.lan To: Terry Lambert Cc: Dave Hayes , Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: <3D6FC4A6.5E7590AC@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <20020830125515.I53482-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Fri, 30 Aug 2002, Terry Lambert wrote: > "Neal E. Westfall" wrote: > > On Fri, 30 Aug 2002, Terry Lambert wrote: > > > Glasses keep near-shighted people in the gene pool longer than > > > they would otherwise be. Myopia is still an adverse condition. > > > > Is this a good or a bad thing? > > It's an example of adversity which is not also evolutionary pressure. > I could just have easily picked diabetes or any other recessive > genetic trait that would normally be fatal, if it were expressed, > and for which we now have treatment which keeps the people with the > trait in the gene pool long enough to reproduce and pass the trait > on to their offspring. But you've just dodged my question. Is it a good thing that we have the ability to keep those traits in the gene pool? Or is the development of that ability also a result of evolution? If so, how do we know that what we are talking about isn't actually de-evolution? By the same token, is the development of light bulbs a good thing? Why? What I'm trying to get at is your ultimate criteria. Usefulness? But then pragmatism is only useful if you know what ends to pursue. > > > > But blowing them up -with- the sanction of the state is the right way? > > > > > > Of course. Society defines morality. > > > > Society enacts laws. Whether or not they are moral or not would depend > > on a standard by which you could judge them to be moral or immoral. > > Such a standard would have to be non-arbitrary and transcendant to all > > societies. Whether or not such a standard exists determines whether > > we can talk about ethics, morals, etc. at all. If not, everyone is > > just blowing smoke. > > All societies enforce standards of conduct upon their members, > and people are members of many societies. Morality relationships > are generally hierarchical on one axis, and peering on another > (i.e. society condones the soldier that kills the soldier of the > enemy state, but not the clerk at the grocery store down the block, > even though both are human beings). Are these standards of conduct arbitrary? Why do societies go to war with each other, if not to enforce it's own standards of morality on that other society? Why enforce those standards, if there is no ultimate criteria by which you could judge one society's standards as "right" over against the other societies standards which are wrong? > Morality is dictated by the larger society, in any given context. > It doesn't need to be transcendent, per se, it merely needs to > transcend the individual, or the smaller society within the larger. Why does it need to transcend the individual, but not individual societies? Or do you advocate a global society? If so, is whatever mores that society adopts right by definition? > You may say some activity (e.g. killing another human being) is > "not right". What you really mean is "it's unethical"; to borrow > from Dave Hayes, you are actually saying that it would violate > your internal code of conduct. What this actually means, however, > is that you will not tolerate it in yourself, and so you will also > not tolerate it in others. Then it would not be an internal code of conduct, by definition. Just because you wouldn't engage in a particular activity doesn't mean that somebody else shouldn't. > When you get a group together into a society, and there is general > agreement that a particular ethic is shared, to the point that the > society is willing to censure the activity _as a society_, then at > that point, it becomes a moral for the society. Okay, but then if there is general agreement in that society that it would be genetically beneficial to kill off a certain segment of society, say, the jews, or people with certain genetic defects, it is then moral by definition for that society to do so. > Individuals do not have morals, though individuals may *be* moral > or *act* morally or *demonstrate* morality. Act morally with regard to what? You seem to think that a society cannot enshrine laws that are immoral. > If you want to boil down this whole discussion so far, it's that > Dave has an ethic which he would like to convert into a moral, by > getting other people to share it. This ethic venerates the rights > of the individual over the rights of the state (the society to > which the individuals belong). And you are making the opposite error, of venerating the rights of the state over the rights of the individual. Such societies inevitably become tyrranical. > My own objection to this is, first and foremost, that the rights > of the state take precedence of the rights of the individual, as > the state is composed of individuals, and the yardstick we must > therefore use is that of the greatest good for the greatest number. I see. And what exactly is "the greatest good for the greatest number"? Weeding out inferior individuals from the gene pool? Why not? Moreover, who makes these decisions? Philosopher-kings? > I personally believe that Dave is intentionally ignoring the fact > that membership in nominally open online societies is by way of > self-selection. It is convenient for him to take this position, > since he can't people to self-select into a society which agrees > with his ethic, and he doesn't understand complexity sufficiently > to create a society on his owm but he believes that he understands > it sufficiently to impose his ethic on a preexisting society. > > What I find amusing about this whole thing is that those people > who share his ethic have already self-selected membership in the > society composed of "people who share Dave's ethic". He's just > having a hard time getting them to self-assemble at a particular > forum, or finding a forum where they have already done so. > > The reason this is amusing is that he attempted to create a forum > in which his principles were also embodied in the nature of the > forum itself, and it failed. The failure arose from people who > attacked it... and which Dave has so far failed to recognize as > "trolls", in the same sense that he is asking everyone else to > accept, when he could not. Yes, I agree that his ideas are self-refuting...but then ultimately so are yours, you just don't see it. > > Nature has no vote. It just is. "Natural Selection" is an oxymoron. > > According to naturalism, scientific theories are to be non-teleological, > > right? > > Self-organizing systems don't have to admit non-teleological basis. > > Science acknowledges "gosh numbers", such as "PI", "e", "G", or "The > Fine Structure Constant", etc., without needing to acknowledge a > non-teleological cause with a set of thermostats that can be adjusted, > one of which reads "Speed of Light" or another which reads "Planck Length". Then I would have to ask to what end such "self-organizing systems" attain? Organizing into what? For what purpose? > > > Accessory after the fact, receiving stolen property, etc.. > > > > Is this wrong? > > Does it matter if an action is wrong or not, if a penalty will > be assessed for the action regardless of your own personal views > of right and wrong? If you want to avoid the penalty, you must > act as if you believed the action were wrong, regardless of your > personal beliefs in the matter. Of course, my answer will be, "Yes it does." I just think you are not thinking high enough on the ontological scale. > > > > Members of society routinely and frequently violate these conditions, > > > > and That's The Way It Is. > > > > > > And we punish them, and That's The Way It Is. > > > > When we punish them, is our justification for doing so solely because > > we have the guns and the will to do so? > > Pretty much, yes. So I take it you're not a libertarian... Neal To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Fri Aug 30 14:45:28 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55BDA37B400 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 14:45:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from spork.pantherdragon.org (spork.pantherdragon.org [206.29.168.146]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF02F43E42 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 14:45:25 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dmp@pantherdragon.org) Received: from sparx.pantherdragon.org (evrtwa1-ar10-4-61-252-210.evrtwa1.dsl-verizon.net [4.61.252.210]) by spork.pantherdragon.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2481DFDDC; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 14:45:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pantherdragon.org (speck.techno.pagans [172.21.42.2]) by sparx.pantherdragon.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB8A8AB39; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 14:45:20 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3D6FE770.666437F@pantherdragon.org> Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 14:45:20 -0700 From: Darren Pilgrim X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: anderson@centtech.com Cc: Doug White , Clifton Royston , chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [long] Server motherboard recommendations for 4.X/5.X? References: <20020830132138.F88354-100000@carver.gumbysoft.com> <3D6FE01E.4050106@centtech.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Eric Anderson wrote: > Doug White wrote: > >> If anyone wants to also recommend us a favorite rackmount server > >>integrator, that wouldn't hurt. We're aware of FreeBSDSystems, ASA > >>Computers, IXsystems, Arista IPC, and California Digital (formerly VA > >>Linux) and have bought from the last few. We're particularly looking > >>for one who can provide a system with dual power supplies fed from two > >>separate power cords, similar to what you find on a high-end router or > >>switch; we're thinking a 4U system for ease of adding any expansion > >>cards we might need down the road. We'll install the OS, etc. but if > >>we can take the assembly time off our hands that would be nice. > > Has anyone recommended Dell stuff? I'm sure they'll have something that fits > you. I use all kinds of their stuff for FreeBSD, and the the RAID controllers > are supported in FreeBSD easily. As far as FreeBSD is concerned, the hardware is the same stuff you can buy on the open market. What you really pay Dell for is a warrantied service contract from someone who isn't going to go out of business anytime soon. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Fri Aug 30 15: 3:11 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8E5B37B400 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 15:03:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from directvinternet.com (dsl-65-185-140-165.telocity.com [65.185.140.165]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7261443E4A for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 15:03:07 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from Tolstoy.home.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by directvinternet.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g7UM1iGd089764; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 15:01:44 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from localhost (nwestfal@localhost) by Tolstoy.home.lan (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id g7UM1hFW089761; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 15:01:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: Tolstoy.home.lan: nwestfal owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 15:01:43 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" X-X-Sender: nwestfal@Tolstoy.home.lan To: Giorgos Keramidas Cc: Drew Raines , Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: <20020830203058.GE16588@hades.hell.gr> Message-ID: <20020830145233.Y89720-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Fri, 30 Aug 2002, Giorgos Keramidas wrote: > On 2002-08-30 11:11 +0000, Drew Raines wrote: > > Society doesn't define morality, it defiles the morality God > > defined. Sin keeps us from delighting in the true morality of > > his Word. We settle for temporary pleasures of the creation > > instead of infinite pleasure in the Creator. > > What "Creator"? You are begging the question. If the thesis is that sin keeps you from knowing the Creator, asking "What Creator" is just confirmation of the thesis. You have two options: 1) Stop sinning. (With man this is impossible) 2) Refute the premise that you are a sinner. Cheers! Neal To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Fri Aug 30 21: 4:56 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3EEF37B400 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 21:04:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from swan.mail.pas.earthlink.net (swan.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.123]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93A7143E6E for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 21:04:54 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0403.cvx21-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([209.179.193.148] helo=mindspring.com) by swan.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17kzV9-0002vg-00; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 21:04:47 -0700 Message-ID: <3D704024.55E7F1F7@mindspring.com> Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 21:03:48 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Lawrence Sica Cc: Dave Hayes , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Lawrence Sica wrote: > > Environmental issues are not useful examples in this context, > > whereas genetic ones are. 8-). > > If everything is relative then its perfectly valid. Seriously environment > influences genetics though. We evolve to suit our environment. > > ;) Changes wrought by environmental conditions are not inheritable, or we would have a lot of children and grandchildren of shop teachers with less than the usual number of fingers. 8-). -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Fri Aug 30 22:52: 2 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93C8E37B400 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 22:51:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from falcon.mail.pas.earthlink.net (falcon.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.74]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05A6643E65 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 22:51:44 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0088.cvx21-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([209.179.192.88] helo=mindspring.com) by falcon.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17l1AZ-0001O3-00; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 22:51:39 -0700 Message-ID: <3D70590E.A1935AF3@mindspring.com> Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 22:50:06 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Neal E. Westfall" Cc: Dave Hayes , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? References: <20020830125515.I53482-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org "Neal E. Westfall" wrote: [ ... the treating of treatable genetic problems ... ] > But you've just dodged my question. Is it a good thing that we have > the ability to keep those traits in the gene pool? Probably not. I'd just as soon not be selected against, however. > Or is the development of that ability also a result of evolution? Probably not. Both the cause and the effect are exogenous. If I remove a connection in a ffedback circuit, it's not "part of the feedback circuit". > If so, how do we know that what we are talking about isn't actually > de-evolution? Technically, it probably is. On the other hand, there is a larger homeostatic system in effect. Consider if a near-ELE happened next Tuesday. With a collapse of the technical infrastructure that is necessary to the support of such people in opposition to environmental pressures, the pressures reassert themselves. The planet is certainly well over its carrying capacity for a low technology civilization; but the sudden conversion fron a high to low technology civilization would remove the support for a percentage of the population which was itself roughly proportional to the reduction in carrying capacity. In effect, if it was suggently 1875 again from a technical perspective, then only people who could have survived with an 1875 technological base will survive. This is really minor, though, compared to the reduction in population as a result of starvation, since distribution and production would get hit pretty hard, too, and they have a much higher immediate effect than the ability to replace your soft contact lenses in one month's time. > By the same token, is the development of light bulbs a good thing? > Why? What I'm trying to get at is your ultimate criteria. Usefulness? > But then pragmatism is only useful if you know what ends to pursue. "What is the meaning of life?" 8-). I don't claim to have an answer to that question. What I do claim is that resetting the clock to an earlier time does no good. We know this because, to analogize Dave Hayes, there was no sudden heavenly chorus announcing the amount of real, user, and system time elapsed since the beginning of the universe, now that the run is complete. There is also the slight problem that clocks run forward, meaning that eventually you will get to the same point yet again, so you might as well cross that bridge sooner rather than later. > > All societies enforce standards of conduct upon their members, > > and people are members of many societies. Morality relationships > > are generally hierarchical on one axis, and peering on another > > (i.e. society condones the soldier that kills the soldier of the > > enemy state, but not the clerk at the grocery store down the block, > > even though both are human beings). > > Are these standards of conduct arbitrary? Humans have a certain amount of hard-wiring. To draw a simplistic parallel, maybe their "Add unity to memory" instruction takes 2 clock cycles, and their load register X with immediate takes 1 cycle, but their load register Y with immediate takes 50 cycles. But any Turing machine can actually run any software; it's just that some software runs better than other software, on a given set of hardware. So I think most of these standards of conduct are emergent, based on their anti- or pro- species survival value. > Why do societies go to war with each other, if not to enforce it's > own standards of morality on that other society? Jealousy. Trolls crossing the borders. Inability to effectively compete in the context of a given consensus rule set (e.g. there are no radical Moslem First World countries, there are no first world countries without some form of population controls, volintary or otherwise, there are no first world countries without immigration controls, there are no dominant religions that favor birth control, etc., etc.). Consensus rule sets are intersting things, though. One does not really abitrarily arrive at a consensus rule set, one accepts a rule set and it becomes consensus because of the limitations of the physical universe. Murder is not tolerable, because it most definitely intereferes with the propagation of the genetic material of those who tolerate rate it, for example. A higher standard of living leads to a longer reproductive life cycle, and limitations on expansion of population lead to a higher standard of living. There are counter pressures, of course, but they are not overriding, and so they do not lead to consensus rules, except in fractional societies which exist as part of a larger whole. > Why enforce those standards, if there is no ultimate criteria by > which you could judge one society's standards as "right" over > against the other societies standards which are wrong? Richard Dawkins said it best, when he pointed out that this is all an elaborate competition between selfish genes (genes which are selfish, not genese which express as selfishness). They even build these huge hulking robots to carry them around, the better to propagate (some of these robots are called "humans"). I guess in terms of conflicting societies, it comes down to whether powerful society A can suffer less powerful society B to exist. > > Morality is dictated by the larger society, in any given context. > > It doesn't need to be transcendent, per se, it merely needs to > > transcend the individual, or the smaller society within the larger. > > Why does it need to transcend the individual, but not individual > societies? Marvin Minsky has a lot to say here, which would be useful; even if it has since been discredited in the AI community, I will recommend his book "Society of Mind". The answer as to why it needs to transcend the individual is that individuals share mutual boundaries. And if you note, I said that it *does* need to transcend individual societies ("the smaller society within the larger"). > Or do you advocate a global society? Not really. I recognize it as emergent. The Geneva Convention, The World Court, The World Intellctual Property Association, Maritime Law, International Law, war, treaties, capitualation, etc.. > If so, is whatever mores that society adopts right by definition? Personally, I believe a global society is not possible, at least until there are one or more additional globes involved. Call it a result of "Thalience". 8-). There is an implicit need of "the other", at least in all the societies we've so far managed to construct. Also, societies as individuals are homeostatic creatures. > > You may say some activity (e.g. killing another human being) is > > "not right". What you really mean is "it's unethical"; to borrow > > from Dave Hayes, you are actually saying that it would violate > > your internal code of conduct. What this actually means, however, > > is that you will not tolerate it in yourself, and so you will also > > not tolerate it in others. > > Then it would not be an internal code of conduct, by definition. > Just because you wouldn't engage in a particular activity doesn't > mean that somebody else shouldn't. It turns out that there is an escape hatch. It has to do with the semantics of "human being". This is actually *why* it's OK to kill the enemy, without having to make an explicit exception which leads you to a slippery slope: you define them to not be a human being. The Sioux understood this implicitly. The translation of the Sioux word for themselves is "human being". In reality, there's no avoiding externalizing ethics; if it's wrong to kill another human being, then it's wrong whwther the act is manifest by comission (performing the act) or omission (you permitting the act to be performed). By not acting, you act. > Okay, but then if there is general agreement in that society that it > would be genetically beneficial to kill off a certain segment of > society, say, the jews, or people with certain genetic defects, it > is then moral by definition for that society to do so. It is moral *within the context of that society*. Whether neighboring societies would tolerate the activity is another matter altogether. Societies hold each other to consensual standards, as well, in the context of the society of societies of which they are members. > > Individuals do not have morals, though individuals may *be* moral > > or *act* morally or *demonstrate* morality. > > Act morally with regard to what? You seem to think that a society > cannot enshrine laws that are immoral. They can't. They can enact them, but they can't enshrine them without the consent of the governed. The police will refuse to enforce them, or the citizens will ignore them. That's the difference between a law that has ben enacted, and one that is in effect. In the case of a police state, where physical power is centralized, there's always the possibility of subversion, infiltration, or, in the limit, human wave assault. > > If you want to boil down this whole discussion so far, it's that > > Dave has an ethic which he would like to convert into a moral, by > > getting other people to share it. This ethic venerates the rights > > of the individual over the rights of the state (the society to > > which the individuals belong). > > And you are making the opposite error, of venerating the rights of > the state over the rights of the individual. Such societies > inevitably become tyrranical. To have a society is to grant that society rights over individuals. There is no such thing as a tyranny of one. By your argument, all jailed tyrants should be freed, because it's tyranical to jail a tyrant. But in freeing a tyrant to act upon your society, are you not therefore still tyranical, this time by proxy? > > My own objection to this is, first and foremost, that the rights > > of the state take precedence of the rights of the individual, as > > the state is composed of individuals, and the yardstick we must > > therefore use is that of the greatest good for the greatest number. > > I see. And what exactly is "the greatest good for the greatest > number"? Weeding out inferior individuals from the gene pool? > Why not? Moreover, who makes these decisions? Philosopher-kings? Whoever the governed consent to have govern them. > Yes, I agree that his ideas are self-refuting...but then ultimately > so are yours, you just don't see it. Pose it in terms of symbolic logic. I promise I will see it, or point out the error(s) in the formulation. > > Self-organizing systems don't have to admit non-teleological basis. > > > > Science acknowledges "gosh numbers", such as "PI", "e", "G", or "The > > Fine Structure Constant", etc., without needing to acknowledge a > > non-teleological cause with a set of thermostats that can be adjusted, > > one of which reads "Speed of Light" or another which reads "Planck Length". > > Then I would have to ask to what end such "self-organizing systems" > attain? Organizing into what? For what purpose? Why does there have to be a purpose? > > Does it matter if an action is wrong or not, if a penalty will > > be assessed for the action regardless of your own personal views > > of right and wrong? If you want to avoid the penalty, you must > > act as if you believed the action were wrong, regardless of your > > personal beliefs in the matter. > > Of course, my answer will be, "Yes it does." I just think you are > not thinking high enough on the ontological scale. 8-). "Ontology recapitualates phylology". It may matter to you, personally. If it does, you with either act within the system, to change the mechanism whereby the action results in a penalty, or you will engage in civil disobedience to provide an example to others -- sacrificing yourself to the greater good, or you will declare your seperateness from society, in some way. So you will change the rule, or you will be removed from the conflict situation, or you will remove yourself from the conflict situation. No matter what you do (or the actual outcome), the conflict will be resolved to the satisfaction of the society. > > > > > Members of society routinely and frequently violate these conditions, > > > > > and That's The Way It Is. > > > > > > > > And we punish them, and That's The Way It Is. > > > > > > When we punish them, is our justification for doing so solely because > > > we have the guns and the will to do so? > > > > Pretty much, yes. > > So I take it you're not a libertarian... Actually, I am, or at least a Strict Constitutional Constructionist, if you want to be technically accurate. I was recently asked to run for public office in my district by the Libertarian party, in fact (I declined; the suit, contacts, hair-cut, kiss-hands-shake-babies drill was not my cup of tea; that, and the party management procrastinated until too close to the registration window for anyone they got to have a reasonable chance of winning). Holding a philosophy, and forcing the larger society to hold a philosophy are two very different things, even if it's for the larger societies Own Good(tm). There's such a thing as social inertia, and societies, being made up of people, are slow to change. Anyone who wants a "quick fix" for what they perceive as a social ill is most likely deluding themselves. Societies only ever change one individual at a time. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Fri Aug 30 22:54:29 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C453937B400 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 22:54:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from falcon.mail.pas.earthlink.net (falcon.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.74]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2F2843E6A for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 22:53:56 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0088.cvx21-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([209.179.192.88] helo=mindspring.com) by falcon.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17l1Cg-0002xn-00; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 22:53:50 -0700 Message-ID: <3D7059B2.88550EB9@mindspring.com> Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 22:52:50 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Neal E. Westfall" Cc: Giorgos Keramidas , Drew Raines , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? References: <20020830145233.Y89720-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org "Neal E. Westfall" wrote: > On Fri, 30 Aug 2002, Giorgos Keramidas wrote: > > What "Creator"? > > You are begging the question. If the thesis is that sin keeps > you from knowing the Creator, asking "What Creator" is just > confirmation of the thesis. You have two options: > > 1) Stop sinning. (With man this is impossible) > 2) Refute the premise that you are a sinner. "Successfully refuting the premise that you are a sinner, is a sin". -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Fri Aug 30 23: 9: 7 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 229CF37B400 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 23:08:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org [64.239.180.8]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A9F143E6A for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 23:08:45 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@jetcafe.org) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7V68h128080; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 23:08:43 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org) Message-Id: <200208310608.g7V68h128080@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Terry Lambert Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 23:08:38 -0700 From: Dave Hayes Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org [ Ah, time for the nightly Lambert exercise in futility. To wit...] Terry Lambert writes: > Dave Hayes wrote: >> Actually this example demosntrates the -removal- of an adversity >> (near-sightedness) via glasses. It doesn't demonstrate the removal >> of any pressure. > Glasses keep near-shighted people in the gene pool longer than > they would otherwise be. Myopia is still an adverse condition. Perhaps we can disagree about what the adverse condition is, but this doesn't have any bearing on whether adverse conditions cause evolutionary pressure. I (and most of evolutionary science) claim it does, you claim it doesn't, none of us can prove it either way to the others' satisfaction, lets move on. >> No, in other words there is no such thing as an acceptable proof (but >> I can't prove that). > By your troll argument, you should at least gve me a chance to > infect you with my memes... Memes don't normally infect me via mental means. >> Ah. I believe you misinterpreted that word and the meaning. Perhaps I >> should be more rigorous in this case: "For all communities with a >> non-null set of elements belonging to the set of all of mankind, >> corruption, inefficiency and politics will derail any -real- 'good' >> that said organization can do." > I guess you might as well give up, then, since there's no hope... Yes, it seems that way. However, I have all the hope in the world. I'm working on myself. When I can fail to contribute to those things completely, neither supporting nor opposing them, I will have arrived at my destination. >> > There's a right way, and a wrong way, and blowing people up >> > without the sanction of the state is the wrong way. >> >> But blowing them up -with- the sanction of the state is the right way? > > Of course. Society defines morality. Don't confuse "morality" with "the right way". Sure, society defines morality, but morality does not define "the right way". It defines "the way society expects you to be or they will get multiple people with big sticks to beat you up". These are not equivalent. >> The ones that break out and forcibly reproduce are the best suited to >> survival in hostile environments. By definition even. > > Nature seems to vote against that one. How so? >> >> It is an error to test something without the means of testing it or >> >> even the means of understanding it. Mankind's academic arrogance is >> >> that it can understand anything. >> > >> > You mean, like when a troll posts to a mailing list. >> >> You claim to understand this too ya know. > > Better to be arrogant with the sanction of the state, than to be > arrogant and facing a crowd of torch-wielding peasents. I think that the latter arrogance has more honor...the former is akin to cowardice. >> >> There is no other real arena that you'll work with in your lifetime. >> > Sorry; this is the second time you've implied that you're a >> > phenomenologist. >> >> Who? > > You. Me? No. I'm not a phenomenologist in the classical sense (nor in the romantic sense). I merely realize "consensual reality" is one of many. >> Of course not, you've apparently missed the entire point of Zen. >> You don't have to be a phenomenologist to handle the things that >> happen internally at a higher priority than the external stuff. > > No, just catatonic. 8-). Bah. You presume the external reality is more important. I find it ironic (and a part of the great comedy we call "Earth") that you waste brain memory knowing obscure attributions of random Zen quotes...and yet this is somehow more important to you than the actual philosophy the quote points at. Only on Earth. LOL. >> > There is such a thing as "the fruit of the poisoned tree". >> >> What's this reference now? > > Accessory after the fact, receiving stolen property, etc.. All those are attempts by society to make you tow the party line even if you aren't taking action when a "bad" activity occurs. So your point was...? > [ ... ] >> > It was a reference to the fact that society dictates conditions >> > to individuals, and That's The Way It Is. >> >> Members of society routinely and frequently violate these conditions, >> and That's The Way It Is. > > And we punish them, and That's The Way It Is. You don't catch all of them, and That's The Way It Is. So society is inefficient at best. >> >> > This works well if one's ethics happen to coincide with the >> >> > morals of the society of which they are a member, and poorly >> >> > otherwise. >> >> >> >> You mean: it works well for -you- if -their- ethics coincide with >> >> -your- morals. ;) >> > >> > No, I said "with societys" and I meant it. >> >> I don't buy that at all. Your incentive is to say "with society's" >> since you'll look good to "society" if you say that. > > Or if you can't win a conflict with all of society against you, > and are forced to cooperate. You cannot force someone to cooperate, that's oxymoronic. Someone either cooperates or is coerced. There isn't any other real state. > [ ... society is inmically trying to make people over into good citizens ... ] >> It is, and I'm extremely paranoid. Good security people always are. > > That's a big "whatever". Wow, no snappy comeback! I must be making a dent in that wall of "useless rationality" you have. > [ ... ] >> What do politicians do when they want to get elected? The most >> effective way is to mount a hate campaign against the other candidate. >> You going to tell me this is not indoctrination? Ding, slobber. > > "Ding, slobber" is an obvious reference to Pavlov's dogs, which is > an example of conditioning, not indoctrination. Maybe you meant to > say "conditioned" rather than "indoctrinated", originally? What's the difference? It's the same thing, ultimately. One is just a fancier name and has less of an import on the feeling of severity. >> > What else do you call someone who seeks to destroy what they >> > can not control? "Naughty"? >> >> "Desperate" perhaps. "Misunderstood" definately. "Naughty" I refrain >> from using, it has too many sexual contexts that are inappropriate. ;) > > Rodney King was a fleeing felon in voilation of parole. I don't care what he was. There was zero excuse for that display of police brutality. There's zero excuse for any of it actually, and it's a prime reason I despise authority and rebel against any sort of organized policing. Who watches the watchers? >> >> You may disagree with the conclusion, but I won't buy that it's any >> >> logical or academic thought which has gone into that disagreement. >> >> It's pure emotion, as human as it gets, that causes you to disagree >> >> with that. >> > >> > You're wrong, but that's expected, in this case. >> >> Am I? Dishonesty towards the self is the root cause of unawareness. > > Can you prove that? Not without first proving that the notion of proof has validity. > [ ... ] >> > [ ... society should not punish miscreants ... ] >> > Like I said before: emigrate. >> >> To where? > > I already suggested an abandoned oil righ in the North Atlantic; > must I think of everything? ;^). That won't work. Some insurance company with hundreds of lawyers will come out and claim that rig someday. Where else? Mars might work but in a few hundred years might not. Where can I be free of lawyers? > [ ... and argument is either valid or invalid ... ] >> You present a binary alternative. You fail to see a >> third alternative which is neither of the previous two. That's >> the excluded middle thing which -you- brought up in the first place. > > No, it's not. Define a third catagory for this particular case, > without using negation of the union of the other two. How about "my argument is valid within the context of a certain frame of reference, and invalid otherwise"? > [ ... totalitarian societies ... ] >> I've asserted such societies eventually stagnate for lack of new >> and/or challenging input, and stop growing usefully. Look at Russia, >> if you want an example. > > You've asserted it, but not proven it. It's not provable. There are literally millions of twisty little societies, all different. > [ ... ] >> As I see it, >> your type is responsible for the lack of respect I have for academia, >> yet I don't discount all of academia just because I can't stand your >> type. I think you should give some trolls a similar break. > > And I think trolls should find their own community, and quit > bothering ones where they're not welcome. It's unlikely either > of us will ever get our way. Well I contend that, to the society of trolls, YOU are a sociopath. ;) >> > OK. So maybe that's the trolls goal: an oppressive society. >> >> This makes sense. They drive some people to want oppression, even though >> it's bad for them. That doesn't mean we should let ourselves be >> manipulated by them... > > You're right. We should block their manipulations! Yes, internally to ourselves...where the block has a chance of being effective. > [ ... technological solutions to the troll problem ... ] >> > My perception of the cost. If it doesn't exceed your perception, >> > well, I guess you won't be writing the code, but that won't stop >> > the code from being written. >> >> I'd definately consider writing the hack that breaks such code. ;) > > Eventually, the code would be correct, even if your implied premise > here is that it doesn't start out that way. Yes, my hack would be correct, and allow people a different perception of EACH mailing list on the planet with no censorship. > [ ... ] >> > Your position is counter species-survival. >> >> So say you. Yet it works for me. I don't feel it is my duty to >> interfere in certain matters between humans. Where I come from, >> this is called "being nosy". > > Where I come from, it's called social conscience. Gee, we must come from different places. Why is your way more right? > [ ... SPAM ... ] >> > As such, it includes off-topic posts by trolls, not just commercial >> > advertisements. >> >> The consensual definition would disagree with this. When I ask most >> people what spam is, they respond with "those damn adverts in my mail >> box". > > So... ask the list, since that's the society whose context matters > for this discussion. I think we've both -been- asking the list for some time now, in a roundabout way of course. >> > A troll whose posting is blocked does not have his postings >> > destroyed, nor are they paineted over; they are merely forced >> > to another venue. >> >> This destroys the future postings in that venue. > > Yes, you're right. There are many actions which risk consequences; > if you don't want the consequences; like stepping off a cliff risks > gravity hurtling you onto the rocks below. I don't see this as a > problem. I do. I want to read those posts. >> Implied contracts are shady. Unless I specifically agree to a >> contract, I expect not to be held to one. Anything else is >> dishonorable. > > Well, as far as Rosseau is concerned, you're welcome to be born > into a different society. 8-). Oh, I have a choice now? I thought you were a rationalist or objectivist or something like that? >> My point in this example was to consider relative cost. One troll >> posting messages, verses 100 people posting messages, means the >> relative cost of the troll is far under the cost of propagating the >> list. It costs more to each list user if 100 people post on topic, >> and we know some list readers aren't interested in -all- the topics. >> If you block trolls simply because of cost, you also must block >> weakly-popular topics to be fair, and now we are moderating by >> utility. > > It's not a popularity contest, it's a topicality litmus test. The notion of "on-topic" can be highly subjective. So you don't bore both of us with citing the extrema, I'm referring to those posts that reasonable people (that means neither of us) can disagree about topicality. Sometimes these posts have good information. I don't feel it's appropriate to risk that information JUST because someone pays upwards of a penny per message to download it. >> > Maybe you missed the fact that Open Source projects are mutual >> > altruism networks, so "they don't bug me any" is not a sufficient >> > response. >> >> A real gift is given with no strings. None. It's not given, then taken >> away because "someone posted wrong". It's given freely and openly >> with zero conditions. > > A *mutual* altruism network. We aren't talking "gifts" here, we > are talking the equivalent of stone soup. That's not real altruism, so I can't really understand what you are talking about. >> If the altrusim being networked is fake, then the honorable thing to >> do is to post your conditions and expectations BEFORE giving the gift >> to give the recipients the chance to accept or reject the conditions >> and expectations...e.g. "No trolls". > The altruism is real; you seem to be objecting to the context. It can't be. Real altruism doesn't require mutuality. >> If the altruism being networked is real, trolls aren't a topic by >> definition (no strings, remember?). > > They can have the benefits of altruism outside the context of > the mutual altruism network. Just not mine. 8-). Hey, it's your gift. You can take it back any time you want. >> > So enlighten everyone: what information was in the last troll >> > posting? >> >> For one, where this mindset exists on the net, that you might learn >> from it what not to think. Then again, some people may need to be >> racists...so this will teach them what TO think. *shrug* > > In the future, society will send in little robots to rearrange their > neurons so that they no longer need to be racists. They won't be > who they were, they will be wholly different people, but, by your > logic, these wholly different people would have the same right to > exist as the racists had, so there would be no net loss of freedom, > or even anarchy, if we did that, right? 8-). *slaps hand to forehead, drags slowly down face* Wrong. Sometimes I think you favor the notion of "thoughtcrime". > [ ... ] >> >> Have you tried moving out of the way of the jerk at the last minute, >> >> so he falls and you don't? =) >> > >> > If you insist on stretching the analogy, yes, by moving the list >> > out from under him. >> >> Sorry. You can only move yourself, not everyone else...or the analogy >> to what I was communicating falls apart. > > "Any place trolls are not" could be the Schelling point I choose > to create. No such place. Next? > I'm pretty sure branding a big "I" on their forehead wouldn't work. It might piss them off enough to lock you in a room with 10 of them. ;) > [ ... ] >> > If the troll will not communicate any information in his postings, >> > then you allow a post. If a second post occurs, then you block the >> > posting address. The troll creates another email account on a free >> > server, and posts again. You allow the post. If it happens again, >> > you block the address. >> >> Interesting. I actually like this idea. At least the troll can >> communicate every -other- message. The problem next becomes how to >> ensure that the troll has a near-infinte supply of email adresses. > > The troll can already do this. It's the obvious escalation of > an effective immediate-no-repeat-posting-by-source mechanism. Very intersing. I would have no substantative objection (which won't stop me from objecting on principle) to this, given a troll can get an infinite source of email accounts. > Then the answer becomes moderation of the ability to post in the > first place, as a counter-escalation. If the troll can't/won't > take a hint that strong, then you go to a mutual trust network to > establish posting rights ("Bob can post because I can post, and I > trust Bob"). On this road lies the stagnant community. USENET has hundreds of moderated examples of these, as we both appear to know. > [ ... ] >> > No faith required. >> >> Yes there is. As mathematics is taught, you have to take certain >> things on faith before you learn enough. > > Mathematics is not a Science, mathematics is a language. Even > meets the language requirement, at some universities. Inane triviality which dodges the point almost as well as I can. You really are my mirror. I never thought I'd see another one of me out there. Gee. >> Trolls really do communicate data. > > Noise is not data. Yes it is, it's just not the data you are expecting. > [ ... ] >> >> I thought the internet was destined to give those rights, so that the >> >> national media networks could stop reinforcing consensual reality in >> >> the way -they- wanted, enabling the people to reinforce their own. > [ ... ] >> I didn't say "designed" I said "destined". Deliberately. > > I'm dyslexic [ I guess that's not "adversity", any more than > near-sightedness, though, since there are coping mechanisms > available ]. I would have never guessed unless you'd told me. > Treating your statement again, in this context: there is no manifest > destiny for the Internet, however much you might wish that this were > not the case. It is merely a communications medium. IYHO. IMEO, there is a manifest destiny for humans to be able to communicate with each other without some authoritarian gibbert telling them how they can and cannot speak. The internet is the most likely choice at this time. > [ ... ] >> In other words, I'm waiting for FreeNet. > > Stop waiting and act to create it. Get your trolls, script kiddies, > and exploiters to help you. At the moment, I have other things to do (like participating in this tennis game we call "chat"). My time will come, and I will act impeccably. Then I will leave and let others do their job. > [ ... ] >> > Spare me the "exception to every rule" sophistry. >> >> You don't spare me the "prove every principle" dogma, why should I >> reciprocate? > > You want to sway me with your arguments, then you accept my > standards of proof. You presume I want to sway you. I can assure you I don't have a wrecking ball in my posession, cause that is what it will take to sway someone so deeply entrenched in assumption as yourself. I really don't want to sway you. Consider. YOU lobbed the first volley at me. I'm enjoying myself, I haven't had a good usenet style debate in ages. But by the same token, I have no delusions that I am swaying you of anything other than thinking I am a fool. And I -am- a fool. I'm more of a fool if I think I am swaying you, but I said that already. ;) > I'm willing to reciprocate that, but it's probably a lost cause > given "there is no such thing as an acceptable proof". I'm actually quite convincable given a rational argument which accepts that everything we work with is assumption. However, I don't think you are capable (I could be wrong), and this is the wrong forum. >> > So basically, IYO, the sides are irreconcilable. Which means >> > it's open season. >> >> Such violence. Is this being an anti-sociopath? > > Yes. Violence advocated by society is, by definition, not sociopathic. > "Be All That You Can Be". You are presuming One True and Right Society. I bet Iraq has something to say about the sociopathy of the American armed forces... > [ ... ] >> > Assuming there *are* grievences, other than "my employer wants >> > your society disassembled for spare parts", you are probably >> > correct. >> > The answer, in the Open Source arena, is "then fork the project >> > and create ``TrollBSD'', or rename it to something else, so that >> > it's less obvious". >> >> You know more than you are telling about these trolls. Is that where >> your anger at them comes from? > > I know a couple of IP addresses, and I have done statistical > linguistics analysis on non-quoted material, along with archival > mailing list logs. > > But I wouldn't say I'm angry, merely deeply engaged in mapping the > problem space prior to proposing a solution set which maps everywhere > but where the cancer lies, in order to create an exclusion set. Ok, you are fascinated by these trolls and your fascination lies in how to get rid of them. It's still my opinion you are angry and holding that anger from your own view. But I can settle for fascinated. > [ ... ] >> > The audience for whom you are balancing the ball on your nose. >> >> So you presume to speak for everyone else? > > Can not a member of an audience applaud for themselves, without > applauding for the rest of the audience? Well, you'd look pretty funny if you were the only one clapping... > Let's just say that it's my single vote, out of the crowd. WOO HOO finally I get him to back off of the "I speak for everyone" thing. *chalk* >> Sometimes rules just have to be broken. Enforcement prevents the >> development of natural human judgement as to when to break >> rules. Explanation assists this development, and eventually... >> one does not need rules. > > Sometimes rules just have to be enforced, particularly when natural > human judgement is defective. Human judgement doesn't repair itself without the chance to be defective. > If education were the answer to all problems, then a lot of the > current social ills we are facing would have ceased to exist > long ago. You presume that we've been using "education". What passes for that noun these days is more like "indoctrination"...at least at the poverty and inner-city school level. Indoctrination produces robots. Education produces real human beings. Real human beings have good judgement. > On the other hand, isolation of 100% of infected individuals is 100% > effective in stopping the spread of any epidemic. And dishonorable to those individuals. Do you realize that you are taking the position of the haughty master, claiming that everyone that doesn't act as he wants them to should be isolated and locked up? >> >> >> Or you, in failing to see new data. >> >> > What new data? >> >> See? >> > No? >> That is the problem. > Feel free to point out "new data" like this --> new data <--, to > ensure clarity. 8-). --> WAKE UP, you're asleep! <---- ;) ------ Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<< A would-be disciple came to Nasrudin's hut on the mountain-side. Knowing that every action of such an enlightened one is significant, the seeker watched the teacher closely. "Why do you blow on your hands?" "To warm myself in the cold." Later, Nasrudin poured bowls of hot soup for himself and the newcomer, and blew on his own. "Why are you doing that, Master?" "To cool the soup." Unable to trust a man who uses the same process to arrive at two different results -- hot and cold -- the disciple departed. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Fri Aug 30 23:11:36 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8117E37B400 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 23:11:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org [64.239.180.8]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A59443E6E for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 23:11:34 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@jetcafe.org) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7V6BX128113 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 23:11:33 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org) Message-Id: <200208310611.g7V6BX128113@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 23:11:28 -0700 From: Dave Hayes Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org [ Unclear whether that is a real email address, it's deleted, chat is sufficient anyway. ] Drew Raines writes: > Capital punishment is the defense by God's collective people of > God's law. Paul said that government is an ``agent of wrath to > bring punishment on the wrongdoer'' (Rom 13, NIV). Paul never said whether this was a good thing or a bad thing. ;) > We settle for temporary pleasures of the creation instead of > infinite pleasure in the Creator. Sadly, both states are responsible for keeping us from our Creator. ------ Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<< It is difficult to make things foolproof because fools are so ingenious. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Fri Aug 30 23:18: 1 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C298A37B400 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 23:17:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org [64.239.180.8]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A7B343E72 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 23:17:58 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@jetcafe.org) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7V6Hu128152; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 23:17:56 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org) Message-Id: <200208310617.g7V6Hu128152@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Terry Lambert Cc: "Neal E. Westfall" , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 23:17:51 -0700 From: Dave Hayes Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Terry Lambert writes: > You may say some activity (e.g. killing another human being) is > "not right". What you really mean is "it's unethical"; to borrow > from Dave Hayes, you are actually saying that it would violate > your internal code of conduct. What this actually means, however, > is that you will not tolerate it in yourself, and so you will also > not tolerate it in others. This is where we disagree. I claim you should not worry about what others do, your focus should be on what YOU do, and that will maximize gain for you and (somewhat) society. You appear to claim that we have to focus on what OTHERS do and controlling them achieves more gain for you and society. > My own objection to this is, first and foremost, that the rights > of the state take precedence of the rights of the individual, as > the state is composed of individuals, and the yardstick we must > therefore use is that of the greatest good for the greatest number. I claim you can't know that yardstick. > I personally believe that Dave is intentionally ignoring the fact > that membership in nominally open online societies is by way of > self-selection. It's irrelavent, yes. > The reason this is amusing is that he attempted to create a forum > in which his principles were also embodied in the nature of the > forum itself, and it failed. The failure arose from people who > attacked it... and which Dave has so far failed to recognize as > "trolls", in the same sense that he is asking everyone else to > accept, when he could not. It wasn't intended to succeed or fail, actually. It was intended to demonstrate. What I failed to realize was that, for a demonstration to be effective, it must fall on fertile eyes and ears. ------ Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<< Objects are defined subjectively. Since objects are defined arbitrarily, this gives rise to your arbitrary subjectivity. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Fri Aug 30 23:24:59 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2AE8737B400 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 23:24:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org [64.239.180.8]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5BB043E6A for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 23:24:53 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@jetcafe.org) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7V6Op128199; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 23:24:51 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org) Message-Id: <200208310624.g7V6Op128199@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Terry Lambert Cc: "Neal E. Westfall" , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 23:24:46 -0700 From: Dave Hayes Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Terry Lambert writes: > "What is the meaning of life?" 8-). > I don't claim to have an answer to that question. That is because you refuse to look inside...that would be..."Catatonic". ;) > In reality, there's no avoiding externalizing ethics; Actually, that is a goal along the evolutionary timeline. > Why does there have to be a purpose? Because that's the only thing our brains understand. ------ Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<< There is enough for all in this world but not enough to meet one man's greed. - Mahatma Gandhi To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Fri Aug 30 23:25:33 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6279E37B400 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 23:25:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org [64.239.180.8]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F21CA43E42 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 23:25:29 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@jetcafe.org) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7V6PS128232; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 23:25:28 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org) Message-Id: <200208310625.g7V6PS128232@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Terry Lambert , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 23:25:23 -0700 From: Dave Hayes Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Terry Lambert writes: > "Successfully refuting the premise that you are a sinner, is a sin". That is beautiful. ------ Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<< "There *is* no 'try'. Either do, or do not." -Yoda To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Sat Aug 31 0:40:47 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C067237B400 for ; Sat, 31 Aug 2002 00:40:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from m-net.arbornet.org (m-net.arbornet.org [209.142.209.161]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 994D443E3B for ; Sat, 31 Aug 2002 00:40:44 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from polytarp@m-net.arbornet.org) Received: from m-net.arbornet.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by m-net.arbornet.org (8.12.3/8.11.2) with ESMTP id g7V7faHs002050; Sat, 31 Aug 2002 03:41:37 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from polytarp@m-net.arbornet.org) Received: from localhost (polytarp@localhost) by m-net.arbornet.org (8.12.3/8.12.3/Submit) with ESMTP id g7V7CDRm000809; Sat, 31 Aug 2002 03:12:14 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 03:12:13 -0400 (EDT) From: pgreen To: Dave Hayes Cc: Terry Lambert , Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: <200208310625.g7V6PS128232@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> Message-ID: <20020831031054.C695-100000@m-net.arbornet.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org I thought FreeBSD people were supposed to be all macho, what with your devil mascot, and chmod 666 and all. On Fri, 30 Aug 2002, Dave Hayes wrote: > Terry Lambert writes: > > "Successfully refuting the premise that you are a sinner, is a sin". > > That is beautiful. > ------ > Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org > >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<< > > "There *is* no 'try'. Either do, or do not." > -Yoda > > > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Sat Aug 31 1:22:20 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5849B37B400 for ; Sat, 31 Aug 2002 01:22:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from scaup.mail.pas.earthlink.net (scaup.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.49]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 046BF43E65 for ; Sat, 31 Aug 2002 01:22:17 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0088.cvx21-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([209.179.192.88] helo=mindspring.com) by scaup.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17l3WE-0004cT-00; Sat, 31 Aug 2002 01:22:10 -0700 Message-ID: <3D707C6F.7C9AD09C@mindspring.com> Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 01:21:03 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dave Hayes Cc: "Neal E. Westfall" , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? References: <200208310617.g7V6Hu128152@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Dave Hayes wrote: > I claim you should not worry about what others do, your focus should > be on what YOU do, and that will maximize gain for you and (somewhat) > society. You appear to claim that we have to focus on what OTHERS do > and controlling them achieves more gain for you and society. How can individuals cooperate to achieve common goals, if everyone acts as you would have them act? By what system? > > My own objection to this is, first and foremost, that the rights > > of the state take precedence of the rights of the individual, as > > the state is composed of individuals, and the yardstick we must > > therefore use is that of the greatest good for the greatest number. > > I claim you can't know that yardstick. Then allow me to operate on the principle of successive approximation, and, when or if you come up with a better yardstick, I can siwthc to using it instead. > It wasn't intended to succeed or fail, actually. It was intended to > demonstrate. What I failed to realize was that, for a demonstration to > be effective, it must fall on fertile eyes and ears. In order for a system top operate indefinitely, it must achieve homeostasis. It's impossible to design a system that can do this, yet which has no feedback mechanisms. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Sat Aug 31 1:26:10 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AF0B37B400 for ; Sat, 31 Aug 2002 01:26:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from scaup.mail.pas.earthlink.net (scaup.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.49]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D7AB43E42 for ; Sat, 31 Aug 2002 01:26:08 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0088.cvx21-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([209.179.192.88] helo=mindspring.com) by scaup.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17l3a2-0006nA-00; Sat, 31 Aug 2002 01:26:07 -0700 Message-ID: <3D707D5C.3FF6A880@mindspring.com> Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 01:25:00 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dave Hayes Cc: "Neal E. Westfall" , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? References: <200208310624.g7V6Op128199@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Dave Hayes wrote: > Terry Lambert writes: > > "What is the meaning of life?" 8-). > > I don't claim to have an answer to that question. > > That is because you refuse to look inside...that would > be..."Catatonic". ;) Not having an answer for myself, and not claiming to have an answer are two different things. > > In reality, there's no avoiding externalizing ethics; > > Actually, that is a goal along the evolutionary timeline. Congradulations: goal achieved. On to the next milestone! > > Why does there have to be a purpose? > > Because that's the only thing our brains understand. And yet here I am, with my brain questioning the validity... looks like you used the word "our" too soon... ;^). -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Sat Aug 31 1:54:15 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD07537B400; Sat, 31 Aug 2002 01:54:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tomts8-srv.bellnexxia.net (tomts8.bellnexxia.net [209.226.175.52]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A1DC43E42; Sat, 31 Aug 2002 01:54:11 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from junis@gosympatico.ca) Received: from [209.226.175.136] by tomts8-srv.bellnexxia.net (InterMail vM.5.01.04.19 201-253-122-122-119-20020516) with SMTP id <20020831085321.XUFG23325.tomts8-srv.bellnexxia.net@[209.226.175.136]>; Sat, 31 Aug 2002 04:53:21 -0400 From: To: Cc: Subject: FreeBSD, the power to crash? Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 4:55:11 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <20020831085321.XUFG23325.tomts8-srv.bellnexxia.net@[209.226.175.136]> Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org This is simply intolerable, isn't this OS supposed to be rock-solid? More like pure junk! 1) Insert an MS-DOS formatted floppy in your disk drive 2) mount_msdos /dev/fd0a /mnt 3) Remove disk 4) cd /mnt; ls -la 5) Try to recover system (in vain) 6) Press reset button 7) Insert RedHat 8.2 CD and update to a real OS ----- Get your free WebMail account from Sympatico-Lycos at www.sympatico.ca ----- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Sat Aug 31 2:19:44 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF8B737B400 for ; Sat, 31 Aug 2002 02:19:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from soulshock.mail.pas.earthlink.net (soulshock.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.130]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF49243E72 for ; Sat, 31 Aug 2002 02:19:19 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from goose.mail.pas.earthlink.net (goose.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.18]) by soulshock.mail.pas.earthlink.net (8.11.6+Sun/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7V81wI07123 for ; Sat, 31 Aug 2002 01:01:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pool0088.cvx21-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([209.179.192.88] helo=mindspring.com) by goose.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17l3B7-0006e9-00; Sat, 31 Aug 2002 01:00:22 -0700 Message-ID: <3D707754.1981EA36@mindspring.com> Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 00:59:16 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dave Hayes Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? References: <200208310608.g7V68h128080@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Dave Hayes wrote: > Perhaps we can disagree about what the adverse condition is, but > this doesn't have any bearing on whether adverse conditions cause > evolutionary pressure. I (and most of evolutionary science) claim > it does, you claim it doesn't, none of us can prove it either way > to the others' satisfaction, lets move on. All evolutionary pressure is, by definition, focussed on exclusion from the set of reproductive elements. You keep implying that it is a positive, rather than a negative feedback loop. It's you who are arguing with the majority of evolutionary scientists. The simple fact is that recessive genes are never removed from the gene pool, only individuals in which they express are removed. > > I guess you might as well give up, then, since there's no hope... > > Yes, it seems that way. However, I have all the hope in the world. I'm > working on myself. When I can fail to contribute to those things > completely, neither supporting nor opposing them, I will have arrived > at my destination. "Good luck to you, oh fellow traveller". > > Of course. Society defines morality. > > Don't confuse "morality" with "the right way". Sure, society defines > morality, but morality does not define "the right way". It defines > "the way society expects you to be or they will get multiple people > with big sticks to beat you up". These are not equivalent. I disagree. It speaks to the consensus definition of "right" and "wrong". > >> The ones that break out and forcibly reproduce are the best suited to > >> survival in hostile environments. By definition even. > > > > Nature seems to vote against that one. > > How so? By evolving creatures who imprison or kill peers who engage in forcible reproductive acts, thereby ensuring their removal from the gene pool. > > Better to be arrogant with the sanction of the state, than to be > > arrogant and facing a crowd of torch-wielding peasents. > > I think that the latter arrogance has more honor...the former > is akin to cowardice. I guess we now know who ate the mailman. 8-). > Bah. You presume the external reality is more important. I find it > ironic (and a part of the great comedy we call "Earth") that you waste > brain memory knowing obscure attributions of random Zen quotes...and > yet this is somehow more important to you than the actual philosophy > the quote points at. External reality can act to take away our access to any reality, external or internal. You have to accomodate that fact, even if you dislike it. As to what I choose to remember, well, it's not like I have to forget one thing to remember another. > > Accessory after the fact, receiving stolen property, etc.. > > All those are attempts by society to make you tow the party line > even if you aren't taking action when a "bad" activity occurs. Yes, they are. > So your point was...? Society has power over its members, even if they refuse to acknowledge that fact intellectually, they must acknowledge it physically. > > And we punish them, and That's The Way It Is. > > You don't catch all of them, and That's The Way It Is. So society is > inefficient at best. You only need to catch enough of them to keep their numbers under the multiplicative threshold necessary for them to displace the current society. > You cannot force someone to cooperate, that's oxymoronic. Someone > either cooperates or is coerced. There isn't any other real state. Coerced cooperation is still cooperation. The individual is doing what the society wants the individual to do; c.v. the Theory of Limits and Zeno's Paradox. > > [ ... society is inmically trying to make people over into good citizens ... ] > >> It is, and I'm extremely paranoid. Good security people always are. > > > > That's a big "whatever". > > Wow, no snappy comeback! I must be making a dent in that wall of > "useless rationality" you have. Hardly. It's merely not worth the effeort to drag an admission out of you, since it serves no larger purpose to perform the work. If you were in fact paranoid, as you claim, then you you would be able to rationalize any argument against your inherently paranoid nature, and there would be no possibility of accomodation. > > "Ding, slobber" is an obvious reference to Pavlov's dogs, which is > > an example of conditioning, not indoctrination. Maybe you meant to > > say "conditioned" rather than "indoctrinated", originally? > > What's the difference? It's the same thing, ultimately. One is just > a fancier name and has less of an import on the feeling of severity. The denotations are always more important than the connotations. > > Rodney King was a fleeing felon in voilation of parole. > > I don't care what he was. There was zero excuse for that display > of police brutality. There's zero excuse for any of it actually, > and it's a prime reason I despise authority and rebel against any > sort of organized policing. Who watches the watchers? See other posting for an elaboration of details. > >> Am I? Dishonesty towards the self is the root cause of unawareness. > > > > Can you prove that? > > Not without first proving that the notion of proof has validity. I'll accept the validity of proof for the sake of argument, so you can proceed without first proving it, if you want... ;^). > > I already suggested an abandoned oil righ in the North Atlantic; > > must I think of everything? ;^). > > That won't work. Some insurance company with hundreds of lawyers will > come out and claim that rig someday. Where else? Mars might work but > in a few hundred years might not. Where can I be free of lawyers? First, there is already an individual who has colonized an oil rig in the North Atlantic in this fashion. It was fairly widely reported about four weeks ago. Second, finding a location where you can be free of lawyers is *your* problem, not mine. If Mars will work, then by all means, go there. If the reason it won't work in a few hundred years is the encroachment of Earth's society, then there's always force of arms (I hear there are large Illudium Q-36 deposits in the polar regions... ;^)). If the reason is that once societies grow large enough, your ideas will not work, well, I guess your ideas lose. > > No, it's not. Define a third catagory for this particular case, > > without using negation of the union of the other two. > > How about "my argument is valid within the context of a certain > frame of reference, and invalid otherwise"? Since all arguments take place in a frame of reference, this is tautological. [ ... totalitarian societies eventually stagnate ... ] > > You've asserted it, but not proven it. > > It's not provable. There are literally millions of twisty little > societies, all different. If it's not provable, then it's not true. All things which are true are, at least eventually, provable. > > And I think trolls should find their own community, and quit > > bothering ones where they're not welcome. It's unlikely either > > of us will ever get our way. > > Well I contend that, to the society of trolls, YOU are a sociopath. ;) Luckily for me, I suppose, that I do not live in a society of trolls. > > You're right. We should block their manipulations! > > Yes, internally to ourselves...where the block has a chance of being > effective. If it didn't have a chance of being effective externally, you would not so vehemently argue against external blocking, since an ineffective block is a transparent membrane. [ ... technological solutions to the troll problem ... ] > >> I'd definately consider writing the hack that breaks such code. ;) > > > > Eventually, the code would be correct, even if your implied premise > > here is that it doesn't start out that way. > > Yes, my hack would be correct, and allow people a different perception > of EACH mailing list on the planet with no censorship. The problem is N-P incomplete. Implement you code and prove me wrong. > >> > Your position is counter species-survival. > >> > >> So say you. Yet it works for me. I don't feel it is my duty to > >> interfere in certain matters between humans. Where I come from, > >> this is called "being nosy". > > > > Where I come from, it's called social conscience. > > Gee, we must come from different places. Why is your way more right? It works? It has been demonstrated, while yours is merely theoretical, and your previous attempts to demonstrate "your way" have resulted in failure? [ ... Is trolling SPAM? ... ] > > So... ask the list, since that's the society whose context matters > > for this discussion. > > I think we've both -been- asking the list for some time now, in a > roundabout way of course. Then the list has *already* responded. You initial posting was an attempt to challenge that response. On a voting majority basis, it's basically 17:2 (you and the troll being the two). > >> > A troll whose posting is blocked does not have his postings > >> > destroyed, nor are they paineted over; they are merely forced > >> > to another venue. > >> > >> This destroys the future postings in that venue. > > > > Yes, you're right. There are many actions which risk consequences; > > if you don't want the consequences; like stepping off a cliff risks > > gravity hurtling you onto the rocks below. I don't see this as a > > problem. > > I do. I want to read those posts. So subscribe to the venue in which they are permitted to be posted, and read them to your heart's content. What you really mean to say here is that you want *us* to have to read these posts, as well, and therefore the only suitable venue in which the posts can take place is *these lists*... IYHO. > > Well, as far as Rosseau is concerned, you're welcome to be born > > into a different society. 8-). > > Oh, I have a choice now? > I thought you were a rationalist or objectivist or something like > that? Rational humanist; definitely not "objectivist". The ability to read Ayn Rand, IMO, should require a license, which you obtain by proving your ability to distinguish charactratures from reality. 8-). No one is completely a Henry Reardon, nor a John Galt, nor is selfishness a virtue. > > It's not a popularity contest, it's a topicality litmus test. > > The notion of "on-topic" can be highly subjective. So you don't bore > both of us with citing the extrema, I'm referring to those posts that > reasonable people (that means neither of us) can disagree about > topicality. Sometimes these posts have good information. I don't feel > it's appropriate to risk that information JUST because someone pays > upwards of a penny per message to download it. I can agree with that, no problem. Now please demonstrate how a troll posting to -hackers fits within the list charter by any stretch of the imagination. As I said before, it fits the charter of -chat, no problem (you will notice that when I respond on this topic, I response only in -chat). > > A *mutual* altruism network. We aren't talking "gifts" here, we > > are talking the equivalent of stone soup. > > That's not real altruism, so I can't really understand what you are > talking about. I'm talking about a mutual altruism network. The concept of "mutal altruism" is not identical to the concept "altruism", or I would not have needed to use the adjective "mutual" to modify "altruism" in order to communicate what I meant. > >> If the altrusim being networked is fake, then the honorable thing to > >> do is to post your conditions and expectations BEFORE giving the gift > >> to give the recipients the chance to accept or reject the conditions > >> and expectations...e.g. "No trolls". > > The altruism is real; you seem to be objecting to the context. > > It can't be. Real altruism doesn't require mutuality. The context is mutuality. You sound like Joy Beech, leader of "The Citizens For True Freedom" (as opposed to the "false freedom" that all the rest of us seem to be up for...). If you are going to insist on "Real Altruism", then I'm going to have to deny a desire to participate in your proposed society, and oppose your attempts to change the societies in which I already participate into your proposed society. On the other hand, I have no problem whatsoever with you creating your own mailing list server and establishing your proposed society on that server, instead. > >> If the altruism being networked is real, trolls aren't a topic by > >> definition (no strings, remember?). > > > > They can have the benefits of altruism outside the context of > > the mutual altruism network. Just not mine. 8-). > > Hey, it's your gift. You can take it back any time you want. I'm not taking it back. My gift is not the object itself, but a license to use the object under certain preconditions. 8-). > > In the future, society will send in little robots to rearrange their > > neurons so that they no longer need to be racists. They won't be > > who they were, they will be wholly different people, but, by your > > logic, these wholly different people would have the same right to > > exist as the racists had, so there would be no net loss of freedom, > > or even anarchy, if we did that, right? 8-). > > *slaps hand to forehead, drags slowly down face* Don't panic. Society will only do it if you *act* on your racism. > Wrong. Sometimes I think you favor the notion of "thoughtcrime". A man came up to me and said "I'd like to change your mind by hitting it with a rock," he said, "though I am not unkind." We laughed at his little joke and then I merrily walked away and hit my head on the wall of the jail where the two of us live today. -- They Might Be Giants, _Flood_, "Whistling In The Dark" 8-). > > "Any place trolls are not" could be the Schelling point I choose > > to create. > > No such place. Next? Don't be so quick to dismiss the idea that I could wilfully create such a place in the noosphere. > > I'm pretty sure branding a big "I" on their forehead wouldn't work. > > It might piss them off enough to lock you in a room with 10 of > them. ;) If there were 10 and them and 1 of me, then I'd be the troll, and they'd be the society being trolled. > > The troll can already do this. It's the obvious escalation of > > an effective immediate-no-repeat-posting-by-source mechanism. > > Very intersing. I would have no substantative objection (which won't > stop me from objecting on principle) to this, given a troll can get > an infinite source of email accounts. "Hotmail". > > Then the answer becomes moderation of the ability to post in the > > first place, as a counter-escalation. If the troll can't/won't > > take a hint that strong, then you go to a mutual trust network to > > establish posting rights ("Bob can post because I can post, and I > > trust Bob"). > > On this road lies the stagnant community. USENET has hundreds of > moderated examples of these, as we both appear to know. A stagnant community is one in which no forward progress is possible, due to the preponderance of trolls, since it is their nature to disrupt the society's ability to act, even in the direction of forward progress. And herein lies the problem with permitting trolls. > >> > No faith required. > >> > >> Yes there is. As mathematics is taught, you have to take certain > >> things on faith before you learn enough. > > > > Mathematics is not a Science, mathematics is a language. Even > > meets the language requirement, at some universities. > > Inane triviality which dodges the point almost as well as I can. > You really are my mirror. I never thought I'd see another one of > me out there. Gee. Your point is that I must have fait in my axioms. I will accept that. But since I have exactly 8 axioms, and know very well what they are, it's unlikely that you will be able to arrive at them by means of guessing, even if that guessing is educated. Let us say, for the sake of of not rat-holing discourse, that I have faith in things which can demonstrably bring about results. > >> Trolls really do communicate data. > > > > Noise is not data. > > Yes it is, it's just not the data you are expecting. Or not data I want, because it is not representitive of repeatable empirical observations? > > I'm dyslexic [ I guess that's not "adversity", any more than > > near-sightedness, though, since there are coping mechanisms > > available ]. > > I would have never guessed unless you'd told me. As I said, there are coping mechanisms. > > Treating your statement again, in this context: there is no manifest > > destiny for the Internet, however much you might wish that this were > > not the case. It is merely a communications medium. > > IYHO. > > IMEO, there is a manifest destiny for humans to be able to communicate > with each other without some authoritarian gibbert telling them how > they can and cannot speak. That's a use to which you personally want to put a communications medium, and you have picked the Internet as a transport for your venue. That doesn't make it the manifest destiny of the Internet, merely because of your opinion of the manifest destiny of human kind. > The internet is the most likely choice at this time. Perhaps it is. That's irrelevent to the issue of trolls on a particular set of mailing lists, since you can freely create your own mailing lists and realize your vision. If you are right, then everyone will migrate over to using your list server. If you're wrong, then they won't. Your hypothesis is testable, without you having to take over our mailing lists. If it's correct, you will render our lists irrelevent anyway. > > Stop waiting and act to create it. Get your trolls, script kiddies, > > and exploiters to help you. > > At the moment, I have other things to do (like participating in this > tennis game we call "chat"). My time will come, and I will act > impeccably. Then I will leave and let others do their job. For heaven's sake, don't let *me* keep you! > Consider. YOU lobbed the first volley at me. I'm enjoying myself, I > haven't had a good usenet style debate in ages. But by the same token, > I have no delusions that I am swaying you of anything other than > thinking I am a fool. You were the one who posted in favor of trolls. It was you who lobbed the first volley against the established social norm of the society in which your posting was made. > > I'm willing to reciprocate that, but it's probably a lost cause > > given "there is no such thing as an acceptable proof". > > I'm actually quite convincable given a rational argument which accepts > that everything we work with is assumption. However, I don't think you > are capable (I could be wrong), and this is the wrong forum. The forum is FreeBSD-chat, and we are talking about FreeBSD mailing lists and the policies thereof. It's topical to the forum, and anything that is topical to a forum is not incorrect. As for swaying me, you need only work logically from mutually accepted first principles. Unfortunately, you have this Utopian ideal in mind, and I do not share your ideal, because, so far, you have failed to provide me any reason to accept the ideal as my own. As long as you continue to argue from a premise of an as yet unjustified goal state, you will probably find it difficult to find anyone to agree with you who did not arrive at the same ideal on their own. > > Yes. Violence advocated by society is, by definition, not sociopathic. > > "Be All That You Can Be". > > You are presuming One True and Right Society. I bet Iraq has something > to say about the sociopathy of the American armed forces... Not applicable, unless there is a shared reference frame. I don't think "socipath" is the appropriate term in this context; I think the one the Iraqi's themselves have chosen is "Great Satan"... 8-). > Ok, you are fascinated by these trolls and your fascination lies in > how to get rid of them. > > It's still my opinion you are angry and holding that anger from your > own view. But I can settle for fascinated. Thanks. I would rather solve the class of problems, of which trolls are a member, then address the problem of individual trolls. If nothing else, there are economies of scale. 8-). > > Let's just say that it's my single vote, out of the crowd. > > WOO HOO finally I get him to back off of the "I speak for everyone" > thing. *chalk* I never claimed to speak for everyone, merely the faction which agreed with my sentiments, and was not speaking themselves because they felt I was doing an adequate job. You were the one who insisted on converting an "us" into "the royal Us". If I had intended it that way, I would have capitalized it. 8-). > Human judgement doesn't repair itself without the chance to be > defective. Diseased branches can kill a tree if they are not pruned. > Indoctrination produces robots. Education produces real human beings. > Real human beings have good judgement. Robots are just as good a mechanism for the solution of social ills. A person robotically avoiding proscribed behaviours that are detrimental to the larger society has the same effect as a "real human being" who avoids the behaviours, not because they are proscribed, because of their knowledge that the behaviours would be detrimental. Regardless of your opinion of modern education (it can hardly be lower than my own), to the society, it is the effect of the results on the society that matter. A society no more cares for its individual members than you care for the individual cells which make up your body. > > On the other hand, isolation of 100% of infected individuals is 100% > > effective in stopping the spread of any epidemic. > > And dishonorable to those individuals. Do you realize that you are > taking the position of the haughty master, claiming that everyone > that doesn't act as he wants them to should be isolated and locked up? That's an extreme overstatement of my position, on the basis of one of a set of possible solutions to the problem. > > Feel free to point out "new data" like this --> new data <--, to > > ensure clarity. 8-). > > --> WAKE UP, you're asleep! <---- --> I don't BELIEVE you because you refuse to offer proof! <-- -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Sat Aug 31 3: 8:53 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B85A137B400 for ; Sat, 31 Aug 2002 03:08:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from HAL9000.homeunix.com (12-232-220-15.client.attbi.com [12.232.220.15]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E15B543E4A for ; Sat, 31 Aug 2002 03:08:48 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dschultz@uclink.Berkeley.EDU) Received: from HAL9000.homeunix.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by HAL9000.homeunix.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g7VA9dfe000649; Sat, 31 Aug 2002 03:09:39 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dschultz@uclink.Berkeley.EDU) Received: (from das@localhost) by HAL9000.homeunix.com (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) id g7VA9chN000648; Sat, 31 Aug 2002 03:09:38 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dschultz@uclink.Berkeley.EDU) Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 03:09:38 -0700 From: David Schultz To: Terry Lambert Cc: Dave Hayes , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-ID: <20020831100938.GA262@HAL9000.homeunix.com> Mail-Followup-To: Terry Lambert , Dave Hayes , chat@FreeBSD.ORG References: <200208310608.g7V68h128080@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> <3D707754.1981EA36@mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii:iso-8859-1" Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <3D707754.1981EA36@mindspring.com> Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Thus spake Terry Lambert : > If it's not provable, then it's not true. All things which are > true are, at least eventually, provable. ``This statement cannot be proved.'' You should read Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem. ;-) (And yes, I took great pains to get the umlaut correct this time.) Do *you* believe in the Axiom of Choice? To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Sat Aug 31 5:43:53 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FCD137B407 for ; Sat, 31 Aug 2002 05:41:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from relay4.kornet.net (relay4.kornet.net [211.48.62.164]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3CD043E4A for ; Sat, 31 Aug 2002 05:41:56 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from ggaggung13@kornet.net) Received: from you10-l4kjkpuq6 (61.73.15.232) by relay4.kornet.net; 31 Aug 2002 21:41:37 +0900 Message-ID: <3d70b9923dc2b324@relay4.kornet.net> (added by relay4.kornet.net) From: =?ks_c_5601-1987?B?x/a06yDEq7XlILCzwM4gvLOw6Lvn?= To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: =?ks_c_5601-1987?B?W7GksO1dIGZyZWVic2QtY2hhdLTUIMDnuczA1rTCILvnwLrHsMC7ILXluLO0z7TZLg==?= Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 20:49:55 +0900 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0207_01C0F49A.93A55C00" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0207_01C0F49A.93A55C00 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ks_c_5601-1987" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 vcXDu7ytuN7Az8b7IGE6bGlua3sgdGV4dC1kZWNvcmF0aW9uOm5vbmU7IGNvbG9yOmZmZmZm Zjtmb250LXNpemU6OXB0O31hOnZpc2l0ZWQgeyB0ZXh0LWRlY29yYXRpb246bm9uZTsgY29s b3I6ZmZmZmZmO2ZvbnQtc2l6ZTo5cHQ7fWE6aG92ZXIgeyB0ZXh0LWRlY29yYXRpb246dW5k ZXJsaW5lOyBDb2xvcjojRkFCODU2O2ZvbnQtc2l6ZTo5cHQ7fWE6YWN0aXZlIHsgdGV4dC1k ZWNvcmF0aW9uOm5vbmU7Y29sb3I6I0ZBQjg1Njtmb250LXNpemU6OXB0O30tLT4geXl5ICkg fHwgKHlfY2hrID09IHl5eSAmJiBtX2NoayA+IG1tKSB8fCAoeV9jaGsgPT0geXl5ICYmIG1f Y2hrID09IG1tICYmIGRfY2hrID4gZGQpKSB7IGFsZXJ0KCIyMLy8ILnMuLjAuiC9xcO7wMwg utKwobTJx9W0z7TZLiIpOyByZXR1cm4gZmFsc2U7ICB9cmV0dXJuIHRydWU7fS8vwda5zrXu t88gw7zFqWZ1bmN0aW9uIGp1bWluY2hrKGFkdWx0KXsJanVtaW50b3QgPSAwOwlqdW1pbmFk ZCA9ICcyMzQ1Njc4OTIzNDUnOwlmb3IoaT0wO2kNCiANCiAgIA0KICAgICAgDQogDQogICAg IAkJCQkJICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICC8urjtICAJCSAgICAgwda5 zrXut88gufjIoyAoIi0iwNS3wikgDQogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgwffA5SDA /MitICAgICAgyN6068b5ICANCiAgICAgICAgIA0KvcWx1CDIuL/4IL+syLi68SAguOnBpg0K IMf2tOsgwNq1v8L3ILG4wNS9wyDG98DOxq4gx9LAziANCrG5s7vD1sPKIMHWwK8gurjH6Lmr t+EgsKHA1A0KIMGkuvEgwNq1v8L3IL/rx7Agx9LAzg0KICAgICAgDQogIMf2tOsgIE0gxKu1 5Q0KICAgDQoNCiAgDQq9xbHUIMi4v/ggv6zIuLrxICC46cGmDQogseK+xiDA2rW/wvcgsbjA 1L3DIMb3wM7GriDH0sDOIA0Ksbmzu8PWw8ogwdbAryC6uMfouau34SCwocDUDQogwaS68SDA 2rW/wvcgv+vHsCDH0sDODQogICAgICAgseK+xiAgs+u67be5vboNCiAgIA0KDQogICANCsby u/0gv6zIuLrxILjpwaYNCiDG98DOxq6zs7rOLLD4sPqx3SDEq7XlsOHBpiC8rbrxvbogDQog x/a068GkwK8gp6QgtOcgNDC/+CANCr+1yK0gv7m4xSDA5bTnIDIsMDAwv/ggx9LAziANCiAg ICAgIA0KICBLVCAguvTHw7bzwNoNCiAgIA0KDQogIA0Ku+e/68fRIDAuNSW4piAgutK/7MDM v/S1vbHiDQogxvK7/SC/rMi4uvEguOnBpiANCrHdwLa8rbrxvboNCiA1vu8guau34SC6uMfo IA0KDQoNCg0KICAgICAgILvntvvAxyAgvNWw4cbsseINCiAgIA0KDQogICAgILHNx8/AxyAg uN7Az8HWvNK0wiDApbytx87AuyDF68fYILz2wf3H0SCwzcDMuOcsILHXv9y/oSC+7rawx9Eg waS6uLW1ILCusO0gIMDWwfYgvsrAvcC7ILngyPy0z7TZLg0KICDAzCBFLW1haWzAuiC5373F wPy/68DMuOcsIL/4xKEgvsrAuL3HICCw5r/sIL7Gt6Egw6K/oSC43sDPwda80rimIMDUt8LH z7+pIMHWvcO46SC1ziC5+CC02b3DILjewM/AzCAgsKHB9iAgvsq1tbfPIMfPsNq9wLTPtNku DQogICANCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICC6uyC43sDPwLogwaS6uMXrvcW6ziCxx7DtILvn x9e/oSDAx7DFIMGmuPG/oSBbsaSw7V2287DtIMelvcO1yCCxpLDtILjewM/A1LTPtNkuDQog ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgILn2xrDAuyDFrLivx8+9w7jpILz2vcWwxbrOw7O4rrCh IMDMt+e+7iDB/bTPtNkuIA0KICAgICAgICAgIElmIHlvdSB3b24ndCByZWNlaXZlIGFueSBt b3JlIG1haWwgYWJvdXQgdGhpcyBzaXRlLCANCiAgcHJlc3MgYnV0dG9uIGFuZCBmaWxsIHlv dXIgZS1tYWlsIGFkZHJlc3MuIEFuZCB0aGVuIHdlIHdpbGwgbm90IHNlbmQgYW55IG1haWwg dG8geW91DQogICAgICAgICAgDQoNCiAgIA0KICAgICAgDQogICAgIA0KICAgICAgICAgICAg ZW5leHRvcEBseWNvcy5jby5rcg0KICAgICANCiAgICAgICAgIA0KICAgICAgIA0KIA0K ------=_NextPart_000_0207_01C0F49A.93A55C00 Content-Type: text/html; charset="ks_c_5601-1987" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 PGh0bWw+DQoNCjxoZWFkPg0KPG1ldGEgaHR0cC1lcXVpdj0iY29udGVudC10eXBlIiBjb250 ZW50PSJ0ZXh0L2h0bWw7IGNoYXJzZXQ9ZXVjLWtyIj4NCjx0aXRsZT69xcO7vK243sDPxvsg PC90aXRsZT4NCjxTQ1JJUFQgbGFuZ3VhZ2U9amF2YXNjcmlwdD4NCjwhLS0NCmZ1bmN0aW9u IGNsaWNrTW91c2UoKQ0KCXsNCgkgIA0KCQlpZiAoKGV2ZW50LmJ1dHRvbj09MikgfHwgKGV2 ZW50LmJ1dHRvbj09Mykpew0KCQkJcmV0dXJuIChmYWxzZSk7DQoJCX0JDQoJfQ0KCQ0KCWZ1 bmN0aW9uIGNsaWNrS2V5KCkNCgl7DQoJCWlmKChldmVudC5zaGlmdEtleSkgJiYgKGV2ZW50 LmtleUNvZGUgPT0gMTIxKSkNCgkJewkJDQoJCQlyZXR1cm4gZmFsc2U7DQoJCX0JDQoJfQ0K CQ0KCWZ1bmN0aW9uIG5vQWN0aW9uKCl7DQoJCXJldHVybiBmYWxzZTsNCgl9DQoNCmRvY3Vt ZW50Lm9ubW91c2Vkb3duPWNsaWNrTW91c2UNCmRvY3VtZW50Lm9ua2V5ZG93bj1jbGlja0tl eQ0KZG9jdW1lbnQub25jb250ZXh0bWVudT1ub0FjdGlvbg0KZG9jdW1lbnQub25kcmFnc3Rh cnQ9bm9BY3Rpb24NCmRvY3VtZW50Lm9uc2VsZWN0c3RhcnQ9bm9BY3Rpb24NCi8vLS0+DQo8 L3NjcmlwdD4NCjxzdHlsZSB0eXBlPSJ0ZXh0L2NzcyI+DQo8IS0tDQouZm9udCB7ICBmb250 LXNpemU6IDlwdH0NCi0tPg0KYTpsaW5rew0KICAgIHRleHQtZGVjb3JhdGlvbjpub25lOyBj b2xvcjpmZmZmZmY7Zm9udC1zaXplOjlwdDt9DQphOnZpc2l0ZWQgew0KICAgIHRleHQtZGVj b3JhdGlvbjpub25lOyBjb2xvcjpmZmZmZmY7Zm9udC1zaXplOjlwdDt9DQphOmhvdmVyIHsN CiAgICB0ZXh0LWRlY29yYXRpb246dW5kZXJsaW5lOyBDb2xvcjojRkFCODU2O2ZvbnQtc2l6 ZTo5cHQ7fQ0KYTphY3RpdmUgew0KICAgIHRleHQtZGVjb3JhdGlvbjpub25lO2NvbG9yOiNG QUI4NTY7Zm9udC1zaXplOjlwdDt9DQotLT4NCjwvc3R5bGU+DQo8c2NyaXB0IGxhbmd1YWdl PSJKYXZhU2NyaXB0Ij4NCjwhLS0NCg0KZnVuY3Rpb24gc2VuZGl0KCl7DQoNCiAgICBpZiAo bWFpbGZybTEubmFtZS52YWx1ZSA9PSAiIil7DQogICAgICAgIGFsZXJ0KCK8urjtwLsgwNS3 wsfPvcq9w7/ALiIpOw0KICAgICAgICBtYWlsZnJtMS5uYW1lLmZvY3VzKCk7DQoNCiAgICAg ICAgcmV0dXJuIGZhbHNlOw0KICAgIH0NCglpZiAobWFpbGZybTEuaGFuZG51bS52YWx1ZT09 IiIpew0KCQlhbGVydCgiwPu+7rW1IMfPs6rAxyDA/MitufjIo7imIMDUt8LH2MHWvLy/5C5c blxutdG02SDA1LfCx8+9w7jpILr8uKW9xcO7wMwgsKG0ycfVtM+02S4iKTsNCgkJbWFpbGZy bTEuaGFuZG51bS5mb2N1cygpOw0KDQoJCXJldHVybiBmYWxzZTsNCgl9DQogICAgdmFyIGp1 bWluID0gbWFpbGZybTEuanVtaW4udmFsdWU7DQoNCglpZiAoanVtaW5jaGsoanVtaW4pKXsN CgkJYWxlcnQoIsHWuc617rfPufjIo7ChIL/Dudm4o8H2IL7KvcC0z7TZLiIpOw0KCQltYWls ZnJtMS5qdW1pbi5zZWxlY3QoKTsNCgkJcmV0dXJuIGZhbHNlOw0KCX0NCg0KICAgIHRvZGF5 ID0gbmV3IERhdGUoKTsNCiAgICB5eSA9IHRvZGF5LmdldFllYXIoKTsNCiAgICBtbSA9IHRv ZGF5LmdldE1vbnRoKCkrMTsNCiAgICBkZCA9IHRvZGF5LmdldERhdGUoKTsNCiAgICB5eXkg PSBldmFsKHl5KSAtIGV2YWwoMTkpDQogICAgDQogICAgeV9jaGsgPSBldmFsKCIxOSIranVt aW4uc3Vic3RyaW5nKDAsMikpDQogICAgbV9jaGsgPSBldmFsKGp1bWluLnN1YnN0cmluZygy LDQpKQ0KICAgIGRfY2hrID0gZXZhbChqdW1pbi5zdWJzdHJpbmcoNCw2KSkNCg0KICAgIGlm ICgoeV9jaGsgPiB5eXkgKSB8fCAoeV9jaGsgPT0geXl5ICYmIG1fY2hrID4gbW0pIHx8ICh5 X2NoayA9PSB5eXkgJiYgbV9jaGsgPT0gbW0gJiYgZF9jaGsgPiBkZCkpIHsNCg0KICAgICAg ICBhbGVydCgiMjC8vCC5zLi4wLogvcXDu8DMILrSsKG0ycfVtM+02S4iKTsNCiAgICAgICAg cmV0dXJuIGZhbHNlOw0KICAgICAgICANCiAgICB9DQpyZXR1cm4gdHJ1ZTsNCn0NCg0KLy/B 1rnOte63zyDDvMWpDQpmdW5jdGlvbiBqdW1pbmNoayhhZHVsdCl7DQoJanVtaW50b3QgPSAw Ow0KCWp1bWluYWRkID0gJzIzNDU2Nzg5MjM0NSc7DQoNCglmb3IoaT0wO2k8MTI7aSsrKXsN Cg0KCQlqdW1pbnRvdCA9IGp1bWludG90ICsgcGFyc2VJbnQoYWR1bHQuc3Vic3RyaW5nKGks aSsxKSkgKiBwYXJzZUludChqdW1pbmFkZC5zdWJzdHJpbmcoaSxpKzEpKTsNCgl9DQoNCglq dW1pbnRvdCA9IDExLShqdW1pbnRvdCUxMSk7DQoNCglpZiAoanVtaW50b3QgPT0gMTApew0K CQlqdW1pbnRvdD0wOw0KCX0NCgllbHNlIGlmIChqdW1pbnRvdCA9PSAxMSl7DQoJCWp1bWlu dG90ID0gMTsNCgl9DQoNCglpZiAocGFyc2VJbnQoYWR1bHQuc3Vic3RyaW5nKDEyLDEzKSkg IT0ganVtaW50b3QpDQoJcmV0dXJuIHRydWUNCn0NCg0KLy8tLT4NCjwvc2NyaXB0Pg0KDQo8 L2hlYWQ+DQo8Ym9keSBiZ2NvbG9yPSJ3aGl0ZSIgdGV4dD0iYmxhY2siIGxpbms9ImJsdWUi IHZsaW5rPSJwdXJwbGUiIGFsaW5rPSJyZWQiIG9ubG9hZD0ibWFpbGZybTEubmFtZS5mb2N1 cygpOyI+DQo8cD4mbmJzcDs8L3A+DQo8dGFibGUgYWxpZ249ImNlbnRlciIgYm9yZGVyPSIx IiBjZWxsc3BhY2luZz0iMCIgd2lkdGg9IjYzMiIgYm9yZGVyY29sb3JkYXJrPSJ3aGl0ZSIg Ym9yZGVyY29sb3JsaWdodD0iYmxhY2siIGJnY29sb3I9IndoaXRlIj4NCiAgICA8dHI+DQog ICAgICAgIDx0ZCB3aWR0aD0iOTc0Ij4NCiAgICAgICAgICAgIDxwIGFsaWduPSJjZW50ZXIi PjxpbWcgc3JjPSJodHRwOi8vaXllc2NhcmQuY29tL2ltZy83LmdpZiIgd2lkdGg9IjYzMiIg aGVpZ2h0PSIxNzQiIGJvcmRlcj0iMCI+PC9wPg0KICAgICAgICA8L3RkPg0KICAgIDwvdHI+ DQogICAgPHRyPg0KICAgICAgICA8dGQgd2lkdGg9Ijk3NCI+DQogICAgICAgICAgICANCiAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICA8cD4mbmJzcDs8aW1nIHNyYz0iaHR0cDovL2l5ZXNjYXJkLmNvbS9p bWcvYm90dG9tNi5naWYiIHdpZHRoPSI2MjMiIGhlaWdodD0iMjExIiBib3JkZXI9IjAiPjwv cD4NCiAgICAgICAgICAgIDwvZm9ybT4NCiAgICAgICAgPC90ZD4NCiAgICA8L3RyPg0KICAg IDx0cj4NCiAgICAgICAgPHRkIHdpZHRoPSI5NzQiPg0KCQkNCgkJCTxmb3JtIG5hbWU9Im1h aWxmcm0xIiBhY3Rpb249Imh0dHA6Ly93d3cuaXllc2NhcmQuY29tL21haWwvaW5zZXJ0MS5h c3AiIG1ldGhvZD0icG9zdCIgb25zdWJtaXQ9InJldHVybiBzZW5kaXQoKTsiPg0KICAgICAg ICAgICAgJm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7 Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7 Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7 Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7PGZvbnQgc2l6ZT0iMiIgY29sb3I9IiM2 NjY2NjYiPry6uO08L2ZvbnQ+PEZPTlQgc2l6ZT0yPiAgDQogICAgICAgICAgPC9GT05UPjxp bnB1dCB0eXBlPSJ0ZXh0IiBuYW1lPSJuYW1lIiBzaXplPSI2Ij4NCgkJICAmbmJzcDsmbmJz cDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDs8Zm9udCBzaXplPSIyIiBjb2xvcj0iIzY2NjY2NiI+wda5zrXut88g ufjIoyA8L2ZvbnQ+PGlucHV0IHR5cGU9InRleHQiIG5hbWU9Imp1bWluIiBzaXplPSIxNCIg bWF4bGVuZ3RoPSIxNCI+PGZvbnQgc2l6ZT0iMiIgZmFjZT0isby4siIgY29sb3I9IiM2NjY2 NjYiPigmcXVvdDstJnF1b3Q7wNS3wik8L2ZvbnQ+PGZvbnQgY29sb3I9IiM5OTk5OTkiPg0K ICAgICAgICAgIDwvZm9udD48YnI+ICZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZu YnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZu YnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZu YnNwOyZuYnNwOzxmb250IHNpemU9IjIiIGNvbG9yPSIjNjY2NjY2Ij7B98DlIMD8yK0gIA0K ICAgICAgICAgIDwvZm9udD48aW5wdXQgdHlwZT0idGV4dCIgbmFtZT0idGVsbnVtIiBzaXpl PSIxMyI+DQogICAgICAgICAgJm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7PGZvbnQgc2l6ZT0iMiIgY29s b3I9IiM2NjY2NjYiPsjetOvG+SA8L2ZvbnQ+PEZPTlQgc2l6ZT0yPjxpbnB1dCB0eXBlPSJ0 ZXh0IiBuYW1lPSJoYW5kbnVtIiBzaXplPSIxNSI+DQogICAgICAgICAgPC9GT05UPjxpbnB1 dCB0eXBlPSJzdWJtaXQiIG5hbWU9IlN1Ym1pdDIiIHZhbHVlPSK9xcO7Ij48L3A+DQogICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICA8L2Zvcm0+DQogICAgICAgIDwvdGQ+DQogICAgPC90cj4N CiAgICA8dHI+DQogICAgICAgIDx0ZCB3aWR0aD0iOTc0Ij48VEFCTEUgYm9yZGVyQ29sb3I9 d2hpdGUgY2VsbFNwYWNpbmc9MCANCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg Ym9yZGVyQ29sb3JEYXJrPXdoaXRlIGNlbGxQYWRkaW5nPTAgd2lkdGg9IjYyMSIgDQogICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIGFsaWduPWNlbnRlciBib3JkZXJDb2xvckxp Z2h0PSMwMDY2OTkgYm9yZGVyPTE+DQogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg IDxUQk9EWT4NCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgPFRSPg0KICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICA8VEQgd2lkdGg9IjMyNCI+DQogICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIDxQIGFsaWduPWxlZnQ+PEJSPjxJTUcgaGVpZ2h0PSI2 NiIgDQogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIHNyYz0iaHR0cDovL2l5ZXNj YXJkLmNvbS9pbWcvY2FyZF9pbWdfMjAuZ2lmIiB3aWR0aD0iMTA1IiANCiAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgYWxpZ249bGVmdCBib3JkZXI9MD48SU1HIGhlaWdodD03 IA0KICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICBzcmM9Imh0dHA6Ly9peWVzY2Fy ZC5jb20vaW1nL2J1XzAxLmdpZiIgd2lkdGg9NCANCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgYm9yZGVyPTA+IDxTUEFOIHN0eWxlPSJGT05ULVNJWkU6IDlwdCI+vcWx1CDI uL/4IL+syLi68SANCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAguOnBpjxCUj48 SU1HIGhlaWdodD03IA0KICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICBzcmM9Imh0 dHA6Ly9peWVzY2FyZC5jb20vaW1nL2J1XzAxLmdpZiIgd2lkdGg9NCANCiAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgYm9yZGVyPTA+IMf2tOsgwNq1v8L3ILG4wNS9wyDG98DO xq4gx9LAziA8QlI+PElNRyBoZWlnaHQ9NyANCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgc3JjPSJodHRwOi8vaXllc2NhcmQuY29tL2ltZy9idV8wMS5naWYiIHdpZHRoPTQg DQogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIGJvcmRlcj0wPiCxubO7w9bDyiDB 1sCvILq4x+i5q7fhILChwNQ8QlI+PElNRyBoZWlnaHQ9NyANCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgc3JjPSJodHRwOi8vaXllc2NhcmQuY29tL2ltZy9idV8wMS5naWYi IHdpZHRoPTQgDQogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIGJvcmRlcj0wPiDB pLrxIMDatb/C9yC/68ewIMfSwM48L1NQQU4+PC9QPg0KICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICA8RElWIGFsaWduPWxlZnQ+DQogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgIDxUQUJMRSBjZWxsU3BhY2luZz0wIGNlbGxQYWRkaW5nPTAgYm9yZGVyPTA+DQog ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIDxUQk9EWT4NCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgPFRSPg0KICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICA8VEQgd2lkdGg9MTUyPg0KICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICA8UD4m bmJzcDsmbmJzcDs8U1BBTiANCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgc3R5 bGU9IkZPTlQtU0laRTogOXB0Ij48Rk9OVCBjb2xvcj0jY2Q0NDMzPjxCPsf2tOsgDQogICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIE0gxKu15TwvQj48L0ZPTlQ+PC9TUEFOPjwv UD48L1REPg0KICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICA8VEQgd2lkdGg9MTUy Pg0KICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICA8UCBhbGlnbj1sZWZ0PiAmbmJz cDs8L1A+PC9URD48L1RSPjwvVEJPRFk+PC9UQUJMRT48L0RJVj48L1REPg0KICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICA8VEQgd2lkdGg9IjI5MSI+DQogICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIDxQIGFsaWduPWxlZnQ+PEJSPjxJTUcgaGVpZ2h0PSI2MyIg DQogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIHNyYz0iaHR0cDovL2l5ZXNjYXJk LmNvbS9pbWcvY2FyZF9pbWdfMjEuZ2lmIiB3aWR0aD0iOTkiIA0KICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICBhbGlnbj1sZWZ0IGJvcmRlcj0wPjxJTUcgaGVpZ2h0PTcgDQog ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIHNyYz0iaHR0cDovL2l5ZXNjYXJkLmNv bS9pbWcvYnVfMDEuZ2lmIiB3aWR0aD00IA0KICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICBib3JkZXI9MD4gPFNQQU4gc3R5bGU9IkZPTlQtU0laRTogOXB0Ij69xbHUIMi4v/gg v6zIuLrxIA0KICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICC46cGmPEJSPjxJTUcg aGVpZ2h0PTcgDQogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIHNyYz0iaHR0cDov L2l5ZXNjYXJkLmNvbS9pbWcvYnVfMDEuZ2lmIiB3aWR0aD00IA0KICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICBib3JkZXI9MD4gseK+xiZuYnNwO8Datb/C9yCxuMDUvcMgxvfA zsauIMfSwM4gPEJSPjxJTUcgDQogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIGhl aWdodD03IHNyYz0iaHR0cDovL2l5ZXNjYXJkLmNvbS9pbWcvYnVfMDEuZ2lmIiB3aWR0aD00 IA0KICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICBib3JkZXI9MD4gsbmzu8PWw8og wdbAryC6uMfouau34SCwocDUPEJSPjxJTUcgaGVpZ2h0PTcgDQogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIHNyYz0iaHR0cDovL2l5ZXNjYXJkLmNvbS9pbWcvYnVfMDEuZ2lm IiB3aWR0aD00IA0KICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICBib3JkZXI9MD4g waS68SDA2rW/wvcgv+vHsCDH0sDOPC9TUEFOPjwvUD4NCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgPERJViBhbGlnbj1sZWZ0Pg0KICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICA8VEFCTEUgY2VsbFNwYWNpbmc9MCBjZWxsUGFkZGluZz0wIGJvcmRlcj0wPg0K ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICA8VEJPRFk+DQogICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIDxUUj4NCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgPFREIHdpZHRoPTE0MT4NCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgPFAg YWxpZ249bGVmdD48U1BBTiANCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgc3R5 bGU9IkZPTlQtU0laRTogOXB0Ij48Rk9OVCBjb2xvcj0jY2Q0NDMzPjxCPiZuYnNwO7HivsYg DQogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgILPruu23ub26PC9CPjwvRk9OVD48 L1NQQU4+PC9QPjwvVEQ+DQogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIDxURCB3 aWR0aD0xNDE+DQogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIDxQIGFsaWduPWxl ZnQ+ICZuYnNwOzwvUD48L1REPjwvVFI+PC9UQk9EWT48L1RBQkxFPjwvRElWPjwvVEQ+PC9U Uj4NCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgPFRSPg0KICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICA8VEQgd2lkdGg9IjMyNCI+DQogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIDxQIGFsaWduPWxlZnQ+PEJSPjxJTUcgaGVpZ2h0PSI3MiIgDQog ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIHNyYz0iaHR0cDovL2l5ZXNjYXJkLmNv bS9pbWcvcGFydG5lcjE1X2NhcmRfaW1nLmpwZyIgDQogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgIHdpZHRoPSIxMTMiIGFsaWduPWxlZnQgYm9yZGVyPTA+PElNRyBoZWlnaHQ9 NyANCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgc3JjPSJodHRwOi8vaXllc2Nh cmQuY29tL2ltZy9idV8wMS5naWYiIHdpZHRoPTQgDQogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgIGJvcmRlcj0wPiA8U1BBTiBzdHlsZT0iRk9OVC1TSVpFOiA5cHQiPsbyu/0m bmJzcDu/rMi4uvEguOnBpjxCUj48SU1HIA0KICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICBoZWlnaHQ9NyBzcmM9Imh0dHA6Ly9peWVzY2FyZC5jb20vaW1nL2J1XzAxLmdpZiIg d2lkdGg9NCANCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgYm9yZGVyPTA+IMb3 wM7GrrOzus4ssPiw+rHdIMSrteWw4cGmILytuvG9uiZuYnNwOzxCUj48SU1HIA0KICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICBoZWlnaHQ9NyBzcmM9Imh0dHA6Ly9peWVzY2Fy ZC5jb20vaW1nL2J1XzAxLmdpZiIgd2lkdGg9NCANCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgYm9yZGVyPTA+IMf2tOvBpMCvIKekILTnIDQwv/ggPEJSPjxJTUcgaGVpZ2h0 PTcgDQogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIHNyYz0iaHR0cDovL2l5ZXNj YXJkLmNvbS9pbWcvYnVfMDEuZ2lmIiB3aWR0aD00IA0KICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICBib3JkZXI9MD4gv7XIrSC/ubjFIMDltOcgMiwwMDC/+CDH0sDOIDwvU1BB Tj48L1A+DQogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIDxESVYgYWxpZ249bGVm dD4NCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgPFRBQkxFIGNlbGxTcGFjaW5n PTAgY2VsbFBhZGRpbmc9MCBib3JkZXI9MD4NCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgPFRCT0RZPg0KICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICA8VFI+DQog ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIDxURCB3aWR0aD0xNTIgaGVpZ2h0PTE3 Pg0KICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICA8UD4mbmJzcDsmbmJzcDs8U1BB TiANCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgc3R5bGU9IkZPTlQtU0laRTog OXB0Ij48Rk9OVCBjb2xvcj0jY2Q0NDMzPjxCPktUIA0KICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICC69MfDtvPA2jwvQj48L0ZPTlQ+PC9TUEFOPjwvUD48L1REPg0KICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICA8VEQgd2lkdGg9MTUyIGhlaWdodD0xNz4NCiAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgPFAgYWxpZ249bGVmdD4gJm5ic3A7PC9Q PjwvVEQ+PC9UUj48L1RCT0RZPjwvVEFCTEU+PC9ESVY+PC9URD4NCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgPFREIHdpZHRoPSIyOTEiPg0KICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICA8UCBhbGlnbj1sZWZ0Pjxicj48SU1HIGhlaWdodD0iNjgiIA0KICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICBzcmM9Imh0dHA6Ly9peWVzY2FyZC5jb20v aW1nL2NhcmRfaW1nXzExLmdpZiIgd2lkdGg9IjEwNiIgDQogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgIGFsaWduPWxlZnQgYm9yZGVyPTA+PElNRyBoZWlnaHQ9NyANCiAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgc3JjPSJodHRwOi8vaXllc2NhcmQuY29tL2lt Zy9idV8wMS5naWYiIHdpZHRoPTQgDQogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg IGJvcmRlcj0wPiA8U1BBTiBzdHlsZT0iRk9OVC1TSVpFOiA5cHQiPrvnv+vH0SAwLjUluKYg DQogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgILrSv+zAzL/0tb2x4jxCUj48SU1H IGhlaWdodD03IA0KICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICBzcmM9Imh0dHA6 Ly9peWVzY2FyZC5jb20vaW1nL2J1XzAxLmdpZiIgd2lkdGg9NCANCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgYm9yZGVyPTA+IMbyu/0mbmJzcDu/rMi4uvEguOnBpiA8QlI+ PElNRyBoZWlnaHQ9NyANCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgc3JjPSJo dHRwOi8vaXllc2NhcmQuY29tL2ltZy9idV8wMS5naWYiIHdpZHRoPTQgDQogICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIGJvcmRlcj0wPiCx3cC2vK268b26PEJSPjxJTUcgaGVp Z2h0PTcgDQogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIHNyYz0iaHR0cDovL2l5 ZXNjYXJkLmNvbS9pbWcvYnVfMDEuZ2lmIiB3aWR0aD00IA0KICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICBib3JkZXI9MD4gNb7vILmrt+EgurjH6CA8YnI+PGJyPjxicj48L1NQ QU4+PC9QPg0KICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICA8RElWIGFsaWduPWxl ZnQ+DQogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIDxUQUJMRSBjZWxsU3BhY2lu Zz0wIGNlbGxQYWRkaW5nPTAgYm9yZGVyPTA+DQogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgIDxUQk9EWT4NCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgPFRSPg0K ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICA8VEQgd2lkdGg9MTQzPg0KICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICA8UCBhbGlnbj1sZWZ0PjxTUEFOIA0KICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICBzdHlsZT0iRk9OVC1TSVpFOiA5cHQiPjxGT05U IGNvbG9yPSNjZDQ0MzM+PEI+Jm5ic3A7u+e2+8DHIA0KICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICC81bDhxuyx4jwvQj48L0ZPTlQ+PC9TUEFOPjwvUD48L1REPg0KICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICA8VEQgd2lkdGg9MTQzPg0KICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICA8UCBhbGlnbj1sZWZ0PiAmbmJzcDs8L1A+PC9URD48L1RS PjwvVEJPRFk+PC9UQUJMRT48L0RJVj48L1REPjwvVFI+PC9UQk9EWT48L1RBQkxFPiAgICAg ICAgPC90ZD4NCiAgICA8L3RyPg0KICAgIDx0cj4NCiAgICAgICAgPHRkIHdpZHRoPSI5NzQi PjxwIGFsaWduPSJsZWZ0Ij48Zm9udCBzaXplPSIyIiBmYWNlPSKxvLiyIiBjb2xvcj0iIzY2 NjY2NiI+Jm5ic3A7sc3Hz8DHIA0KICAgICAgICAgICAguN7Az8HWvNK0wiDApbytx87AuyDF 68fYILz2wf3H0SCwzcDMuOcsILHXv9y/oSC+7rawx9EgwaS6uLW1ILCusO0gDQogICAgICAg ICAgICDA1sH2IL7KwL3AuyC54Mj8tM+02S48YnI+ICZuYnNwO8DMIEUtbWFpbMC6ILnfvcXA /L/rwMy45ywgv/jEoSC+ysC4vccgDQogICAgICAgICAgICCw5r/sIL7Gt6Egw6K/oSC43sDP wda80rimIMDUt8LHz7+pIMHWvcO46SC1ziC5+CC02b3DILjewM/AzCANCiAgICAgICAgICAg ILChwfYgJm5ic3A7vsq1tbfPIMfPsNq9wLTPtNkuPGJyPiAmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDs8YnI+ICZu YnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZu YnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOzwv Zm9udD48Rk9OVCBmYWNlPSKxvLiyIiBjb2xvcj0iIzY2NjY2NiIgc2l6ZT0yPrq7ILjewM/A uiDBpLq4xeu9xbrOILHHsO0gu+fH17+hIMDHsMUgwaa48b+hIA0KPC9GT05UPjxGT05UIGZh Y2U9IrG8uLIiIGNvbG9yPSJyZWQiIHNpemU9IjIiPluxpLDtXTwvRk9OVD48Rk9OVCBmYWNl PSKxvLiyIiBjb2xvcj0iIzY2NjY2NiIgc2l6ZT0yPrbzsO0gx6W9w7XIILGksO0guN7Az8DU tM+02S48L0ZPTlQ+PGZvbnQgY29sb3I9IiM2NjY2NjYiPjxCUj4gJm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5i c3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5i c3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7PC9m b250PjxhIGhyZWY9Imh0dHA6Ly9peWVzY2FyZC5jb20vcmVzZnVsLmh0bWwiPjxmb250IGNv bG9yPSIjNjY2NjY2Ij48aW1nIHNyYz0iaHR0cDovL2l5ZXNjYXJkLmNvbS9pbWcvYnV0dG9u XzMuZ2lmIiB3aWR0aD0iNzEiIGhlaWdodD0iMjUiIGJvcmRlcj0iMCI+PC9mb250PjwvYT48 Zm9udCBjb2xvcj0iIzY2NjY2NiI+IA0KICAgICAgICAgICAgPC9mb250PjxGT05UIGNvbG9y PSIjNjY2NjY2IiANCnNpemU9Mj659sawwLsgxay4r8fPvcO46SC89r3FsMW6zsOzuK6woSDA zLfnvu4gwf20z7TZLjwvRk9OVD48Zm9udCBjb2xvcj0iIzY2NjY2NiI+IDwvZm9udD48L3A+ DQogICAgICAgIDwvdGQ+DQogICAgPC90cj4NCiAgICA8dHI+DQogICAgICAgIDx0ZCB3aWR0 aD0iOTc0Ij4NCiAgICAgICAgICAgIDxwIGFsaWduPSJjZW50ZXIiPjxmb250IGNvbG9yPSIj NjY2NjY2Ij4mbmJzcDs8L2ZvbnQ+PEZPTlQgZmFjZT0isby4siIgY29sb3I9IiM2NjY2NjYi IHNpemU9Mj4mbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDtJZiB5b3Ugd29uJ3QgcmVjZWl2ZSBh bnkgbW9yZSBtYWlsIGFib3V0IHRoaXMgDQpzaXRlLCA8L0ZPTlQ+PGZvbnQgY29sb3I9IiM2 NjY2NjYiPjxCUj4gJm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7PC9mb250PjxhIGhyZWY9Imh0dHA6Ly9peWVzY2Fy ZC5jb20vcmVzZnVsLmh0bWwiPjxmb250IGNvbG9yPSIjNjY2NjY2Ij48aW1nIHNyYz0iaHR0 cDovL2l5ZXNjYXJkLmNvbS9pbWcvYnV0dG9uXzQuZ2lmIiB3aWR0aD0iNzEiIGhlaWdodD0i MjUiIGJvcmRlcj0iMCI+PC9mb250PjwvYT48Rk9OVCBjb2xvcj0iIzY2NjY2NiIgDQpzaXpl PTI+cHJlc3MgYnV0dG9uIGFuZCBmaWxsIHlvdXIgZS1tYWlsIGFkZHJlc3MuIEFuZCB0aGVu IHdlIHdpbGwgbm90IHNlbmQgYW55IA0KbWFpbCB0byB5b3U8L0ZPTlQ+PC9wPg0KICAgICAg ICA8L3RkPg0KICAgIDwvdHI+DQogICAgPHRyPg0KICAgICAgICA8dGQgd2lkdGg9Ijk3NCIg Ymdjb2xvcj0iIzhCQjVFMiI+DQo8dGFibGUgYWxpZ249ImNlbnRlciIgYm9yZGVyPSIxIiBj ZWxsc3BhY2luZz0iMCIgd2lkdGg9IjYzMiIgYm9yZGVyY29sb3JkYXJrPSJ3aGl0ZSIgYm9y ZGVyY29sb3JsaWdodD0iYmxhY2siIGJnY29sb3I9IndoaXRlIj4NCiAgICA8dHI+DQogICAg ICAgIDx0ZCB3aWR0aD0iNjI2IiBiZ2NvbG9yPSJ3aGl0ZSI+DQogICAgICAgICAgICA8dGFi bGUgY2VsbHBhZGRpbmc9IjAiIGNlbGxzcGFjaW5nPSIwIiB3aWR0aD0iNjMyIj4NCiAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICA8dHI+DQogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIDx0ZCB3aWR0aD0iMTI2IiBo ZWlnaHQ9IjUyIiByb3dzcGFuPSIzIj4NCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIDxwPjxp bWcgc3JjPSJodHRwOi8vd2VtZXMuY29tL2ltYWdlL8f2tOu3zrDtLmdpZiIgd2lkdGg9IjE5 NyIgaGVpZ2h0PSI0NyIgYm9yZGVyPSIwIj48L3A+DQogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIDwv dGQ+DQogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIDx0ZCB3aWR0aD0iNDkwIiBoZWlnaHQ9IjEzIj4N CiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIDxwPiZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZu YnNwOyZuYnNwOzxpbWcgc3JjPSJodHRwOi8vd2VtZXMuY29tL2ltYWdlL21haWwxLmdpZiIg d2lkdGg9IjM0MCIgaGVpZ2h0PSIxMiIgYm9yZGVyPSIwIj48L3A+DQogICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgIDwvdGQ+DQogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgPC90cj4NCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICA8 dHI+DQogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIDx0ZCB3aWR0aD0iNDkwIiBoZWlnaHQ9IjE1Ij4N CiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIDxwPiZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZu YnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOzxpbWcgc3Jj PSJodHRwOi8vd2VtZXMuY29tL2ltYWdlL7+stvTDszEuZ2lmIiB3aWR0aD0iMTMzIiBoZWln aHQ9IjEyIiBib3JkZXI9IjAiPjxhIGhyZWY9Im1haWx0bzplbmV4dG9wQGx5Y29zLmNvLmty Ij48Zm9udCBjb2xvcj0iIzg4ODY4NiIgc2l6ZT0iMiIgZmFjZT0isby4siI+ZW5leHRvcEBs eWNvcy5jby5rcjwvZm9udD48L2E+PC9wPg0KICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICA8L3RkPg0K ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIDwvdHI+DQogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgPHRyPg0KICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICA8dGQgd2lkdGg9IjQ5MCIgaGVpZ2h0PSIxNiI+DQogICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICA8cD4mbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJz cDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDs8aW1nIHNyYz0iaHR0cDovL3dlbWVzLmNvbS9pbWFnZS9jb3B5cmln aHQuZ2lmIiB3aWR0aD0iMzQwIiBoZWlnaHQ9IjEyIiBib3JkZXI9IjAiPjwvcD4NCiAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgPC90ZD4NCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICA8L3RyPg0KICAgICAgICAg ICAgPC90YWJsZT4NCiAgICAgICAgPC90ZD4NCiAgICA8L3RyPg0KPC90YWJsZT4NCiAgICAg ICAgPC90ZD4NCiAgICA8L3RyPg0KPC90YWJsZT4NCjxwPiZuYnNwOzwvcD4NCjwvYm9keT4N Cg0KPC9odG1sPg0K ------=_NextPart_000_0207_01C0F49A.93A55C00-- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Sat Aug 31 8: 1:24 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B65337B400 for ; Sat, 31 Aug 2002 08:01:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from directvinternet.com (dsl-65-185-140-165.telocity.com [65.185.140.165]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA79143E3B for ; Sat, 31 Aug 2002 08:01:20 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from Tolstoy.home.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by directvinternet.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g7VF1GGd008327; Sat, 31 Aug 2002 08:01:16 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from localhost (nwestfal@localhost) by Tolstoy.home.lan (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id g7VF1EK8008324; Sat, 31 Aug 2002 08:01:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: Tolstoy.home.lan: nwestfal owned process doing -bs Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 08:01:14 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" X-X-Sender: nwestfal@Tolstoy.home.lan To: Terry Lambert Cc: Giorgos Keramidas , Drew Raines , Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: <3D7059B2.88550EB9@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <20020831080044.V8288-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Fri, 30 Aug 2002, Terry Lambert wrote: > "Neal E. Westfall" wrote: > > On Fri, 30 Aug 2002, Giorgos Keramidas wrote: > > > What "Creator"? > > > > You are begging the question. If the thesis is that sin keeps > > you from knowing the Creator, asking "What Creator" is just > > confirmation of the thesis. You have two options: > > > > 1) Stop sinning. (With man this is impossible) > > 2) Refute the premise that you are a sinner. > > "Successfully refuting the premise that you are a sinner, is a sin". Not if truly successfull. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Sat Aug 31 12:26:11 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A5FE37B48F for ; Sat, 31 Aug 2002 12:26:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.uninterruptible.net (ns1.uninterruptible.net [216.7.46.11]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5558B43E3B for ; Sat, 31 Aug 2002 12:26:04 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from kris@catonic.net) Received: from Spaz.Catonic.NET (tnt6-216-180-4-157.dialup.HiWAAY.net [216.180.4.157]) by mail.uninterruptible.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F6E65002E; Sat, 31 Aug 2002 19:25:57 +0000 (GMT) Received: by Spaz.Catonic.NET (Postfix, from userid 1002) id 0E5EE3352; Sat, 31 Aug 2002 19:25:53 +0000 (GMT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by Spaz.Catonic.NET (Postfix) with ESMTP id 090CB4C57; Sat, 31 Aug 2002 19:25:53 +0000 (GMT) Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 19:25:52 +0000 (GMT) From: Kris Kirby To: Terry Lambert Cc: Dave Hayes , Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: <3D707754.1981EA36@mindspring.com> Message-ID: X-Mailer: !/bin/sh MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Sat, 31 Aug 2002, Terry Lambert wrote: > > > I already suggested an abandoned oil righ in the North Atlantic; > > > must I think of everything? ;^). > > > > That won't work. Some insurance company with hundreds of lawyers will > > come out and claim that rig someday. Where else? Mars might work but > > in a few hundred years might not. Where can I be free of lawyers? > > First, there is already an individual who has colonized an oil rig > in the North Atlantic in this fashion. It was fairly widely reported > about four weeks ago. Second, finding a location where you can be > free of lawyers is *your* problem, not mine. URL. I must see this. (I don't watch TV anymore.) -- Kris Kirby, KE4AHR TGIFreeBSD IM: 'KrisBSD' "BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU!" This message brought to you by the US Department of Homeland Security To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Sat Aug 31 12:40:39 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB99137B400 for ; Sat, 31 Aug 2002 12:40:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from host217-41-71-55.in-addr.btopenworld.com (host217-41-71-55.in-addr.btopenworld.com [217.41.71.55]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5255D43E6A for ; Sat, 31 Aug 2002 12:40:36 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dom@host217-41-71-55.in-addr.btopenworld.com) Received: by host217-41-71-55.in-addr.btopenworld.com (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 5EE094DE; Sat, 31 Aug 2002 20:40:26 +0100 (BST) Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 20:40:26 +0100 From: Dominic Marks To: Kris Kirby Cc: Terry Lambert , Dave Hayes , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-ID: <20020831194026.GA22215@gallium> References: <3D707754.1981EA36@mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Sat, Aug 31, 2002 at 07:25:52PM +0000, Kris Kirby wrote: > On Sat, 31 Aug 2002, Terry Lambert wrote: > > > > I already suggested an abandoned oil righ in the North Atlantic; > > > > must I think of everything? ;^). > > > > > > That won't work. Some insurance company with hundreds of lawyers will > > > come out and claim that rig someday. Where else? Mars might work but > > > in a few hundred years might not. Where can I be free of lawyers? > > > > First, there is already an individual who has colonized an oil rig > > in the North Atlantic in this fashion. It was fairly widely reported > > about four weeks ago. Second, finding a location where you can be > > free of lawyers is *your* problem, not mine. > > URL. I must see this. (I don't watch TV anymore.) http://www.sealandgov.com/ I don't think this is what the original poster is refering to because Sealand has existed for much longer than four weeks, however it is an example of the same thing. > -- > Kris Kirby, KE4AHR TGIFreeBSD IM: 'KrisBSD' > "BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU!" > This message brought to you by the US Department of Homeland Security > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message Please *don't* keep in me the CC chain of this thread. -- Dominic Marks Computer & Politics Geek [work]::[npl.co.uk] << dominic.marks at npl.co.uk >> [educ]::[umist.ac.uk] << notyet-known at umist.ac.uk >> [home]::[btinternet] << dominic_marks at btinternet.com >> To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Sat Aug 31 12:52:11 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2966837B400 for ; Sat, 31 Aug 2002 12:52:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.uninterruptible.net (ns1.uninterruptible.net [216.7.46.11]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D1AB43E4A for ; Sat, 31 Aug 2002 12:52:07 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from kris@catonic.net) Received: from Spaz.Catonic.NET (tnt6-216-180-4-157.dialup.HiWAAY.net [216.180.4.157]) by mail.uninterruptible.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1031650037; Sat, 31 Aug 2002 19:52:01 +0000 (GMT) Received: by Spaz.Catonic.NET (Postfix, from userid 1002) id 699313352; Sat, 31 Aug 2002 19:51:57 +0000 (GMT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by Spaz.Catonic.NET (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64BAF4C57; Sat, 31 Aug 2002 19:51:57 +0000 (GMT) Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 19:51:57 +0000 (GMT) From: Kris Kirby To: Dominic Marks Cc: Terry Lambert , Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: <20020831194026.GA22215@gallium> Message-ID: X-Mailer: !/bin/sh MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Sat, 31 Aug 2002, Dominic Marks wrote: > http://www.sealandgov.com/ > > I don't think this is what the original poster is refering to because > Sealand has existed for much longer than four weeks, however it is an > example of the same thing. Right -- Sealand I already know about. I was looking for the other one. -- Kris Kirby, KE4AHR TGIFreeBSD IM: 'KrisBSD' "BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU!" This message brought to you by the US Department of Homeland Security To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Sat Aug 31 15: 1:50 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AABA37B400 for ; Sat, 31 Aug 2002 15:01:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from flamingo.mail.pas.earthlink.net (flamingo.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.232]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 082D443E6E for ; Sat, 31 Aug 2002 15:01:46 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0248.cvx21-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([209.179.192.248] helo=mindspring.com) by flamingo.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17lGJK-00014U-00; Sat, 31 Aug 2002 15:01:42 -0700 Message-ID: <3D713C8B.99EBF9D7@mindspring.com> Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 15:00:43 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dominic Marks Cc: Kris Kirby , Dave Hayes , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? References: <3D707754.1981EA36@mindspring.com> <20020831194026.GA22215@gallium> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Dominic Marks wrote: > On Sat, Aug 31, 2002 at 07:25:52PM +0000, Kris Kirby wrote: > > On Sat, 31 Aug 2002, Terry Lambert wrote: > > > First, there is already an individual who has colonized an oil rig > > > in the North Atlantic in this fashion. It was fairly widely reported > > > about four weeks ago. Second, finding a location where you can be > > > free of lawyers is *your* problem, not mine. > > > > URL. I must see this. (I don't watch TV anymore.) > > http://www.sealandgov.com/ > > I don't think this is what the original poster is refering to because > Sealand has existed for much longer than four weeks, however it is an > example of the same thing. Yes, I was referring the Sealand. It was widely reported 4 weeks ago because of some banking story that happened, not because it had just declared independence. A similar example can be found at: http://oceania.org/ It's basically dead as a project. Another project was actually started, and a small atrificial island was actually constructed during an initial phase. But it's a much less useful example for the purposes of this discussion, since once the prject started building on the atol to the point that it had something sticking out of the water full time, the United States Government paid the Tongan Navy to sail out and plant the Tongan flag on it, claiming the land for Tonga. The people behind Ocenia are currently working on a project to build an orbital space platform, for the same purpose. I guess that's one way to avoid the Tongan Navy... http://lifeboat.com/ex/ -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Sat Aug 31 23:58:19 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B92FD37B400 for ; Sat, 31 Aug 2002 23:58:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from out010.verizon.net (out010pub.verizon.net [206.46.170.133]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2462843E65 for ; Sat, 31 Aug 2002 23:58:15 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from arlankfo@verizon.net) Received: from verizon.net ([138.88.49.133]) by out010.verizon.net (InterMail vM.5.01.05.09 201-253-122-126-109-20020611) with ESMTP id <20020901065814.MGTE21532.out010.verizon.net@verizon.net>; Sun, 1 Sep 2002 01:58:14 -0500 To: chat@freebsd.org Cc: junis@gosympatico.ca Subject: Trolling, the power to make yourself look stupid... From: "Andrew Lankford" Reply-To: "Andrew Lankford" Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2002 02:58:16 -0400 Message-Id: <20020901065814.MGTE21532.out010.verizon.net@verizon.net> Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org >This is simply intolerable, isn't this OS supposed to be rock-solid? >More like pure junk! > >1) Insert an MS-DOS formatted floppy in your disk drive >2) mount_msdos /dev/fd0a /mnt >3) Remove disk >4) cd /mnt; ls -la 5) Read the friggin kernel message; Bop self on head (several times) 6) Reinsert disk; cd /mnt ; ls -la 7) umount /mnt or 5) umount -f /mnt Since you're installing the latest edition of Redhat, try out this experiment for us. Assuming you don't run out of disk space and actually install the whole thing, reboot. Just before it gives you a login prompt, yank the hard disk out with a crowbar. Observe what happens. Next, rip your computer off your desk WITHOUT powering it down and throw that out the window. Record results. Finally, go buy a gameboy and spend the rest of your life playing Tetris, taking a break every now and then to eat and take a bath so that you'll offend as few people as possible. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message