Linux developers MUST consolidate and release a "master" distro for the general computer/device mark

[The poster formerly known as 'The Poster Formerly]

Re: Linux developers MUST consolidate and release a "master" distrofor the general computer/device market.

yakety yak wrote:
> On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 15:07:49 -0700, The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Oxford
>> <colalovesmacs@mac.com>
>> wrote
>> on Mon, 08 Oct 2007 15:03:10 -0600
>> <colalovesmacs-591FE9.15031008102007@mpls-nnrp-02.inet.qwest.net>:
>>> George Graves <gmgraves2@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Could a company like, for instance, Adobe, release a single
>>>> shrink-wrapped fully compiled version of its applications marked "For
>>>> Linux" and have it install as easily on ALL modern Linux distributions
>>>> as it now does on PCs or Macs? If so, then you're right. But that begs
>>>> another question. If all the distros are that alike, why haven't any of
>>>> the major software publishers released any of their applications on
>>>> Linux?.
>>> from my understanding Linux simply doesn't have a modern enough
>>> foundation to support high level apps like PhotoShop, InDesign, etc.
>> Does Windows? Windows has Photoshop, InDesign, etc. I'd like to know what
>> "modern" means in this context, specifically what is in the foundation of
>> a "modern OS".
>
> DRM?
>

LOL! MS seems to think so, and so does Jobs too for that matter.

--
Priceless quotes in m.p.w.vista.general group:
http://protectfreedom.tripod.com/kick.html

"Fair use is not merely a nice concept--it is a federal law based on
free speech rights under the First Amendment and is a cornerstone of the
creativity and innovation that is a hallmark of this country. Consumer
rights in the digital age are not frivolous."
- Maura Corbett

 

[Oxford]

notinuse2@btinternet.com (Peter Hayes) wrote:

> > life in the states is far better than in western europe, it's like day
> > and night, osx to linux. have you ever traveled to the states peter?
> > nope! imploding economy? that's absurd. 4.6% unemployment,
>
> And rising,
>
> http://www.forecasts.org/unemploy.htm

ah, you picked an incorrect chart... a "forecast" not the actual numbers.

it's 4.7% this last month... from the "source"...

http://www.bls.gov/

in the UK it's 5.4%... So you are saying the UK is going down the tubes
compared to the US? Is that correct?

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/CCI/nugget.asp?ID=12

> > record stock market, cheap housing,
>
> Just don't mention sub-primes...

sub primes are a small percentage of the housing market. and the very
meaning of "sub" means lenders weren't being careful, it has little to
do with the economy in general.

> > gas is $2.56 a gallon,
>
> And it was under $1.00 a gallon not so long ago.

it was??? when??? oh, about 6 years ago, just after Bush took office &
9/11 hit... interesting...

http://www.denvergasprices.com/retail_price_chart.aspx

> > on and on.
> >
> > > We also know who Adele Goldberg is, and the crucial role she played in
> > > Steve Jobs's world. Unlike you...
> >
> > I know what Adele did, and it was nothing concerning Steve or Apple.
>
> It certainly was so it looks like you're caught in a lie.

Where? All the links and comments you made were in error, mine weren't,
try using FACTS next time.

-

 

[George Graves]

On Tue, 9 Oct 2007 08:58:27 -0700, spike1@freenet.co.uk wrote
(in article <32lst4-91d.ln1@ridcully.ntlworld.com>):

> In the sacred domain of comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> Adam Albright <AA@abc.net> didnst hastily scribble thusly:
>> Seems a lot of blockheads come from the UK. Interesting, I observed
>> this FACT in just about every newsgroup I ever visited. Most of the
>> clowns either are from the UK (can tell from their spelling of certain
>> common words like ass or color) or they still are there judging form
>> their email address or posting header.
>
> Ahhhh good.
> Not only a moron, but a racist moron.

Racist? how do you get that? He has no way of knowing your race, only your
nationality. If you want to call someone names, at least pick the proper one,
A person who denigrates others based upon their nationality is a chauvinist
or perhaps a jingoist, not a racist. It's like when Jeremy Clarkson on "Top
Gear" calls the French "cheese eating surrender monkeys" he's not being
racist (how could he be given 1066 and all that?) but he is being accurate.
:->



> Jolly good, I'm sure all us brits'll enjoy flattening all your arguments in
> the future.
>
>
>> ROTFLMAO!
>
> Laugh away, moron boy.
>

 

[George Graves]

On Tue, 9 Oct 2007 08:50:06 -0700, ZnU wrote
(in article <znu-D3AE7E.11500609102007@news.individual.net>):

> In article <470b8852$0$15384$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
> AHappyCamper <@thelandfill.com> wrote:
>
>> Oxford wrote:
>>> George Graves <gmgraves2@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Could a company like, for instance, Adobe, release a single
>>>> shrink-wrapped
>>>> fully compiled version of its applications marked "For Linux" and have it
>>>> install as easily on ALL modern Linux distributions as it now does on PCs
>>>> or
>>>> Macs? If so, then you're right. But that begs another question. If all
>>>> the
>>>> distros are that alike, why haven't any of the major software publishers
>>>> released any of their applications on Linux?.
>>>
>>> from my understanding Linux simply doesn't have a modern enough
>>> foundation to support high level apps like PhotoShop, InDesign, etc.
>>>
>>> they'd have to do a lot of software kludges to make a Linux versions
>>> work correctly and since the Linux market is so tiny compared to the Mac
>>> one in the creative fields they simply can't afford do it.
>>>
>>> Same for all other professional level apps, like Office, iLife, AutoCad,
>>> etc. Their approach is too fractured and hard to support is the other
>>> issue. Wish it was different, but unless they "focus", they will never
>>> be a serious contender.
>>
>> But, Linux sure does a great job on Mars,on the Shuttle, in NASA space
>> programs, at the NSA, for Google, in the FBI, CIA, DOT/FAA, and DOE.
>>
>> The majority of top 500 clustering computers run GNU/Linux.
>>
>> Most ISPs offer webspace on GNU/Linux servers. Microsoft leases 15,000
>> Akamai Linux Servers to protect Microsoft.com, MSN.com.
>>
>> Microsoft runs all firewall/routers on Aruba Linux boxes.
>>
>> The National Weather Service uses Linux for forecasting, and to simulate
>> storm development.
>>
>> For the much larger and very professional government and military
>> applications, simulators, weapons systems, GNU/Linux is the answer.
>>
>> I would categorize that as very professional use of an OS!
>
> Sure. And these kinds of examples always come up when Linux gets
> criticized. But none of them have anything to do with regular desktop
> use. Nor does the use of Linux in Hollywood (mostly as a platform for
> in-house or specialty applications). The use of Linux in the enterprise
> desktop market might be considered a subset of "regular desktop use", so
> that's more relevant, but even there, the circumstances that exist with
> enterprise desktops (central management by IT professionals, typically
> used for a narrow range of tasks, etc.) don't apply to desktop machines
> that live outside the cubicle.
>
> I've got a small media production company. We absolutely couldn't do
> what we do on Linux. The software just isn't there. Linux might be used
> on render farms in Hollywood, but it has no reasonable replacement for
> Final Cut Pro or Motion. Or Photoshop or InDesign or Aperture, for that
> matter. It doesn't have system-wide color management. It generally
> doesn't have official drivers for printers.
>
> This is what people mean when they say Linux has no professional apps.
> It has specialty apps (high-end 3D software, etc.), and it has a decent
> selection of entry-level apps (web browsers, word processors, etc.). But
> the entire mid-range of professional software is largely missing from
> the platform.
>
> Now, mix in Linux's usability problems, and you knock off most of the
> low-end users. All of this leaves basically four types of desktop users
> on the platform:
>
> 1) Users running specialty apps that are available on Linux.
> 2) Tech-savvy hobbyists.
> 3) People developing apps for non-desktop markets who find it convenient
> for their desktop development boxes to run the same OS.
> 4) People using Linux in managed enterprise environments, as discussed
> above.
>
> [snip]
>
>

Very well put, Znu. You have succinctly hit the nail squarely on the head,
here with your clear, concise explanation.

 

[George Graves]

On Tue, 9 Oct 2007 08:53:44 -0700, The Ghost In The Machine wrote
(in article <8pkst4-ss5.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net>):

> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, AHappyCamper
> <>
> wrote
> on Tue, 09 Oct 2007 09:55:26 -0400
> <470b8852$0$15384$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>:
>> Oxford wrote:
>>> George Graves <gmgraves2@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Could a company like, for instance, Adobe, release a single
>>>> shrink-wrapped
>>>> fully compiled version of its applications marked "For Linux" and have it
>>>> install as easily on ALL modern Linux distributions as it now does on PCs
>>>> or
>>>> Macs? If so, then you're right. But that begs another question. If all
>>>> the
>>>> distros are that alike, why haven't any of the major software publishers
>>>> released any of their applications on Linux?.
>>>
>>> from my understanding Linux simply doesn't have a modern enough
>>> foundation to support high level apps like PhotoShop, InDesign, etc.
>>>
>>> they'd have to do a lot of software kludges to make a Linux versions
>>> work correctly and since the Linux market is so tiny compared to the Mac
>>> one in the creative fields they simply can't afford do it.
>>>
>>> Same for all other professional level apps, like Office, iLife, AutoCad,
>>> etc. Their approach is too fractured and hard to support is the other
>>> issue. Wish it was different, but unless they "focus", they will never
>>> be a serious contender.
>>
>> But, Linux sure does a great job on Mars,
>
> ??
>
> AFAIK not in use on Mars I'm having problems locating it but
> it's probably a specialized affair. They might be on use
> here on Earth for talking to the Martian rovers, though.
>
> http://research.microsoft.com/~mbj/Mars_Pathfinder/Authoritative_Account.html
>
> is an accounting of a problem with the Mars Pathfinder,
> which is admittedly the best I can do at the moment.
> The file system is probably a variant of FAT (with wire
> reports suggesting it is "DOS" -- silly groundlings, they
> can't get cyberspace quite right ).
>
>> on the Shuttle,
>
> Ditto. The Shuttle computers would have been outpaced by
> a 386, but are rad-hardened and very reliable (and check
> each other's operations thousands of times a second).
> One hopes they're whisker-free as well, in the future --
> an issue that is beginning to surface with the elimination
> of lead in the soldier. Bizarre.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solder#Lead-free_solder
>
> Anyway, Google coughed up
>
> http://klabs.org/DEI/Processor/shuttle/
>
> which among other things specifies a high-level language
> specification (HAL/S) for the GPC units, and pictures of
> the boards therein (with chips clearly marked "SINGER" and
> "TORWICO", along with some smaller chips with the Texas
> Instruments logo). No doubt HAL/S could easily be adapted
> to Linux, but it is not the most exciting of languages,
> apart from its being used on actual space hardware.
> The syntax reminds me of an odd mixture of BASIC and PASCAL
> (or maybe BASIC and FORTH), but also has macros and can
> do matrix algebra.
>
>> in NASA space
>> programs,
>
> I'll admit to some curiosity as to the newer spacecraft,
> at this point. If Linux can be used in ASUS, it certainly
> could be adapted for use on various hardware launched
> into space.
>
>> at the NSA,
>
> http://www.nsa.gov/selinux
>
>> for Google,
>
> Internally. Some Google offerings such as Sketch still
> assume Windows. Mixed bag, to say the least.
>
>> in the FBI, CIA, DOT/FAA, and DOE.
>
> Probably mixed.
>
>>
>> The majority of top 500 clustering computers run GNU/Linux.
>>
>> Most ISPs offer webspace on GNU/Linux servers.
>
> Dunno about that specifically Earthlink, however, does state
> it's running Apache on Unix.
>
>> Microsoft leases 15,000
>> Akamai Linux Servers to protect Microsoft.com, MSN.com.
>>
>> Microsoft runs all firewall/routers on Aruba Linux boxes.
>>
>> The National Weather Service uses Linux for forecasting, and to simulate
>> storm development.
>>
>> For the much larger and very professional government and military
>> applications, simulators, weapons systems, GNU/Linux is the answer.
>
> It is *an* answer...clearly a very good one, at this point.
> FreeBSD might be a better answer for some applications,
> though I can't specifically state precisely why. With
> the buzz surrounding Linux, FreeBSD might very well go
> invisible, which would be unfortunate (after all, Linux
> needs competition too! )
>
>>
>> I would categorize that as very professional use of an OS!
>>
>> Go ahead and compartmentalize the proprietary programs you are familiar
>> with, into the little pidgeon holes your brain envisions.
>>
>> Others of us have no limits and no boundries. We use the proper tools
>> for the job, and most PR hype is not about competent achievement of
>> strategic goals, but is about selling snake oil to ignorant masses of
>> folks who want to be popular with their peer group.
>>
>> CEOs, CTOs, who are competent have this awareness. Twelve Microsoft
>> servers, with record 'up times' of 12 days do not even compete with a
>> single GNU/Linux, or BSD, server, that replaces that Microsoft server,
>> and the GNU/Linux or BSD server runs maintenance free for a year or more.
>
> There are Windows servers with an uptime of several years.
> fp002.crayfish.net is running Windows 2000, and apparently
> has been up for more than 4 years. www.root102.co.uk
> with Win2003 has been up for more than 4 years as well.
> Granted, it is far from clear whether the system in this
> case includes a load distributor, and there are systems
> running FreeBSD and BSD/OS that have been running even
> longer.
>
> Linux, regrettably, does not make the cut.
>
> http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/today/top.avg.html
>
>>
>> There are some in the colleges, Universities, academies, and hospitals,
>> here.
>>
>> As the Amish say: Trust in the Lord, but, tie up your horses!
>>
>>
>>
>> Competent, reliable, secure are key words used with and about GNU/Linux.
>
> Certainly more than Windows, in general.
>
>

Don't forget that Linux is used in LOTS of embedded software situations such
as video bridges, automobiles, recording consoles, numerically controlled
manufacturing processing, navigation systems, etc.

 

[ZnU]

In article <cd9ng3l4pn99fnof97jv5rn7pas5s6vf9v@4ax.com>,
Mayor of R'lyeh <mayor.of.rlyeh@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 11:09:53 -0400, ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
>
> >In article <13glfpuemt2af@news.supernews.com>, Rick <none@nomail.com>
> >wrote:

> >> > Same for all other professional level apps, like Office, iLife, AutoCad,
> >> > etc. Their approach is too fractured and hard to support is the other
> >> > issue. Wish it was different, but unless they "focus", they will never
> >> > be a serious contender.
> >>
> >> So... what professional offices use iLife?
> >
> >We're a web and video production company, and we find iMovie useful for
> >video jobs occasionally.
>
> I find Arcsoft Video Impression useful occasionally. That doesn't make
> it a professional level app.

I didn't call the iLife apps professional-level, that was Oxford. I just
answered a question about whether any "professional offices" used iLife.

> > There are some things which are highly
> >automated in iMovie that take much more time to do manually in Final Cut
> >Pro.
> >
> >GarageBand is also pretty widely used by professional podcasters.
>
> All the actual professionals that I've heard talk about using Windoes.

I suspect I'm considerably closer to this market than you are, and I've
seen exactly the opposite.

The Mac rules pro audio in general. Given Apple's connection with the
iPod and iTunes, I'd expect, if anything, Apple to be even more dominant
in the pro podcasting market.

> >[1] Actually, OS X is UNIX(R) as of 10.5, finally settling that
> >long-running debate.

--
"More than two decades later, it is hard to imagine the Revolutionary War coming
out any other way."
--George W. Bush in Martinsburg, W. Va., July 4, 2007

 

[Adam Albright]

On Tue, 9 Oct 2007 16:58:27 +0100, spike1@freenet.co.uk wrote:

>In the sacred domain of comp.os.linux.advocacy,
>Adam Albright <AA@abc.net> didnst hastily scribble thusly:
>> Seems a lot of blockheads come from the UK. Interesting, I observed
>> this FACT in just about every newsgroup I ever visited. Most of the
>> clowns either are from the UK (can tell from their spelling of certain
>> common words like ass or color) or they still are there judging form
>> their email address or posting header.
>
>Ahhhh good.
>Not only a moron, but a racist moron.

Just a statement of fact. Check Goggle and you'll see nearly every
smartass using the UK spelling of ass and color. Like the idiot Frank.
The unofficial crown prince and reigning clown of this newsgroup.

>Jolly good, I'm sure all us brits'll enjoy flattening all your arguments in
>the future.

Another loser pretending he speaks for everybody. You don't speak for
brits. You're simply showing us another Brit that likes to flap his
gums. You.

It seems a lot of Brits are preoccupied with Princess D. What's this,
the THIRD official inquiry?

News Flash. She's dead. Get over it! She was killed because she let
some drunk drive her. Driving drunk at 80 MPG and hitting a cement
pillar spells DEATH to occupants. Further the little princess didn't
bother to put her seatbelt on according to most reports. If she did,
she probably would still be alive. Not very smart was she.

Further this is 2007, not the middle of the 17th century. Why do so
many UK citizens seem to worship a "royal" family? Finally I judge
people as individuals. Not by nationality or race. You didn't pass the
sniff test. Sorry.

 

[Mayor of R'lyeh]

On Tue, 9 Oct 2007 16:58:27 +0100, spike1@freenet.co.uk wrote:

>In the sacred domain of comp.os.linux.advocacy,
>Adam Albright <AA@abc.net> didnst hastily scribble thusly:
>> Seems a lot of blockheads come from the UK. Interesting, I observed
>> this FACT in just about every newsgroup I ever visited. Most of the
>> clowns either are from the UK (can tell from their spelling of certain
>> common words like ass or color) or they still are there judging form
>> their email address or posting header.
>
>Ahhhh good.
>Not only a moron, but a racist moron.

Racist? When did Brits become a different race? The word you're
looking for is 'jingoistic'.

>Jolly good, I'm sure all us brits'll enjoy flattening all your arguments in
>the future.
>
>
>> ROTFLMAO!
>
>Laugh away, moron boy.

 

[Peter Hayes]

Oxford <colalovesmacs@mac.com> wrote:

> notinuse2@btinternet.com (Peter Hayes) wrote:
>
> > > life in the states is far better than in western europe, it's like day
> > > and night, osx to linux. have you ever traveled to the states peter?
> > > nope! imploding economy? that's absurd. 4.6% unemployment,
> >
> > And rising,
> >
> > http://www.forecasts.org/unemploy.htm
>
> ah, you picked an incorrect chart... a "forecast" not the actual numbers.

You deal in forecasts all the time, so what's sauce for the goose is
sauce for the gander. Only problem is, mine are accurate.

> > > record stock market, cheap housing,
> >
> > Just don't mention sub-primes...
>
> sub primes are a small percentage of the housing market. and the very
> meaning of "sub" means lenders weren't being careful, it has little to
> do with the economy in general.
>
> > > gas is $2.56 a gallon,
> >
> > And it was under $1.00 a gallon not so long ago.
>
> it was??? when??? oh, about 6 years ago, just after Bush took office &
> 9/11 hit... interesting...
>
> http://www.denvergasprices.com/retail_price_chart.aspx

So let's see the six year US average, shall we?

$1.04 to about $3.00 and rising. Seems Alan Greenspan was telling the
truth.

I ask again, who is Adele Goldberg, and what crucial role did she play
in Steve Jobs's world?

--

Immunity is better than innoculation.

Peter

 

[ZnU]

In article <13gmnnhaso6f7b6@news.supernews.com>, Rick <none@nomail.com>
wrote:

> On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 00:54:30 -0600, Oxford wrote:
>
> > spike1@freenet.co.uk wrote:
> >
> >> > I'm trying to help you understand the larger world kier, to help you
> >> > understand Linux is unheard of here in the States, Canada, Japan,
> >> > etc.
> >>
> >> Lesseee, IBM... Where's that based again?
> >
> > In new york somewhere, but they no longer sell PCs, they got out of the
> > mainstream computer business several years ago. Apple sells more Unix
> > based machines in 5 minutes than IBM sell linux machines in a month. IBM
> > is totally off the radar now.
>
> aha HAH ahha HHA hahah HAHaha H Ahaha hhaha hah ...
>
> You're arguing about Linux, meathead. And IBM developers write Linux and
> OSS software. If linux is a fairly big deal at a company much larger than
> Apple, how is it unheard of in the US?

Um... I think you'll find that Apple is very nearly as large as IBM
these days. ($146B vs. $161B.)

--
"More than two decades later, it is hard to imagine the Revolutionary War coming
out any other way."
--George W. Bush in Martinsburg, W. Va., July 4, 2007

 

[dennis@home]

"AHappyCamper" <@thelandfill.com> wrote in message
news:470b8852$0$15384$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...

> But, Linux sure does a great job on Mars

which one uses linux rather than vxworks?

 

[Oxford]

ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:

> > You're arguing about Linux, meathead. And IBM developers write Linux and
> > OSS software. If linux is a fairly big deal at a company much larger than
> > Apple, how is it unheard of in the US?
>
> Um... I think you'll find that Apple is very nearly as large as IBM
> these days. ($146B vs. $161B.)

well, be careful... Apple is not nearly as "large", it's just "almost"
more valuable than IBM... to add some color...

IBM'S Revenue is 94.67B
Apple's Revenue is 22.63B

Total cash for IBM 10.19B
Total cash for Apple 13.77B

Basically, Apple makes more money for less work, far less employees...
only MSFT will be ahead Apple in the upcoming year. But chances are
quite high MST will lose out to Apple over the next 2-4 years, since
MSFT is in steep decline.

All the details are here:

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=ibm
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=aapl
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=msft

 

[George Graves]

On Tue, 9 Oct 2007 03:56:16 -0700, Rick wrote
(in article <13gmnigar37km54@news.supernews.com>):

> On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 00:05:19 -0700, George Graves wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 8 Oct 2007 18:57:41 -0700, Oxford wrote (in article
>> <colalovesmacs-24B109.19574108102007@mpls-nnrp-06.inet.qwest.net>):
>>
>>> why so angry Jesus?
>>>
>>> I thought you loved everyone?
>>>
>>> It's sad that even you have turned on the human race.
>>
>> It's pointless trying to have a discussion with these linux fanatics. To
>> them every comment is a challenge, a lie, or worse. You either follow
>> the party line or you are damned. It's real simple. Linux has had years
>> to achieve some sort of critical mass as a viable desktop system and it
>> hasn't moved very far in spite of being so much better than Windows that
>> it isn't even a contest. Yet if you tell these Linux fanatics that one
>> little fact, they go ballistic. Basically, I think that they know its
>> true, but the emperor's new suit of clothes.... well, you know.
>
> Explain to use why the city of Largo uses OpenOffice if it is not a
> professional level application.

Please explain how your non sequitur remark, above, has anything whatsoever
to do with my comment.

 

[George Graves]

On Tue, 9 Oct 2007 06:14:13 -0700, Adam Albright wrote
(in article .):

> On Tue, 9 Oct 2007 00:05:19 -0700, George Graves
> <gmgraves2@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> It's pointless trying to have a discussion with these linux fanatics.
>
> You mean like it's pointless to try to have a discussion with Vista
> fanboy zealots?
>
>> To them every comment is a challenge, a lie, or worse. You either follow
>> the party
>> line or you are damned. It's real simple.
>
> I guess you never read any of slop Frank or any of the other hot
> headed MS apologists have posted. Do sometime.

In an earlier post I said quite clearly that most OS enthusiasts tend to fall
into the trap of being platform apologists at one time or another. I've done
it myself. But you're right. I find the Anti-Mac drivel posted here in CSMA
quite enough without having to go look for more. I don't subscribe to any
other computer newsgroup than CSMA. Sometimes threads in which I take part
get cross-posted, but my involvement in those other groups dies when the
thread dies.
>
>> Linux has had years to achieve some
>> sort of critical mass as a viable desktop system and it hasn't moved very
>> far
>> in spite of being so much better than Windows that it isn't even a contest.
>> Yet if you tell these Linux fanatics that one little fact, they go
>> ballistic.
>> Basically, I think that they know its true, but the emperor's new suit of
>> clothes.... well, you know.
>
> Hmm... I'm not Linux fanatic, but I've noticed Microsoft in over 20
> years of trying hasn't been able to release any version of Windows yet
> that hasn't required a service pack and a boat load of patches and
> fixes before it was stable. Tell that to a fanboy and they go
> ballistic after denying it's true.

Like I said, we all do it occasionally. But nonetheless, it is less than
constructive to participate in that kind of "advocacy".
>

 

[Peter Hayes]

Oxford <colalovesmacs@mac.com> wrote:

> notinuse2@btinternet.com (Peter Hayes) wrote:
>
> > > > And rising,
> > > >
> > > > http://www.forecasts.org/unemploy.htm
> > >
> > > ah, you picked an incorrect chart... a "forecast" not the actual numbers.
> >
> > You deal in forecasts all the time, so what's sauce for the goose is
> > sauce for the gander. Only problem is, mine are accurate.
>
> Incorrect. you CLEARLY goofed by using a link that was based on
> FORECASTS... while i CLEARLY corrected you by using real numbers
> straight from both governments. The UK has about .8% poorer employment
> of its people... that's a fact.

You quoted a US unemployment figure, 4.6%, and I said it is rising,
which is correct. It's up to you to either agree a rise in US
unemployment, or to disagree, not to sidestep the comment with spurious
complaints about perfectly valid charts.


-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-

Message-ID: <1i5q4xp.1eykn6t1cctlxiN%notinuse2@btinternet.com>

"Oxford> 4.6% unemployment,

PH> And rising"

-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-


Part of the reason for this rise is the collapse of the US dollar. The
collapse of the US $ against the £ and the ¤ illustrates the rising
quality of life in Europe and the corresponding decline in the US.

> > > > > gas is $2.56 a gallon,
> > > >
> > > > And it was under $1.00 a gallon not so long ago.
> > >
> > > it was??? when??? oh, about 6 years ago, just after Bush took office &
> > > 9/11 hit... interesting...
> > >
> > > http://www.denvergasprices.com/retail_price_chart.aspx
> >
> > So let's see the six year US average, shall we?
> >
> > $1.04 to about $3.00 and rising. Seems Alan Greenspan was telling the
> > truth.
>
> Actually, Gas prices in the States are declining and have been for
> awhile now. Let's look at the last 1 year... is that fair enough?

If you like. Petrol was $2.14 a year ago and is $2.80 now, give or take
a cent, US average

> click on the last 3 months here:
>
> (interesting, a decline... thus you are wrong)

All that proves is petrol prices are cyclic. Petrol was $2.14 a year ago
and is $2.80 now. US average. Interesting, an upward trend... thus you
are wrong.

It's so easy to destroy your argument, please try harder next time,
thanks!

> don't see much above $3 in "real-time"... thus you are wrong.

The US average peaked at $3.24 on 17th May. It's fallen away a little
since but the overall trend is upwards. Expect to pay at least £3.50
next spring, unless something radical happens.

The wild fluctuations in price suggest an unstable market. Under these
circumstances it won't take much to trigger off a rapid increase in
price.

> > I ask again, who is Adele Goldberg, and what crucial role did she play
> > in Steve Jobs's world?
>
> She played a subservient hostess at PARC, serving Milk and Cookies
> before all the "talent" left for Apple.
>
> Ouch!
>
> Proving once again, she had nothing to do with Steve and Apple!

She played a much more crucial role than that. Try again.

--

Immunity is better than innoculation.

Peter

 

[TheLetterK]

Re: Linux developers MUST consolidate and release a "master" distrofor the general computer/device market.

George Graves wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Oct 2007 18:42:30 -0700, TheLetterK wrote
> (in article .):
>
>> George Graves wrote:
>>> On Mon, 8 Oct 2007 16:29:26 -0700, Rick wrote
>>> (in article <13glfamgu0hrfb6@news.supernews.com>):
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 12:32:59 -0700, George Graves wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 7 Oct 2007 11:54:16 -0700, ultimauw@hotmail.com wrote (in
>>>>> article <1191783256.814194.298860@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com>):
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Oct 6, 4:19 pm, "Randy Oaks" <ro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> <bones4jo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> news:1191705624.157060.40790@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Oct 6, 3:47 pm, Gene Jones <ja...@janus.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Dean Plude <xenop...@charter.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> In my many years using linux I have come to know that to truly
>>>>>>>>>> support and promote linux as I did with brunswick and many others
>>>>>>>>>> is simply show
>>>>>>>>>> large companies that there are choices in an OS and that they do
>>>>>>>>>> not have to pay a fortune to get.I will never forget when I gave
>>>>>>>>>> the head manufacturing engineer a Debian BO disk and simplly said
>>>>>>>>>> check it out . that was all it took.
>>>>>>>>>> Remember World Domination is our ultimate goal.
>>>>>>>>> Linux will never achieve anything close to world domination unless
>>>>>>>>> the users unite and follow Apple's OSX direction. Now Linux has
>>>>>>>>> pretty much become a footnote in history compared to what apple is
>>>>>>>>> doing with UNIX.
>>>>>>>>> So unless that changes, it's a slow fade to black for the Linux
>>>>>>>>> community.
>>>>>>>>> You guys have a chance, but you must "unite" - it's that simple.
>>>>>>>>> OSX is now about 9 times as large in the world, 6 years ago you guys
>>>>>>>>> were neck and neck. What happened? No leadership is the answer.
>>>>>>>>> Within the next few weeks, OSX is going to be a CERTIFIED UNIX.
>>>>>>>>> Why isn't Linux up to this certification level?
>>>>>>>>> http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/unix/
>>>>>>>> Linux is far too fragmented to accomplish anything useful. It's two
>>>>>>>> hundred thousand developers all trying to release their own version
>>>>>>>> of Linux.
>>>>>>> Agreed. Linux is the classic case of "too many cooks in the kitchen."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If Linux were going to succeed in the consumer market it would have
>>>>>>> done so already. Now it's simply too-little, too-late as Linux has
>>>>>>> absolutely zero mindset with the consumer. OSX and Vista will continue
>>>>>>> to dominate.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Maybe there is still hope yet, but it requires the developers to get
>>>>>> together, set aside their egos, and all work on a single master distro.
>>>>>> If they did that, Linux would beat the pants off of Vista and OSX
>>>>>> guaranteed, and perhaps chart the course for the whole computer (and
>>>>>> computer-device) industry away from the lockdown-drm-crippled dreck
>>>>>> that it's been floating in for a while now.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> I doubt if it would "beat the pants off" of either OSX or Vista. Even
>>>>> though Linux is better than Windows "anything" MS is too entrenched in
>>>>> the computer world, and OSX is simply too sophisticated to be displaced
>>>>> by an OS like Linux.
>>>>>
>>>>> But what a single distro would do would be to stimulate acceptance in
>>>>> the "shrink-wrap" software world to the point where they could release
>>>>> pre-compiled versions of their software for that one distro for one
>>>>> platform (PC compatible) that would be relatively safe. Not wanting to
>>>>> open their source-code to prying eyes is, IMHO, the single biggest
>>>>> reason why companies like Adobe et al don't port their software to Linux
>>>>> is because of the need for that software to be compiled by the user due
>>>>> to the non-standard configurations of various distributions of Linux on
>>>>> a myriad of platforms/processors.
>>>> IMO you don't know what you are talking about. What makes you think the
>>>> software would HAVE to be recompiled for each distro?
>>> Then why is most open source software distributed that way?
>> It's packaged for a particular distro, but that's because there are
>> several competing package managers out there. In many cases, you can use
>> packages from other distributions just fine, though sometimes that can
>> cause problems. There are also utilities out there that will convert
>> binary packages from one format to another. Alien is an example of that,
>> which lets dpkg users install binary rpm packages for their architecture.
>
> Listen to yourself! You've just confirmed what I said earlier.

Recompilation is not the same thing as repackaging.

>> This is not really that big of a deal in practice, because all of the
>> major distros have very robust package repositories these days. I don't
>> generally need to download packages from the developer's site, unless
>> I'm wanting bleeding edge packages. Why, then, would I care what they're
>> releasing?
>>
>>>>> Once this happened, the MS hegemony would truly start to fall apart as
>>>>> there would be fewer and fewer reasons not to replace Windows with
>>>>> Linux.
>
>

 

[Oxford]

notinuse2@btinternet.com (Peter Hayes) wrote:

> > > You deal in forecasts all the time, so what's sauce for the goose is
> > > sauce for the gander. Only problem is, mine are accurate.
> >
> > Incorrect. you CLEARLY goofed by using a link that was based on
> > FORECASTS... while i CLEARLY corrected you by using real numbers
> > straight from both governments. The UK has about .8% poorer employment
> > of its people... that's a fact.
>
> You quoted a US unemployment figure, 4.6%, and I said it is rising,
> which is correct. It's up to you to either agree a rise in US
> unemployment, or to disagree, not to sidestep the comment with spurious
> complaints about perfectly valid charts.

but you quoted a link of a "forecast" by a non-governmental agency. my
report was correct. yours was not. the number is 4.7% not 4.6%.

unemployment is only up 1/10th of 1 percent in the US over the last few
months... hardly statistically significant. Meanwhile the UK has about
..7% more unemployment! thus it's a less productive society. thus you are
incorrect by a HUGE amount.

I like how you have removed all my links to cover your error!

http://www.bls.gov/ (the US)

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/CCI/nugget.asp?ID=12 (the UK)

> Part of the reason for this rise is the collapse of the US dollar. The
> collapse of the US $ against the £ and the ¤ illustrates the rising
> quality of life in Europe and the corresponding decline in the US.

there has been no "collapse" of the $, just a lowering of value because
of george bush. sure, europe is gaining under this poor presidency, but
life in the UK / EU is decades behind the US, whenever I visit the UK
I'm shocked at how poor the nation is. Only Norway seems to be about on
par with the US.

> > Actually, Gas prices in the States are declining and have been for
> > awhile now. Let's look at the last 1 year... is that fair enough?
>
> If you like. Petrol was $2.14 a year ago and is $2.80 now, give or take
> a cent, US average

Sure, but that's per liter or whatever, the US still runs circles around
other developed countries for the lowest fuel prices.

> > click on the last 3 months here:
> >
> > (interesting, a decline... thus you are wrong)
>
> All that proves is petrol prices are cyclic. Petrol was $2.14 a year ago
> and is $2.80 now. US average. Interesting, an upward trend... thus you
> are wrong.

yes, and I fully agree they are cyclical, but there hasn't been a time
in our lifetimes that US prices were MORE than UK prices. The UK has
practically no natural resources in this area while the US has near
unlimited supply if needed. Gas prices are up because of the "power" in
Washington at the moment. It's HOUSTON based... not middle america based
or even southern based as usual.

> It's so easy to destroy your argument, please try harder next time,
> thanks!

When you make an argument, let everyone know okay?

> > don't see much above $3 in "real-time"... thus you are wrong.
>
> The US average peaked at $3.24 on 17th May. It's fallen away a little
> since but the overall trend is upwards. Expect to pay at least £3.50
> next spring, unless something radical happens.

the "average" has now fallen to $2.80 or less... what? £3.50 that would
never happen. $4.93 per gallon? there would be riots in the streets.
Please check your facts before you post such nonsense.

> The wild fluctuations in price suggest an unstable market. Under these
> circumstances it won't take much to trigger off a rapid increase in
> price.

it reflects Katrina wiping out several refineries, and the whole silly
iraq war... once the war is over, and bush is gone, gas prices will drop
back down to $1.59 or so.

> > > I ask again, who is Adele Goldberg, and what crucial role did she play
> > > in Steve Jobs's world?
> >
> > She played a subservient hostess at PARC, serving Milk and Cookies
> > before all the "talent" left for Apple.
> >
> > Ouch!
> >
> > Proving once again, she had nothing to do with Steve and Apple!
>
> She played a much more crucial role than that. Try again.

Nothing that is documented. Try again.

 

[TheLetterK]

Re: Linux developers MUST consolidate and release a "master" distrofor the general computer/device market.

Peter Hayes wrote:
> Oxford <colalovesmacs@mac.com> wrote:
>
>> notinuse2@btinternet.com (Peter Hayes) wrote:
>>
>>>>> And rising,
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.forecasts.org/unemploy.htm
>>>> ah, you picked an incorrect chart... a "forecast" not the actual numbers.
>>> You deal in forecasts all the time, so what's sauce for the goose is
>>> sauce for the gander. Only problem is, mine are accurate.
>> Incorrect. you CLEARLY goofed by using a link that was based on
>> FORECASTS... while i CLEARLY corrected you by using real numbers
>> straight from both governments. The UK has about .8% poorer employment
>> of its people... that's a fact.
>
> You quoted a US unemployment figure, 4.6%, and I said it is rising,
> which is correct. It's up to you to either agree a rise in US
> unemployment, or to disagree, not to sidestep the comment with spurious
> complaints about perfectly valid charts.
>
>
> -o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-
>
> Message-ID: <1i5q4xp.1eykn6t1cctlxiN%notinuse2@btinternet.com>
>
> "Oxford> 4.6% unemployment,
>
> PH> And rising"
>
> -o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-
>
>
> Part of the reason for this rise is the collapse of the US dollar. The
> collapse of the US $ against the £ and the ¤ illustrates the rising
> quality of life in Europe and the corresponding decline in the US.

A decrease in the value of currency will usually decrease unemployment,
in moderate amounts.

>
>>>>>> gas is $2.56 a gallon,
>>>>> And it was under $1.00 a gallon not so long ago.
>>>> it was??? when??? oh, about 6 years ago, just after Bush took office &
>>>> 9/11 hit... interesting...
>>>>
>>>> http://www.denvergasprices.com/retail_price_chart.aspx
>>> So let's see the six year US average, shall we?
>>>
>>> $1.04 to about $3.00 and rising. Seems Alan Greenspan was telling the
>>> truth.
>> Actually, Gas prices in the States are declining and have been for
>> awhile now. Let's look at the last 1 year... is that fair enough?
>
> If you like. Petrol was $2.14 a year ago and is $2.80 now, give or take
> a cent, US average
>
>> click on the last 3 months here:
>>
>> (interesting, a decline... thus you are wrong)
>
> All that proves is petrol prices are cyclic. Petrol was $2.14 a year ago
> and is $2.80 now. US average. Interesting, an upward trend... thus you
> are wrong.
>
> It's so easy to destroy your argument, please try harder next time,
> thanks!
>
>> don't see much above $3 in "real-time"... thus you are wrong.
>
> The US average peaked at $3.24 on 17th May. It's fallen away a little
> since but the overall trend is upwards. Expect to pay at least £3.50
> next spring, unless something radical happens.

That would be a 280% increase over current prices. That seems a little
extreme for only a few months. Did you mean $3.50 USD? You also need to
correct for inflation, which is becoming an increasingly more involved task.

>
> The wild fluctuations in price suggest an unstable market. Under these
> circumstances it won't take much to trigger off a rapid increase in
> price.
>
>>> I ask again, who is Adele Goldberg, and what crucial role did she play
>>> in Steve Jobs's world?
>> She played a subservient hostess at PARC, serving Milk and Cookies
>> before all the "talent" left for Apple.
>>
>> Ouch!
>>
>> Proving once again, she had nothing to do with Steve and Apple!
>
> She played a much more crucial role than that. Try again.
>

 

[Kevin Weaver]

Guys, Don't mind OXTURD. He try's to command the groups.
Check out alt.cellular.cingular and see for yourself.


"Oxford" <colalovesmacs@mac.com> wrote in message
news:colalovesmacs-C0C715.17301309102007@mpls-nnrp-06.inet.qwest.net...
> notinuse2@btinternet.com (Peter Hayes) wrote:
>
>> > > You deal in forecasts all the time, so what's sauce for the goose is
>> > > sauce for the gander. Only problem is, mine are accurate.
>> >
>> > Incorrect. you CLEARLY goofed by using a link that was based on
>> > FORECASTS... while i CLEARLY corrected you by using real numbers
>> > straight from both governments. The UK has about .8% poorer employment
>> > of its people... that's a fact.
>>
>> You quoted a US unemployment figure, 4.6%, and I said it is rising,
>> which is correct. It's up to you to either agree a rise in US
>> unemployment, or to disagree, not to sidestep the comment with spurious
>> complaints about perfectly valid charts.
>
> but you quoted a link of a "forecast" by a non-governmental agency. my
> report was correct. yours was not. the number is 4.7% not 4.6%.
>
> unemployment is only up 1/10th of 1 percent in the US over the last few
> months... hardly statistically significant. Meanwhile the UK has about
> .7% more unemployment! thus it's a less productive society. thus you are
> incorrect by a HUGE amount.
>
> I like how you have removed all my links to cover your error!
>
> http://www.bls.gov/ (the US)
>
> http://www.statistics.gov.uk/CCI/nugget.asp?ID=12 (the UK)
>
>> Part of the reason for this rise is the collapse of the US dollar. The
>> collapse of the US $ against the £ and the ¤ illustrates the rising
>> quality of life in Europe and the corresponding decline in the US.
>
> there has been no "collapse" of the $, just a lowering of value because
> of george bush. sure, europe is gaining under this poor presidency, but
> life in the UK / EU is decades behind the US, whenever I visit the UK
> I'm shocked at how poor the nation is. Only Norway seems to be about on
> par with the US.
>
>> > Actually, Gas prices in the States are declining and have been for
>> > awhile now. Let's look at the last 1 year... is that fair enough?
>>
>> If you like. Petrol was $2.14 a year ago and is $2.80 now, give or take
>> a cent, US average
>
> Sure, but that's per liter or whatever, the US still runs circles around
> other developed countries for the lowest fuel prices.
>
>> > click on the last 3 months here:
>> >
>> > (interesting, a decline... thus you are wrong)
>>
>> All that proves is petrol prices are cyclic. Petrol was $2.14 a year ago
>> and is $2.80 now. US average. Interesting, an upward trend... thus you
>> are wrong.
>
> yes, and I fully agree they are cyclical, but there hasn't been a time
> in our lifetimes that US prices were MORE than UK prices. The UK has
> practically no natural resources in this area while the US has near
> unlimited supply if needed. Gas prices are up because of the "power" in
> Washington at the moment. It's HOUSTON based... not middle america based
> or even southern based as usual.
>
>> It's so easy to destroy your argument, please try harder next time,
>> thanks!
>
> When you make an argument, let everyone know okay?
>
>> > don't see much above $3 in "real-time"... thus you are wrong.
>>
>> The US average peaked at $3.24 on 17th May. It's fallen away a little
>> since but the overall trend is upwards. Expect to pay at least £3.50
>> next spring, unless something radical happens.
>
> the "average" has now fallen to $2.80 or less... what? £3.50 that would
> never happen. $4.93 per gallon? there would be riots in the streets.
> Please check your facts before you post such nonsense.
>
>> The wild fluctuations in price suggest an unstable market. Under these
>> circumstances it won't take much to trigger off a rapid increase in
>> price.
>
> it reflects Katrina wiping out several refineries, and the whole silly
> iraq war... once the war is over, and bush is gone, gas prices will drop
> back down to $1.59 or so.
>
>> > > I ask again, who is Adele Goldberg, and what crucial role did she
>> > > play
>> > > in Steve Jobs's world?
>> >
>> > She played a subservient hostess at PARC, serving Milk and Cookies
>> > before all the "talent" left for Apple.
>> >
>> > Ouch!
>> >
>> > Proving once again, she had nothing to do with Steve and Apple!
>>
>> She played a much more crucial role than that. Try again.
>
> Nothing that is documented. Try again.

 

[Alias]

Re: Linux developers MUST consolidate and release a "master" distrofor the general computer/device market.

Oxford wrote:
> notinuse2@btinternet.com (Peter Hayes) wrote:
>
>>>> You deal in forecasts all the time, so what's sauce for the goose is
>>>> sauce for the gander. Only problem is, mine are accurate.
>>> Incorrect. you CLEARLY goofed by using a link that was based on
>>> FORECASTS... while i CLEARLY corrected you by using real numbers
>>> straight from both governments. The UK has about .8% poorer employment
>>> of its people... that's a fact.
>> You quoted a US unemployment figure, 4.6%, and I said it is rising,
>> which is correct. It's up to you to either agree a rise in US
>> unemployment, or to disagree, not to sidestep the comment with spurious
>> complaints about perfectly valid charts.
>
> but you quoted a link of a "forecast" by a non-governmental agency. my
> report was correct. yours was not. the number is 4.7% not 4.6%.
>
> unemployment is only up 1/10th of 1 percent in the US over the last few
> months... hardly statistically significant. Meanwhile the UK has about
> .7% more unemployment! thus it's a less productive society. thus you are
> incorrect by a HUGE amount.

Seems you would have to include underemployment in the US. Also, a lot
of the work in the US is war related so if and when the war in Iraq is
over, a lot of jobs will be lost. And who wants to work for McDonalds Or
McDouglas? Fact is, Europe takes better care of their poor than the US
does and that's much more important than how you can interpret
incomplete data.

>
> I like how you have removed all my links to cover your error!
>
> http://www.bls.gov/ (the US)
>
> http://www.statistics.gov.uk/CCI/nugget.asp?ID=12 (the UK)
>
>> Part of the reason for this rise is the collapse of the US dollar. The
>> collapse of the US $ against the £ and the ¤ illustrates the rising
>> quality of life in Europe and the corresponding decline in the US.
>
> there has been no "collapse" of the $, just a lowering of value because
> of george bush. sure, europe is gaining under this poor presidency, but
> life in the UK / EU is decades behind the US, whenever I visit the UK
> I'm shocked at how poor the nation is. Only Norway seems to be about on
> par with the US.

You live in Bel Air? West LA? Georgetown, D.C.? Not everyone in the
States has a high standard of living. There's an act of violence every
22 seconds in the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave. The dollar
is down because of the fact that Bush AND the Congress are spending
money they don't have like mad, murderous drunken sailors.

>
>>> Actually, Gas prices in the States are declining and have been for
>>> awhile now. Let's look at the last 1 year... is that fair enough?
>> If you like. Petrol was $2.14 a year ago and is $2.80 now, give or take
>> a cent, US average
>
> Sure, but that's per liter or whatever, the US still runs circles around
> other developed countries for the lowest fuel prices.

Yeah, but we walk more and as a result aren't as fat. I can get almost
anything I need within a twenty minute walk or less, usually a five
minute walk. In the States, you gotta take the care to get anything
done. You may pay less per gallon but we use less. I don't own a car, as
I see no need.

>
>>> click on the last 3 months here:
>>>
>>> (interesting, a decline... thus you are wrong)
>> All that proves is petrol prices are cyclic. Petrol was $2.14 a year ago
>> and is $2.80 now. US average. Interesting, an upward trend... thus you
>> are wrong.
>
> yes, and I fully agree they are cyclical, but there hasn't been a time
> in our lifetimes that US prices were MORE than UK prices. The UK has
> practically no natural resources in this area while the US has near
> unlimited supply if needed. Gas prices are up because of the "power" in
> Washington at the moment. It's HOUSTON based... not middle america based
> or even southern based as usual.

The spigots of Iraq being turned off and the idiocy of attacking Iraq
had a tad to do with oil price increases and, yes, it came from Houston.

>
>> It's so easy to destroy your argument, please try harder next time,
>> thanks!
>
> When you make an argument, let everyone know okay?

Boys, boys.

>
>>> don't see much above $3 in "real-time"... thus you are wrong.
>> The US average peaked at $3.24 on 17th May. It's fallen away a little
>> since but the overall trend is upwards. Expect to pay at least £3.50
>> next spring, unless something radical happens.
>
> the "average" has now fallen to $2.80 or less... what? £3.50 that would
> never happen. $4.93 per gallon? there would be riots in the streets.

No, they'd be riots over who gets to buy it first. Americans might start
walking more, demanding that goods and services be within walking
distance of their residences even.

> Please check your facts before you post such nonsense.
>
>> The wild fluctuations in price suggest an unstable market. Under these
>> circumstances it won't take much to trigger off a rapid increase in
>> price.
>
> it reflects Katrina wiping out several refineries, and the whole silly
> iraq war... once the war is over, and bush is gone, gas prices will drop
> back down to $1.59 or so.

Gas prices may go down some but, now that you're used to it, it's time
to start something new to jack them up some more until you get used to
that. I remember 25 us cents a gallon. We'll never even dream that again
but back when it first went up with the Arab Oil Embargo, there were
those who said, once this is over, the price will go back down. Sure,
pull the other one Exxon ..

>
>>>> I ask again, who is Adele Goldberg, and what crucial role did she play
>>>> in Steve Jobs's world?
>>> She played a subservient hostess at PARC, serving Milk and Cookies
>>> before all the "talent" left for Apple.
>>>
>>> Ouch!
>>>
>>> Proving once again, she had nothing to do with Steve and Apple!
>> She played a much more crucial role than that. Try again.
>
> Nothing that is documented. Try again.

Now, you've both lost me.

--
Alias
To email me, remove shoes