[24839] in Perl-Users-Digest
Perl-Users Digest, Issue: 6990 Volume: 10
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Perl-Users Digest)
Fri Sep 10 18:11:27 2004
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 15:10:11 -0700 (PDT)
From: Perl-Users Digest <Perl-Users-Request@ruby.OCE.ORST.EDU>
To: Perl-Users@ruby.OCE.ORST.EDU (Perl-Users Digest)
Perl-Users Digest Fri, 10 Sep 2004 Volume: 10 Number: 6990
Today's topics:
Re: Xah Lee's Unixism <albalmer@att.net>
Re: Xah Lee's Unixism <albalmer@att.net>
Re: Xah Lee's Unixism <albalmer@att.net>
Re: Xah Lee's Unixism <albalmer@att.net>
Re: Xah Lee's Unixism <grante@visi.com>
Re: Xah Lee's Unixism <john.thingstad@chello.no>
Re: Xah Lee's Unixism <cbeck@mercury.bc.ca>
Re: Xah Lee's Unixism <cbeck@mercury.bc.ca>
Re: Xah Lee's Unixism <albalmer@att.net>
Re: Xah Lee's Unixism <albalmer@att.net>
Re: Xah Lee's Unixism <firstname@lastname.pr1v.n0>
Re: Xah Lee's Unixism <spam@nimblegen.com>
Re: Xah Lee's Unixism <grante@visi.com>
Re: Xah Lee's Unixism <firstname@lastname.pr1v.n0>
Re: Xah Lee's Unixism <peacock@simconv.com>
Re: Xah Lee's Unixism <peacock@simconv.com>
Re: Xah Lee's Unixism <peacock@simconv.com>
Re: Xah Lee's Unixism <spam@nimblegen.com>
Re: Xah Lee's Unixism (Brian Raiter)
Re: Xah Lee's Unixism <ipmonger@comcast.net>
Re: Xah Lee's Unixism <usemyfullname@hotmail.com>
Re: Xah Lee's Unixism <roo@try-removing-this.darkboong.demon.co.uk>
Re: Xah Lee's Unixism <lynn@garlic.com>
Digest Administrivia (Last modified: 6 Apr 01) (Perl-Users-Digest Admin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 08:11:45 -0700
From: Alan Balmer <albalmer@att.net>
Subject: Re: Xah Lee's Unixism
Message-Id: <9mg3k0dbb1slu2pk304go75896bn117lc4@4ax.com>
On Fri, 10 Sep 04 12:39:57 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
>In article <10k1a13rnpc2p94@corp.supernews.com>,
> Jeff Shannon <jeff@ccvcorp.com> wrote:
>>jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
>>
>>>In article <10juvnrt88k4868@corp.supernews.com>,
>>> Jeff Shannon <jeff@ccvcorp.com> wrote:
>>>
<snip uninformed panic reaction>
>>proclaim that the government is horribly wrong, and I also happen to buy
>>a copy of something like, say, The Anarchist's Cookbook... I'm now
>>liable to be perceived by the government as a terrorist, and thus be
>>subject to arrest and imprisonment with no charges being filed and no
>>access to legal recourse.
>
>How did you get this conclusion? Has a US citizen bought the book,
>only yakked about it and then was arrested and imprisoned
>with no trail or arraignment?
>
The book is readily available from Amazon.com, and 145 of their
customers have written reviews of it. We'll have to check how many of
them are in jail in Guantanamo ;-) One reviewer recommended a
companion book - "Home Workshop Explosives", also available from
Amazon.
Also available on DVD.
I see a lot of second-hand opinions on the Patriot Act. Hardly any of
them have actually read it.
--
Al Balmer
Balmer Consulting
removebalmerconsultingthis@att.net
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 08:18:17 -0700
From: Alan Balmer <albalmer@att.net>
Subject: Re: Xah Lee's Unixism
Message-Id: <27h3k05dkv0d0nbuovei28erf1c657r899@4ax.com>
On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 01:04:50 +0200, "John Thingstad"
<john.thingstad@chello.no> wrote:
>On Thu, 09 Sep 2004 15:36:29 -0700, Alan Balmer <albalmer@att.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> BTW, did you mean "extortion"? Distortion is what we see a lot of
>> here, though Hoover may have done some of that too.
>>
>
>I guess what I see are endless possibilities of abuse.
>No government can be trusted with that type of power.
Of course not. That's why we have separation of powers, checks and
balances, a multi-party system, and elections.
>I feel it is our responsibility as programmers to prevent this type
>of abuse of information. I'd rather take my chances with the terrorists.
>When you sell out freedom, liberty and justice then what exactly are we
>fighting to protect?
>Bader-Meihof groups philosophy was that in order to protect the public
> from terror
>the government would turn the country into a police state. Then the people
>would rebel and
>support the revolution. From this point of view Bush is letting the
>terrorist's win by
>sacrificing our constitutional rights.
>
>Anyhow this is probably not the place to discuss this...
Probably not - there are too many intelligent, informed people here
who might poke holes in it.
--
Al Balmer
Balmer Consulting
removebalmerconsultingthis@att.net
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 08:21:27 -0700
From: Alan Balmer <albalmer@att.net>
Subject: Re: Xah Lee's Unixism
Message-Id: <3fh3k0tnumgcvdd89h8jbbnc2j92t97i76@4ax.com>
On 09 Sep 04 15:28:13 -0800, "Charlie Gibbs" <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>
wrote:
>It's been revealed that here in British Columbia (that part of
>Canada on the Pacific coast for those of you who are geographically
>challenged), management of medical information has been farmed out
>to a subsidiary of a U.S. corporation. According to the Patriot Act,
>the U.S. government is entitled to access these files, and anyone -
>American or Canadian - who so much as mentions that they're doing it
>can be thrown into a U.S. jail.
Can you point to the relevant section(s) of the Act?
Can you point to the international agreement which allows Canadian
citizens to be thrown into US jails for the stated offense?
--
Al Balmer
Balmer Consulting
removebalmerconsultingthis@att.net
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 08:26:15 -0700
From: Alan Balmer <albalmer@att.net>
Subject: Re: Xah Lee's Unixism
Message-Id: <1oh3k01cieht04nmfo27pvihg8teme0mdt@4ax.com>
On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 00:13:56 +0200, Morten Reistad
<firstname@lastname.pr1v.n0> wrote:
>>However Bush is demonstrably poor. He ignored the warnings from
>>the CIA, FBI, outgoing Clinton administration about imminent
>>attacks. He was focused on attacking Saddam and Iraq from the
>>first, and perverted 9/11 into that at the earliest opportunity.
>>He has offended many more than most of his predecessors. I will
>>say that he seems to have learned the names of some foreign
>>leaders since being elected.
>
>Bush has had an agenda all right; but I don't quite get what it is.
>
And, of course, entertaining the possibility that his agenda is just
what he says it is, is completely out of the question.
--
Al Balmer
Balmer Consulting
removebalmerconsultingthis@att.net
------------------------------
Date: 10 Sep 2004 15:28:48 GMT
From: Grant Edwards <grante@visi.com>
Subject: Re: Xah Lee's Unixism
Message-Id: <4141c830$0$65574$a1866201@newsreader.visi.com>
On 2004-09-10, Alan Balmer <albalmer@att.net> wrote:
>>It's been revealed that here in British Columbia (that part of
>>Canada on the Pacific coast for those of you who are geographically
>>challenged), management of medical information has been farmed out
>>to a subsidiary of a U.S. corporation. According to the Patriot Act,
>>the U.S. government is entitled to access these files, and anyone -
>>American or Canadian - who so much as mentions that they're doing it
>>can be thrown into a U.S. jail.
>
> Can you point to the relevant section(s) of the Act?
>
> Can you point to the international agreement which allows Canadian
> citizens to be thrown into US jails for the stated offense?
I know I shouldn't reply to threads like this, but I just can't
help it...
What makes you think that the current US government gives a
shit about international agreements? Bush thinks he's entitled
to declare anybody and everybody an "enemy combatant" and lock
them up in secret forever. Add a moustache and he'd make a
pretty good Stalin.
--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! Yow! Now we can
at become alcoholics!
visi.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 17:35:04 +0200
From: "John Thingstad" <john.thingstad@chello.no>
Subject: Re: Xah Lee's Unixism
Message-Id: <opsd4awqhupqzri1@mjolner.upc.no>
On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 08:26:15 -0700, Alan Balmer <albalmer@att.net> wrote:
>>
> And, of course, entertaining the possibility that his agenda is just
> what he says it is, is completely out of the question.
>
Yes, the Iraq war ruled that out.
--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 18:05:06 GMT
From: "Coby Beck" <cbeck@mercury.bc.ca>
Subject: Re: Xah Lee's Unixism
Message-Id: <m1m0d.88323$S55.10260@clgrps12>
"Alan Balmer" <albalmer@att.net> wrote in message
news:3fh3k0tnumgcvdd89h8jbbnc2j92t97i76@4ax.com...
> Can you point to the international agreement which allows Canadian
> citizens to be thrown into US jails for the stated offense?
It's probably in the same international agreement that allows citizens of
any country to be held incommunicado indefinitely in Guantanamo Bay. And
the same international agreement that allows Afgan and Iraqi POW's to be
imprisoned with no Geneva convention protection and hidden from
International Red Cross. Do you really think the Bush administration cares
about international agreements?
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ big pond . com")
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 18:18:33 GMT
From: "Coby Beck" <cbeck@mercury.bc.ca>
Subject: Re: Xah Lee's Unixism
Message-Id: <Zdm0d.88398$S55.30393@clgrps12>
"Alan Balmer" <albalmer@att.net> wrote in message
news:1oh3k01cieht04nmfo27pvihg8teme0mdt@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 00:13:56 +0200, Morten Reistad
> <firstname@lastname.pr1v.n0> wrote:
>
> >>However Bush is demonstrably poor. He ignored the warnings from
> >>the CIA, FBI, outgoing Clinton administration about imminent
> >>attacks. He was focused on attacking Saddam and Iraq from the
> >>first, and perverted 9/11 into that at the earliest opportunity.
> >>He has offended many more than most of his predecessors. I will
> >>say that he seems to have learned the names of some foreign
> >>leaders since being elected.
> >
> >Bush has had an agenda all right; but I don't quite get what it is.
> >
> And, of course, entertaining the possibility that his agenda is just
> what he says it is, is completely out of the question.
Not out of the question, be obviously untrue.
"We must invade Iraq to remove the threat of a madman with WMD"
--> Inspectors were inside Iraq looking already.
--> N. Korea was boasting about its nuclear program and firing
test missles all over the place.
--> Not a stick of said WMD has been found since invading.
"We must save the Iraqi people from a ruthless dictator"
--> since Hussein is just one of scores of such monsters and Iraq
was the country chosen, this can not be the reason.
"We must fight terrorism"
--> The hunt for Osama, known to be NOT IN Iraq was practically dropped
to invade Iraq.
--> Everyone outside of the Fox news network knows there was never any
link from Iraq to Osama.
--> Terrorism is now a big problem in Iraq where it was not before.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 11:41:50 -0700
From: Alan Balmer <albalmer@att.net>
Subject: Re: Xah Lee's Unixism
Message-Id: <23t3k09ivp173r2hqpqqfaj2uhvnmbllr3@4ax.com>
On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 18:05:06 GMT, "Coby Beck" <cbeck@mercury.bc.ca>
wrote:
>
>"Alan Balmer" <albalmer@att.net> wrote in message
>news:3fh3k0tnumgcvdd89h8jbbnc2j92t97i76@4ax.com...
>> Can you point to the international agreement which allows Canadian
>> citizens to be thrown into US jails for the stated offense?
>
>It's probably in the same international agreement that allows citizens of
>any country to be held incommunicado indefinitely in Guantanamo Bay. And
>the same international agreement that allows Afgan and Iraqi POW's to be
>imprisoned with no Geneva convention protection
They are being treated under the Conventions, even though not legally
entitled to such treatment. This was discussed in some depth quite a
while ago - if you're really interested, check google groups.
>and hidden from
>International Red Cross.
Not very well, apparently. The Red Cross found them. So did a bunch of
lawyers.
You apparently haven't been keeping up. Those DNC talking points have
been obsolete for a while now.
> Do you really think the Bush administration cares
>about international agreements?
Yes.
--
Al Balmer
Balmer Consulting
removebalmerconsultingthis@att.net
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 11:44:33 -0700
From: Alan Balmer <albalmer@att.net>
Subject: Re: Xah Lee's Unixism
Message-Id: <1et3k0d5omt9uic9dbbal361009eoedgmo@4ax.com>
On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 18:18:33 GMT, "Coby Beck" <cbeck@mercury.bc.ca>
wrote:
>
>"Alan Balmer" <albalmer@att.net> wrote in message
>news:1oh3k01cieht04nmfo27pvihg8teme0mdt@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 00:13:56 +0200, Morten Reistad
>> <firstname@lastname.pr1v.n0> wrote:
>>
>> >>However Bush is demonstrably poor. He ignored the warnings from
>> >>the CIA, FBI, outgoing Clinton administration about imminent
>> >>attacks. He was focused on attacking Saddam and Iraq from the
>> >>first, and perverted 9/11 into that at the earliest opportunity.
>> >>He has offended many more than most of his predecessors. I will
>> >>say that he seems to have learned the names of some foreign
>> >>leaders since being elected.
>> >
>> >Bush has had an agenda all right; but I don't quite get what it is.
>> >
>> And, of course, entertaining the possibility that his agenda is just
>> what he says it is, is completely out of the question.
>
>Not out of the question, be obviously untrue.
>
>"We must invade Iraq to remove the threat of a madman with WMD"
>--> Inspectors were inside Iraq looking already.
>--> N. Korea was boasting about its nuclear program and firing
> test missles all over the place.
>--> Not a stick of said WMD has been found since invading.
>
>"We must save the Iraqi people from a ruthless dictator"
>--> since Hussein is just one of scores of such monsters and Iraq
> was the country chosen, this can not be the reason.
>
>"We must fight terrorism"
>--> The hunt for Osama, known to be NOT IN Iraq was practically dropped
> to invade Iraq.
>--> Everyone outside of the Fox news network knows there was never any
> link from Iraq to Osama.
>--> Terrorism is now a big problem in Iraq where it was not before.
>
>
My, you are behind the times. Sorry, I'm not going to rehash all this
stuff now. It's been done too many times. Check the archives.
--
Al Balmer
Balmer Consulting
removebalmerconsultingthis@att.net
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 20:56:01 +0200
From: Morten Reistad <firstname@lastname.pr1v.n0>
Subject: Re: Xah Lee's Unixism
Message-Id: <1ctshc.kd52.ln@via.reistad.priv.no>
In article <1oh3k01cieht04nmfo27pvihg8teme0mdt@4ax.com>,
Alan Balmer <albalmer@spamcop.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 00:13:56 +0200, Morten Reistad
><firstname@lastname.pr1v.n0> wrote:
>
>>>However Bush is demonstrably poor. He ignored the warnings from
>>>the CIA, FBI, outgoing Clinton administration about imminent
>>>attacks. He was focused on attacking Saddam and Iraq from the
>>>first, and perverted 9/11 into that at the earliest opportunity.
>>>He has offended many more than most of his predecessors. I will
>>>say that he seems to have learned the names of some foreign
>>>leaders since being elected.
>>
>>Bush has had an agenda all right; but I don't quite get what it is.
>>
>And, of course, entertaining the possibility that his agenda is just
>what he says it is, is completely out of the question.
I just cannot understand what he wanted to do with Iraq, so fast and
with such a limited expedition corps.
If we for a moment give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that
Iraq WAS a hotbed of terrorists buiding WMD's. There may after all be
some information they cannot tell us. This would explain the
hurry and the go-it-alone tactic. In that case , why wasn't the place
hit a lot harder; int the Nixon/Pinochet style? Why a PHB like Bremer?
Why not a real tough army goy the first couple of months? I just cannot
make sense of this scenario.
On the other hand, it may be a wish to liberate Iraq from the ravages
of Saddam, and a final round of being pissed at Saddam repeatedly
flouting the ceasefire agreement. This is a perfectly legitimate
reason to escalate the war again (it is the same war, there was never
a peace agreement, only a cease-fire). In that case a few rounds of
UN song and dance could be done while a new coalition was built; with
the US taking around a fourth of the cost and manpower, like last time.
This could be convincingly sold to the Iraqi populace as a liberation.
So, I don't get it if the agenda is just what is spoken. If the agenda
is to make way for Israel scenario #2 would still be a better one.
Contrast this with Afghanistan, where there was a pretty high urgency
to get the al-Quaeda and the Taliban before they moved with another
terrorist monstrosity. Yet, a large alliance was built, NATO was used
as far as it could be stretched. the UN was in on it; and the US ended
taking around half the cost and supplying a fifth of the manpower.
With a similar strategy in Iraq the US could have resources left over
to handle North Korea, Sudan, Sierra Leone with less expenditure than
what you ended up with.
I just don't get it. The stated agenda is either misstated, or grossly
misimplemented.
-- mrr
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 14:12:36 -0500
From: Chuck Dillon <spam@nimblegen.com>
Subject: Re: Xah Lee's Unixism
Message-Id: <chsu8b$ujb$1@grandcanyon.binc.net>
Grant Edwards wrote:
>
> What makes you think that the current US government gives a
> shit about international agreements? Bush thinks he's entitled
> to declare anybody and everybody an "enemy combatant" and lock
> them up in secret forever. Add a moustache and he'd make a
> pretty good Stalin.
>
Such statements only underscore the incredible ignorance of the author
or his/her assumption of ignorance in the reader. President !=
Dictator. The U.S. President is limited to two four year terms so if
someone is locked up "forever" the power to do so must extend far
beyond any President. Fully one third of Americans are Democrats and
our press is still free (not necessarily without bias but free). You
must think W a genius to think he could pull something like that off.
So, lets say you are an elected official on 9/12/01, the day after we
lost *only* 3K out of the potentially 20-30K folks that could have been
killed (that's how many folks spent their day in those towers). You no
longer have any frame of reference for the magnitude or imminence of
risk of an attack elsewhere in country. How much time do you spend
studying up international treaties before you decide how to act?
Say Bush did study the treaties and we failed to stop an attack and
some other 3k folks got fried a few months later. Would you be
supporting his re-election today or be slamming him for being indecisive?
-- ced
--
Chuck Dillon
Senior Software Engineer
NimbleGen Systems Inc.
------------------------------
Date: 10 Sep 2004 19:21:44 GMT
From: Grant Edwards <grante@visi.com>
Subject: Re: Xah Lee's Unixism
Message-Id: <4141fec8$0$65562$a1866201@newsreader.visi.com>
On 2004-09-10, Chuck Dillon <spam@nimblegen.com> wrote:
>> What makes you think that the current US government gives a
>> shit about international agreements? Bush thinks he's entitled
>> to declare anybody and everybody an "enemy combatant" and lock
>> them up in secret forever. Add a moustache and he'd make a
>> pretty good Stalin.
>
> Such statements only underscore the incredible ignorance of
> the author or his/her assumption of ignorance in the reader.
> President != Dictator.
Such statements only underscore the incredible inability of the
author to recognize hyperbole.
--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! Boy, am I glad it's
at only 1971...
visi.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 21:08:58 +0200
From: Morten Reistad <firstname@lastname.pr1v.n0>
Subject: Re: Xah Lee's Unixism
Message-Id: <a4ushc.qu52.ln@via.reistad.priv.no>
In article <ullfinq1o.fsf@mail.comcast.net>,
Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> wrote:
>Morten Reistad <firstname@lastname.pr1v.n0> writes:
>> smD the TLA that represents a washing-machine size disk. Mountable.
>> ^ Made impressive head crashes from time to time.
>>
>> But I won't interfere with this lovely thread drift with lots
>> of relevant facts.
>
>the first disks i played with at the univ. were 2311s on 360/30; they
>were individual, top-loading, with mountable disk packs; 2311 disk
>pack was a little over 7mbytes. didn't find picture of 2311 ... but
>this picture of 1311 were similar ... the lid of the unit was released
>and raised (something like auto engine hood)
>http://www-1.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/storage/storage_1311.html
>
>the next were 2314s that came with 360/67. it was long single unit
>with drive drawers that slid out. top & bottom row with 9 drives.
>drives had addressing plugs .... eight plus a spare. a 2314 pack could
>be mounted on the spare drive, spun up .... and then the addressing
>plug pop'ed from an active unit and put in the spare drive. it reduced
>the elapsed time that the system saw unavailable drive (time to power
>off a drive, open the drawer, remove a pack, place in new pack, close
>drawer, power up the drive). 2314 pack was about 29 mbytes. picture
>of 2314 cabinet
>http://www-1.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/storage/storage_2314.html
>
>
>the next were the 3330s ... long cabinet unit looked similar to 2314
>... but with only 8 drawers (instead of 9). 3330-i pack had 100mbytes
>... later 3330-ii pack had 200mbytes. picutre of 3330 unit ... the three
>cloaded plastic units on top of the unit were used to remove disk pack
>and hold it.
>http://www-1.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/storage/storage_PH3330.html
These are the IBM gear that most resemble SMB equipment. SMD's were
the BUNCH answer to DEC's RP04/5/6 and IBM's 3330. Originally made
by CDC; others also produced them. NCR and Fujitsu come to mind.
Originally existed as 80-megabyte, pretty light units (30 kg);
later expanded to 160-megabyte. Then the real washing machines
turned up; 300 mb (315 unformatted megabytes). Originally 4 on a chain,
15 mbit analogue readout (MFM ISTR; they never tried RLL).
These were a mainstay among the smaller mini vendors from approx 1974
to the advent of winchesters around a decade later. The earliest
winchesters made exact hardware replicas of the SMD. Then the
spec was expanded and became ESMD, but ESMD was never as robustly
standardized. Sacrifices of goats, PHBs and undergraduates was needed
to stabelize long ESMD chains.
>close up of 3330 disk pack in its storage case ... also has picture
>of 3850 tape cartridges
>http://www-1.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/storage/storage_PH3850B.html
>
>misc. other storage pictures:
>http://www-1.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/storage/storage_photo.html
>
>next big change was 3380 drives with totally enclosed, non-mountable
>cabinet.
>
>old posting on various speeds and feeds
>http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/95.html#8 3330 disk drives
>
>and some more old performance data
>http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/95.html#10 virtual memory
>
>i had written a report that relative disk system performance had
>declined by a factor of ten times over a period of 10-15 years. the
>disk division assigned their performance group to refute the
>claim. they looked at it for a couple of months and concluded that i
>had somewhat understated the relative system performance decline
>... that it was actually more. the issue was that other system
>components had increased in performance by 40-50 times ... while disks
>had only increased in performance by 4-5 times ... making relative
>disk system performance 1/10th what it had been. misc. past posts
>about the gpd performance group looking at the relative system
>performance issue:
And we are still on that line.
Nowadays most heavy production database data really stays in memory;
with the disk as a backup medium.
-- mrr
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 12:35:02 -0700
From: "Jack Peacock" <peacock@simconv.com>
Subject: Re: Xah Lee's Unixism
Message-Id: <rKGdnc6ocfZ7nN_cRVn-ig@mpowercom.net>
"Alan Balmer" <albalmer@att.net> wrote in message
news:3fh3k0tnumgcvdd89h8jbbnc2j92t97i76@4ax.com...
> Can you point to the international agreement which allows Canadian
> citizens to be thrown into US jails for the stated offense?
>
Canada does extradite to the US on a case by case basis, if there is no
death penalty (though there has been at least one exception to that
condition too). However, I can't see a Liberal government ever extraditing
based on information obtained by farmed out medical records. More likely
the RCMP would come round for a polite conversation.
Unless they were french speaking immigrants living in Quebec. I believe the
law grants them a presumption of innocence *in spite of* evidence to the
contrary.
Jack Peacock
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 12:38:16 -0700
From: "Jack Peacock" <peacock@simconv.com>
Subject: Re: Xah Lee's Unixism
Message-Id: <e4adnfxyXrI0n9_cRVn-sQ@mpowercom.net>
"Chuck Dillon" <spam@nimblegen.com> wrote in message
news:chsu8b$ujb$1@grandcanyon.binc.net...
> The U.S. President is limited to two four year terms so if someone is
> locked up "forever" the power to do so must extend far beyond any
> President.
That's why we have 4+ term incumbents in Congress. Though I believe they
are encouraged to accept retirement when they reach the age of 100.
Jack Peacock
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 12:41:39 -0700
From: "Jack Peacock" <peacock@simconv.com>
Subject: Re: Xah Lee's Unixism
Message-Id: <f86dnWOZFZTpnt_cRVn-gw@mpowercom.net>
"Coby Beck" <cbeck@mercury.bc.ca> wrote in message
news:m1m0d.88323$S55.10260@clgrps12...
> Do you really think the Bush administration cares
> about international agreements?
>
Governments all over the world tremble in fear of a strongly worded UN
resolution. No one would dare risk the consequences of a second, or third,
or fourth, or 37th follow on resolution...
Jack peacock
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 14:41:51 -0500
From: Chuck Dillon <spam@nimblegen.com>
Subject: Re: Xah Lee's Unixism
Message-Id: <chsvv6$v15$1@grandcanyon.binc.net>
Coby Beck wrote:
>>
>>And, of course, entertaining the possibility that his agenda is just
>>what he says it is, is completely out of the question.
>
>
> Not out of the question, be obviously untrue.
Again, I'll point out that it is naive to put this entirely on the
administration. We're in Iraq because we effectively declared war.
The dance with the U.N. went on for some 3 months. It was clear where
we were headed. Our congress, including Kerry and all of the others on
the Democrat side, stood their ground. They didn't revoke the
declaration. They didn't even have debates on the subject.
If you condemn Bush on going into Iraq you condemn Kerry who stills
says it was the right thing to do. His issue is with the details and
like most political rhetoric is mostly spin to underscore the negative
and downplay the positive.
While we're at it, you might also consider a more strategic view of why
we went to Iraq. Publicly, all you are going to hear is glowing words
about the long term benefits of bringing democracy to the middle east.
But that's only part of it and the governments, as well as religious
leaders, in the middle east know it.
If what you write below is what you really believe you aren't thinking
you are just regurgitating what you hear from those you listen to the most.
-- ced
>
> "We must invade Iraq to remove the threat of a madman with WMD"
> --> Inspectors were inside Iraq looking already.
> --> N. Korea was boasting about its nuclear program and firing
> test missles all over the place.
> --> Not a stick of said WMD has been found since invading.
>
> "We must save the Iraqi people from a ruthless dictator"
> --> since Hussein is just one of scores of such monsters and Iraq
> was the country chosen, this can not be the reason.
>
> "We must fight terrorism"
> --> The hunt for Osama, known to be NOT IN Iraq was practically dropped
> to invade Iraq.
> --> Everyone outside of the Fox news network knows there was never any
> link from Iraq to Osama.
> --> Terrorism is now a big problem in Iraq where it was not before.
>
>
>
--
Chuck Dillon
Senior Software Engineer
NimbleGen Systems Inc.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 19:47:42 +0000 (UTC)
From: blr@drizzle.com (Brian Raiter)
Subject: Re: Xah Lee's Unixism
Message-Id: <cht0cu$79m$1@drizzle.com>
Holy cow. Can you folks possibly stop cross-posting this
multi-tentacled leviathan of a thread to five different newsgroups?
b
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 15:58:47 -0400
From: Jon Boone <ipmonger@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Xah Lee's Unixism
Message-Id: <BD677FB7.30BA5%ipmonger@comcast.net>
On 2004-09-10 14:56, in article 1ctshc.kd52.ln@via.reistad.priv.no, "Morten
Reistad" <firstname@lastname.pr1v.n0> wrote:
> I just don't get it. The stated agenda is either misstated, or grossly
> misimplemented.
Never attribute to malice what is adequately explained through
incompetence.
--jon
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 20:35:48 GMT
From: Antony Sequeira <usemyfullname@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Xah Lee's Unixism
Message-Id: <Eeo0d.18563$Qx2.9439@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com>
Chuck Dillon wrote:
>
> So, lets say you are an elected official on 9/12/01, the day after we
> lost *only* 3K out of the potentially 20-30K folks that could have been
> killed (that's how many folks spent their day in those towers). You no
> longer have any frame of reference for the magnitude or imminence of
> risk of an attack elsewhere in country. How much time do you spend
> studying up international treaties before you decide how to act?
>
How is that related to Saqqddam Hussqqqqqain being a jackass and us
spending 100 or whatever billions on removing him and having 1000+ of
Americans + unknown number of Iraqqqqqis getting killed. How does that
help avoid
9 qqqq 11 or are you confused between Iraqqqqqis and Saudqqqqis ?
Why don't we destroy everything but the U.S., that way we can guarantee
that we'll never have any posibility of a terrqqqqorist attack from
anywhere but from within U.S. I'll leave it to your imagination on how
to extrapolate that to counter terrqqqqorism within U.S.
-Antony
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 21:40:11 +0100
From: Rupert Pigott <roo@try-removing-this.darkboong.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Xah Lee's Unixism
Message-Id: <1094848812.10962@teapot.planet.gong>
Jon Boone wrote:
> On 2004-09-10 14:56, in article 1ctshc.kd52.ln@via.reistad.priv.no,
> "Morten Reistad" <firstname@lastname.pr1v.n0> wrote:
>
>> I just don't get it. The stated agenda is either misstated, or grossly
>> misimplemented.
>
> Never attribute to malice what is adequately explained through
> incompetence.
>
> --jon
That doesn't adequately cover incompetantance and malice combined. :)
-- Rupert
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 15:10:08 -0600
From: Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com>
Subject: Re: Xah Lee's Unixism
Message-Id: <uacvxomof.fsf@mail.comcast.net>
Morten Reistad <firstname@lastname.pr1v.n0> writes:
> These are the IBM gear that most resemble SMB equipment. SMD's were
> the BUNCH answer to DEC's RP04/5/6 and IBM's 3330. Originally made
> by CDC; others also produced them. NCR and Fujitsu come to mind.
>
> Originally existed as 80-megabyte, pretty light units (30 kg); later
> expanded to 160-megabyte. Then the real washing machines turned up;
> 300 mb (315 unformatted megabytes). Originally 4 on a chain, 15 mbit
> analogue readout (MFM ISTR; they never tried RLL).
>
> These were a mainstay among the smaller mini vendors from approx
> 1974 to the advent of winchesters around a decade later. The
> earliest winchesters made exact hardware replicas of the SMD. Then
> the spec was expanded and became ESMD, but ESMD was never as
> robustly standardized. Sacrifices of goats, PHBs and undergraduates
> was needed to stabelize long ESMD chains.
some number of the senior disk engineers left in the late '60s and
early '70s .... fueling the shugart, seagate, memorex, cdc, etc disk
efforts. in fact, the excuse given (later half 70s) for dragging me
into bldg. 14 disk engineering conference calls with the pok
cpu&channel engineers was that so many of the senior disk engineers
(that were familiar with the channel interface) had left.
random disk history URLs from around the web:
http://www.old-computers.com/history/detail.asp?n=51&t=2
http://www.computerhistory.org/events/lectures/shugart_09052002/shugart/
http://www.logicsmith.com/hdhistory.html
http://www.thetech.org/exhibits/online/revolution/shugart/i_a.html
http://www.disktrend.com/disk3.htm
search engine even turns up one of my posts that somebody appears
to be shadowing at some other site:
http://public.planetmirror.com/pub/lynn/2002.html#17
of course the original
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002.html#17
in the previous posting
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004l.html#12
this reference
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/95.html#8
also gave the speeds and feeds for 3350 (including 317mbyte capacity).
the 1970s washing machines were the 3340s & 3350s ... but the 3350s
enclosed and not removable/mountable; 3340s .... which had
removable/mountable packs .... included the head assemble & platters
completely enclosed.
3340 (winchester) reference, picture includes removable assembly on
top of drives ("3348 data module"):
http://www-1.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/storage/storage_3340.html
http://www-1.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/storage/storage_3340b.html
picture of row of 3350 drives is similar to that of 3340s ... except
the 3350 packs weren't removable and had much larger capacity
http://www-1.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/storage/storage_3350.html
postings reference product code names:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001l.html#53 mainframe question
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003b.html#7 Disk drives as commodities. Was Re: Yamhill
3340-35 was code named Winchester and as per the IBM 3340 ULR began shipping
to customers november, 1973.
we had a joke when the 3380s were introduced about filling them
completely full. if you converted an installation with say 32 3350
drives .... to 16 3380s (sufficient to hold 32-3350 drives worth of
data, 10gbytes) ... you could have worse performance ... while 3380s
were faster than 3350s, there weren't twice as fast. the proposal was
to have a special microcode load for the 3880 controller .... which
would only support half of a 3380 disk drive. There were a number of
customer people (mostly technies) at share which thought it would be a
good idea ... and furthermore that ibm should price these half-sized
3380s higher than full-sized 3380s (to make the customer exectives
feel like they were getting something special). They would be called
"fast" 3380s (because avg. seek only involved half as many cylindes)
and it was important that the limitation be built into the hardware
and be priced higher. It was recognized that installations could
create their own "fast" 3380s ... just by judicious allocation of data
and no special microcode. However, it was pretty readily acknowledged
that w/o the hardware enforced restrictions, that there were all sorts
of people that populate datacenters that would be unable to control
themselves and fully allocated each 3380.
--
Anne & Lynn Wheeler | http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/
------------------------------
Date: 6 Apr 2001 21:33:47 GMT (Last modified)
From: Perl-Users-Request@ruby.oce.orst.edu (Perl-Users-Digest Admin)
Subject: Digest Administrivia (Last modified: 6 Apr 01)
Message-Id: <null>
Administrivia:
#The Perl-Users Digest is a retransmission of the USENET newsgroup
#comp.lang.perl.misc. For subscription or unsubscription requests, send
#the single line:
#
# subscribe perl-users
#or:
# unsubscribe perl-users
#
#to almanac@ruby.oce.orst.edu.
NOTE: due to the current flood of worm email banging on ruby, the smtp
server on ruby has been shut off until further notice.
To submit articles to comp.lang.perl.announce, send your article to
clpa@perl.com.
#To request back copies (available for a week or so), send your request
#to almanac@ruby.oce.orst.edu with the command "send perl-users x.y",
#where x is the volume number and y is the issue number.
#For other requests pertaining to the digest, send mail to
#perl-users-request@ruby.oce.orst.edu. Do not waste your time or mine
#sending perl questions to the -request address, I don't have time to
#answer them even if I did know the answer.
------------------------------
End of Perl-Users Digest V10 Issue 6990
***************************************
