Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2002 23:17:22 -0700 From: Dave Hayes <dave@jetcafe.org> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-ID: <200209020617.g826HR149472@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> writes: > Dave Hayes wrote: >> Heaven forbid I be reduced to a religious argument. ;) > > Yes; if you are, you have already lost, since you will lack > the ability to communicate it to anyone else. Actually I won't lack the ability at all. Others may lack the willingness to listen, but there's always someone out there who will listen to anything. > Even if you perceive the numinous, you yourself are not numinous. The existence of the numinous implies the existence of it's opposite. That way lies the dark side. The trick is to become one with the universe, then speak at the level of people's understanding. ( This would be a herculean feat for you, oh master of the pleonastic. ;) ) >> > The simple fact is that recessive genes are never removed from the >> > gene pool, only individuals in which they express are removed. >> >> If a gene exists in an organism but isn't expressed, isn't that >> effectively the same as removing it? > > You *really* don't know much math, do you? Actually I know a fair bit, though I won't claim to be a master at it and I don't study it day in and day out. How you derive your conclusion about math from a statement about genetics is, however, quite beyond me. > The answer is that only gene combinations which are actively fatal > to the organism will be removed from the gene pool. If they are not > active, then they are not removed. But still not expressed, which is what I was driving at. >> > "Good luck to you, oh fellow traveller". >> >> You can't be seriously implying you are on this same road... > > Look up the phrase "fellow traveller". 8-). Do you mean: Someone sympathetic toward a certain point of view without being a fully paid-up member of the club. >> > I disagree. It speaks to the consensus definition of "right" and >> > "wrong". >> >> So 2000 people come up to you with big sticks and tell you they >> will beat you up unless you admit the earth is flat. > > I remember this guy named Galileo... Yer THAT old? ;) > [ ... putting rapists in prison and/or killing them ... ] >> Actually that evolves the creatures who engage in forcible >> reproductive acts, by forcing them to do this such that they >> are not caught. Arguably, this makes them quicker and more >> efficient. > > This shows a really poor understanding of evolution. That would put my understanding at par with the rest of humanity. > Here's a nutshell synthesis, taking your premise: > o A mutation occurs, resulting in an individual with > a new trait, which can be passed on > o The environment votes for or against the reproduction > of the individual The environment does not vote. It is not active in the process. The mutated individual either adapts or does not adapt to its environment. Your synthesis breaks down here. >> > 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. >> >> Nonsense. Mental institutions with catatonics are a good counter >> example. > > That external reality *does not* does not mean that it *can not*. Hey, according to people who work in these places, some try every day to reach the catatonic individual...with no success. The extrema is that you can kill someone, but we'll argue about what happens afterwards. >> > As to what I choose to remember, well, it's not like I have to >> > forget one thing to remember another. >> >> Irrelevant to the point, of course. > > Sure it is. You were claiming a finite resources, with a near > bound. I'm arguing that, if not infinite, at least the bound is > much farther away than you claim. Actually, I was arguing the relative worth of your choice of memorized data. Efficiency is worthwhile, even with infinite resources. >> They have to find you first. In that, there is the balance of power. > Read: The Transparent Society The difficulty I have in arguing with you is that a lot of my knowledge comes from experience and observation. A lot of yours seems to come from books. If I were extremely well read, I would probably sound like you (heaven forbid), since this is the Nth time that you've used others' written works to rebut a point. By now you must have realized that I don't consider something authentic just because it's written in a book, or because some famous or infamous or little known scientist says it is true while providing a rationale and experimental data. So. The question remains as to why you continue to put someone else's words where your mouth is. I suspect the answer is because you are deeply, almost religiously, mapped into the scientific reality. That's neither good nor bad, just a statement of what I appear to see. If it works for you, use it. I'm not trying to change this or anything about you. Often times I map into this reality too, it is useful for solving a number of problems. What I don't understand is this. If you are going to provide examples in critical thinking as a suggestion to me or others, why not apply those examples to the tenets of science? The scientific method works for some bounded space of problems, but you never see a scientist apply critical thinking to that method, wondering whether or not it is appropriate to apply to what just occurred. You never see a scientist question their own assumptions far enough to get to the scientific method. The speed of light has nothing to do with "objective" reality other than being the speed of our fastest perceptual medium. If you've ever worked with sampling sounds before, you'll see the exact same effect as you approach w/2 (w = sampling frequency) that you do when you approach the velocity of c. In sampling, you approach a frequency wall and components of the sampled waveform higher than w/2 appear to wrap backwards around that wall. In relativistic mechanics, you approach a time wall, and time appears to wrap backwards around that wall. It doesn't really do this, but our senses tell us it does. Any measuring system will tell us the same thing, since none of them perceive faster than the speed of light. Yet no scientist has ever (to my limited knowledge) questioned this simple basic observation. No scientist dares to question general relativity. If this has actually been discussed among physicists, I'd be shocked. I'd have to find a new example. You'll probably have some quip answer. But example or no example, it is this level of critical thinking I find absent in science and really most human knowledge. I have always been a seeker after Truth, and I settle for nothing less. I've already realized I cannot know the Truth like I know any other subject, and I've already given science it's chance to convince me it had the Truth. It doesn't. It has some pieces and parts, but for me, for human problems, the scientific method is not the answer. Skirting the obvious metaphysical direction, this may explain why we have a lot of trouble understanding each other. =) >> The successful (i.e. not caught) ones reproduce and pass their skills >> on to their offspring. Displacement is not necessary if you can live >> within and be unnoticed until time to act. > > Incorrect. The skills are passed environmentally. I know you cannot prove this, so I'll move on. I also believe, if you'll look, there's recent evidence to the contrary. I know not where to look, I was speaking with some PhD somewhere about these matters. I'm sure you'll find it. ;) > [ ... ] >> You forget to take this one step further. I don't need to rationalize, >> I know who and what I am. Arguments against my nature are irrelevant >> and obviously wrong. ;) > > So you are able to seperate the genetic (your nature) and environmental > (programming) factors that make up your own psyche? Most of them, yes...though I hardly see how this is relevant and I sure wouldn't phrase it that way. >> > I'll accept the validity of proof for the sake of argument, so you >> > can proceed without first proving it, if you want... ;^). >> >> That would go against rigor. ;) > > Hardly. We would merely be debating the self-consistency of the > model you are proposing. Intellectual masturbation, at best. You are already going to disagree with me, no matter what model I propose. I give up before I've even started. >> > 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. >> >> This person hasn't been challenged yet? Amazing. > > Challenged -- and he won -- in a U.K. court. Amazing. What other courts does he have to go through? ;) >> > If the reason is that once societies grow large enough, your ideas >> > will not work, well, I guess your ideas lose. >> >> It's humanity that loses. > > Apparently not in the opinion of humanity... Humanity has always been self-destructive in it's quest for the next thing. There was an animated short I saw a long time ago. It opened with a fish, and someone who made a wish. The person, in the most typical manner for an American, said "I want it ALL.". That's how some people are. >> > All things which are true are, at least eventually, provable. >> >> I disagree, and you can't prove that. |) > > Goedel. His proof was the last mathematical proof I ever read. You really don't need to read another once you've read that one. ;) >> > 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. >> >> It doesn't have a chance of being effective against blocking trolls, >> but it does have a chance of stifiling communication...which is why >> I get so vehement. > > As long as it has the effect of stifiling communition *by trolls*, > that's all that matters, in the limit, since that is the problem > we are trying to address. You can't orthogonalize this. You can't just apply a transform and have the troll component vanish, you still affect the other communication. >> > It works? >> >> Not where I come from. If you attempt interference, you suddenly >> have problems you didn't before. > > You calim this, yet, if you anhilate your enemy, rather than > merely decimating them, they do not rise again. No, their traits appear in another and another and... If you can understand this, it's your opposition to the traits that generates enough energy to pull in those who have them. >> > and your previous attempts to demonstrate "your way" have resulted in >> > failure? >> >> Which ones would those be? > > Don't be coy. I've read your web site, and I'm well aware of > your failure to establish what you call a "Usenet Site of > Virtue". I'm not being coy, I've demonstrated many times since. The problem in that particular case was my failure to observe the dichotomy in place between troll and netcop. One pulls in the other, no matter what you do. When I could see that they were just two sides of the same coin, well that's when I gave up on USENET. I won't say it's easy to do, but my successes (which will remain anonymous lest they get polluted by my failures) have neither troll nor netcop in them, and they do just fine. No trolls. No netcops. (And no WAY am I telling where they are, lest they get polluted.) It's not a science yet, but once I feel confident, and of course if it's appropriate, I may make a public attempt on FreeNet, where netcops can't do any damage. It is my theory that the trolls, without netcops to drag them in, will go elsewhere over time. >> >> 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). >> >> What? I haven't seen -any- responses to this issue. > > You have seen negative reaction to the troll. Actually yes, I recall this. > There has been no positive reaction, other than your own. Mine was neither positive nor negative, though getting you to see that may take mind-melding. ;) Since I was trying to communicate "stop thinking about it", that's seen as "troll support". That's humanity for ya. ;) >> >> I do. I want to read those posts. >> > >> > So subscribe to the venue in which they are permitted to be posted, >> >> What venue would that be? =P > > One you run, instead of expecting someone else to run it for you. Straw man. I can't start up a counterpart freebsd list and you know it. >> > 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. >> >> Not exactly. What I really want to see is you *responding* to those >> posts. In that lies the information that I consider just as valuable >> as the regular traffic. > > Responding... as in the response of blocking future posts? Or > do you mean engaging in discourse with the troll? Discourse, of course. ;) >> However my real position is against any sort of moderation, not >> because of these responses, but because of the chilling effect >> moderation has on the information flow in the list. > > My real position is against any sort of trolling, because of the > chilling effect trolling has on the information flow in the list. Either way we lose, so why not make it the most open way and don't block anyone? >> > Rational humanist; definitely not "objectivist". >> >> Wow, this explains much (presuming you fit the accepted consensual >> definition of "rational humanist", which I suspect you don't). >> >> If I remember correctly, this category of people disdains taking >> ethical or moral guidance from supernatural or mythological beings >> (e.g. "God"), preferring instead to resolve dilemnas of this >> nature with reason and rationality. >> >> Is this your position as well? > > Yes, that's my preference. What about those questions which cannot be dealt with rationally? >> > Now please demonstrate how a troll posting to -hackers fits within >> > the list charter by any stretch of the imagination. >> >> A demonstration is inappropriate. > > It's the only appropriate response to a threat of "censorship". Nonsense. The appropriate response to such a threat is nothing, since someone threatening that is insane by definition. |) >> My position is against moderation (not "pro-troll" as I have been >> arguing). I recognize you want to remove trolls. What I don't like >> about any sort of moderation is that it chills the expression of >> information. Some information will be lost, from those who don't wish >> to risk having their posts placed before moderation. Some say this is >> good, I say I'd rather wade through a lot of posts. > > The problem with this is it ignores the fact that topical > postings, however unpopular, will be protected by the mutual > security network. That's not what actually happens in moderation. A subset of ideas that are 'out of the box' enough to be topically suspect (even though of interest to the community) will be refused entry to the list. Thus, the list is denied the fresh input of new data, even if absurd. >> Now don't get me wrong, I still do like troll postings (and moreso, >> their responses). However, I would agree with banning email addresses >> after the second posting as you have suggested, because this does >> not involve moderation. > > Ah. Good. Then you agree with the actions which have already > been taken by the list, in this regard. I didn't know they'd been taken, but as such, yes. >> > before, it fits the charter of -chat, no problem (you will notice >> > that when I respond on this topic, I response only in -chat). >> >> You'll notice I began my commentary in "-chat". You'll also notice I >> told people that I would stop bantering with you if asked. Just >> because I'm having fun doesn't mean they are. ;) > > Actually, you said you would stop bantering "if asked"; no need > to implicate me specifically in your control function. 8-). Do you see me bantering with anyone ELSE in here? ;) >> > 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. >> >> It must have some similarity, however, because you are modifying the >> original concept of "altruism". Your modifier makes no sense to me, >> since it would seem to be oxymoronic...like "smart politician", >> "excellent microsoft software", or "polite troll". ;) > > It defines a specific type of mutual security game. The kind > which is played by Open Source Software projects on mailing > lists, news groups, or other communications mediums. I don't agree that, in this case, "mutual altruism" has any differences from "altruism" in this case...for altrusim to be authentic it must not be required or have strings attached. If you are saying "mutual altruism" has strings attached, then I disagree that this is "altruism". >> Good god. I'm not trying to create a proposed society (horrors) and >> really the only change I can be accused of making is wanting to resist >> efforts to moderate certain FreeBSD lists. (I've long ago stopped >> wanting to oppose moderation on the net as a general rule.) > > The only moderation which has been suggested recently is the > moderation of the FreeBSD-security list. Yes. Hopefully that issue will subside. > I don't believe *anyone* has suggested moderation of -hackers or > -chat as a means of preventing the troll postings to those venues. You did. Go read what you wrote. You are practically chomping at the bit to do this, which means you might be a netcop. If you are a netcop, trolls will follow you around no matter what you do. Don't believe me, just watch. >> > 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. >> >> I'd just bet this is false. By your definition of "social conscience" >> you have a moral obligation to make sure my society is adhering to >> your rules...er..."consensual standards of decency". So you would >> have to interfere by your own definitions. > > Nonsense. I only have a responsibility to the societies of > which I am a member. What? Where's your social conscience? ;=P How can you not be responsible to another human being, who is a member of the most basic society...that of all human beings? >> >> 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-). >> >> Ghod. You are going to now assert that we have to be licensed to use >> the FreeBSD lists? > > In the limit... yes. Though your reaction implies inclusionary > licensing, rather than exclisionary non-licensing. If it looks like it, smells like it, and acts like it... > To put it another way, you have the right to speak, but you do > not have the right to an audience, or the right to the forum in > which a particular audience exists. This is such a straw man. Did you really read my site? Speaking, without an audience, is not speaking in the sense that the "right to speak" implies. I will concede that the audience has a right to ignore you... > [ ... changing your mind by changing your mind ... ] >> > Don't panic. Society will only do it if you *act* on your racism. >> >> The panic comes from the implication that society has the right to >> reform us in the image they want. I find this abhorrent and evil. > > It's preconditioned on your willing participation in the society, > and a grant of license by you, by virtue of your participation. I'm born into a society...I'm supposed to stand up the moment I'm born and say "I don't want to participate"? I don't accept this at all. > Participation in society is voluntary. I disagree. Like you said, societies are in the same competing space which is getting smaller (by occupation) everyday. You really don't have a choice. >> > Don't be so quick to dismiss the idea that I could wilfully create >> > such a place in the noosphere. >> >> I'm sure you could create your own perfect section of net society. >> I'm also sure that it would deviate from perfect the moment you >> created it. > > Maybe my idea of perfection would be that it would be enough for > it to exist in the first place. 8-). Perhaps, but I'm sure this would change after the first troll comes. ;) >> > If there were 10 and them and 1 of me, then I'd be the troll, and >> > they'd be the society being trolled. >> >> And would your principles apply then? ;) > > Yes. So you'd leave? >> >> 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". >> >> Hopefully this will exist for some time. However, it's safe to assume >> that someday it will go away. Next? ;) > > <http://dir.yahoo.com/Business_and_Economy/Business_to_Business/Communications_and_Networking/Internet_and_World_Wide_Web/Email_Providers/Free_Email/>; http://finance.yahoo.com/ >> > 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. >> >> That is not the definition I was using. >> >> A stagnant community is one in which no forward progress is possible, >> due to the fascism and fixed ideas inherent in the community, since >> new ideas will be quickly stifled as against the status quo, even if >> these ideas are topical and in the direction of forward progress. And >> herein lies the problem with moderation. > > The BSD community is roughly self-assembled around the issue of > license, just as the Linux community is roughly self-assembled > around the issue of license. > > If you want to self-assemble a community around a different issue, > or if you want to self-assemble a community around the same issue > or a different license, then feel free to do so. This straw man again? >> > Your point is that I must have faith 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. >> >> Only 8? Amazing. What are they? > > None of anyone else's damn business. 8-). Well then. You must not have so much faith in them, if security by obscurity is your method. ;) >> > Or not data I want, >> >> Sure, I can accept you are filtering out the data you want from the >> raw stream that's out there. Just remember one man's Noise is another >> man's Data. > > I prefer to think of it as having a multitude of streams, each > containing a certain classification of data, and filtering by > means of selecting which streams to monitor. It's significantly > more efficient, since it means that I don't have to interpose an > additional latency barrier. You cannot classify the streams so efficiently as to demand that one or three postings in a month be removed from the stream. > Your way, of having only one single mailing list for all of the > Internet, and forcing everyone to filter, is inefficient, both > because it's computationally a much more expensive algorithm, > and because of the latency that's introduced. My way is not to do that. My way is to have many different topical lists, and personal filtering for each reader. It's like the squelch button on most chat room software. Let's debunk another straw man. You simply -have- to filter email in today's internet. There's no choice. Even if you have every message on topic and no spam, you could be connected to 1000s of people. In otherwords, there are many more people than you, so you must filter in order that you are not constantly reading mail. So since the filters must be there anyway, why not encourage people to use them to filter out that which they do not like (trolls)? >> > because it is not representitive of repeatable empirical >> > observations? >> >> Trolls are not repeatable empirical observations? Have you ever made a >> study of them? > > Oh, yes. Which is why I can speak to motive without difficulty. I daresay on this one subject I have more data than you do. You appear to be only looking at freebsd-trolls. From 1990 to 1998 I dealt with all manner of Usenet troll seeking refuge from the netcop. I could conservatively estimate over 500 trolls, from verbally challenged to elquently electrifying. Each one of them has the same pattern. It's the pattern the netcop has, if you look at it closely. They also communicate a wealth of data, if you understand how to look at what they are saying. >> >> 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, >> >> No, that's a use that I observe is necessary. > > That's the use which you *posit* is necessary. Quintessential > necessity has yet to be established indisputably. I said "observe" and I meant observe. Your dismissal of my assertion doesn't change my observation, only what you think of it. >> > That doesn't make it the manifest destiny of the Internet, merely >> > because of your opinion of the manifest destiny of human kind. >> >> As has been demonstrated to me many times in my life, my opinion >> hardly matters. There are those who agree with this use of the >> internet and those who disagree. The reason I argue that this is >> necessary has a lot to do with the ease of ignoring something you >> don't like on the internet. > > And the reason I argue for preconditionas on particular channels > is the computational expense inherent in implementing your method. Which pales to the computational expense to send and receive all email. >> The subtle straw man of "go create your own island" again raises >> it's ugly head. > > It's not a strawman. Do it. The only thing preventing you from > running a mailing list server or usenet server of your own is you. It's a strawman. It's meaningless to the point of "moderating the freebsd lists", which already exist and communicate valuable information. >> >> 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. >> >> Oh I see. Naturally, that forced you to post. I get it. ;) > > It didn't force me to post. I chose to post, in response. It is that choice to which I referred to above. >> > It was you who lobbed the first volley against the established >> > social norm of the society in which your posting was made. >> >> What established social norm? > > "No Trolls Allowed I never saw that as an established social norm on the freebsd lists. Really, it looked like the matter had rarely been talked about. > (or birds)". Egad, what's wrong with birds now? >> > 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. >> >> I don't -want- to convince you. If I want anything, it's for you to >> arrive at this ideal yourself in your own way without any real >> external pressure to do so. Only then can I be sure you truly >> understand what I am talking about. Everyone, in their own way, will >> arrive there sooner or later...and then they will move on after that. > > It's not going to happen. Your ideal is (apparently) not > emergent. They said we would never fly too. ;) >> >> 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-). >> >> "Satan", "sociopath"...what's the difference? Evil has many names, >> but the root of the concept is still the same. ;) > > Not applicable, unless there is a shared reference frame. "Evil" is that frame. Hello? How does someone so booksmart become so obtuse?...er never mind. ;) >> > 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-). >> >> You think there is an entire -class- of problems, of which trolls >> are a member? *shudder* > > Yes. I'll be interested in reading that paper *shudder* when you are done. >> Do you get out much? (I don't, and now I'm thinking maybe I should...) > > I recommend you learn to type faster. I type fast enough as it is. It's choosing the appropriate words for your state of mind that takes time. >> Well then, why not just build your perfect society out of robots? >> As their first act, you could have them kill all humans...because >> humans sometimes do not avoid proscribed behaviors. > > "Why not"? We can start with the fact that you're the one who > wants to change society... 8-). QED. >> > Regardless of your opinion of modern education (it can hardly be >> > lower than my own), >> >> Don't presume please. ;) >> >> > to the society, it is the effect of the results on the society that >> > matter. >> >> The ends justify the means? > > The results validate or invalidate the effectiveness of the > means. That's a very different statement. Not really. If the results validate the effectiveness, the means are justified. That is how you think, no? >> >> > 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. >> >> I thought absurda was "ok" in your book? > > You are not performing a reductio ad absurdum argument, unless you > follow the premise to its logical conclusions. If I did this, it would be absurd. ;) > In this case, you've pulled a conclusion out of thin air, based on > several of your own assumptions (the first being that there is a > "master" in the first place; someone who does not exist can neither > be "haughty" nor "humble"). But if you were king... ------ Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<< "When they came for the 2nd Amendment, I said nothing, for I owned no gun. Then the sixth was next to go, and I remained silent, as I was not on trial. They took away the fourth, and I said nothing, as I had nothing to hide. And then they came for the First, and I could say nothing." To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200209020617.g826HR149472>