nssi and 4dos
tikbalang
tool crashes when run under 4dos?
thanks.
ras...@highfiber.com
> can someone please confirm that nssi (http://www.navsoft.cz/) sysinfo
> tool crashes when run under 4dos?
Not here; it seems to run fine with either 4DOS 7.50.130 or 7.99.
However, it has serious issues with DR DOS's memory managers (not too
unusual.)
--
Charles Dye ras...@highfiber.com
Luchezar Georgiev
> can someone please confirm that nssi (http://www.navsoft.cz/) sysinfo
> tool crashes when run under 4dos?
1. It does crash here if run from COMMAND but only aborts if run from 4DOS.
2. However, when I start "bare" DOS without any drivers and TSRs, it works.
3. Hence NSSI is incompatible with some of these drivers or TSRs, not 4DOS.
4. I don't have time to find exactly which of my many drivers/TSRs is that.
5. When 4DOS executes an external programme 4DOS "swaps out" of the memory.
6. So a programme can't run under 4DOS. It runs under the given DOS kernel.
7. My new policy is to no longer pay attention to anonymous posters. Sorry.
8. This time I made an exception from the above rule as you didn't know it.
Regards,
Lucho
CBFalconer
> tikbalang пишет:
>
... snip ...
...
> 7. My new policy is to no longer pay attention to anonymous posters. Sorry.
> 8. This time I made an exception from the above rule as you didn't know it.
What is anonymous about "tikbalang <tikb...@gmail.com>"?
It may be, but...
--
[mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
[page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
Try the download section.
Luchezar Georgiev
> What is anonymous about "tikbalang <tikb...@gmail.com>"?
The tikbalang is a mythical creature of the Philippine folklore - something
like a reverse Centaur. He did elaborate on this here, but you can read the
Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tikbalang) for more info :)
Regards,
Lucho
tikbalang
disrespect anyone.
CBFalconer
So what? Isn't the point whether or not that email address
functions and reaches him. I maintain that has not been decided.
Luchezar Georgiev
>>> What is anonymous about "tikbalang <tikb...@gmail.com>"?
>> The tikbalang is a mythical creature of the Philippine folklore
> functions and reaches him. I maintain that has not been decided.
The point isn't whether the e-mail address is valid but that it's anonymous
because his real name is unknown. I feel it's unfair when someone stretches
his hand saying his name and doesn't get the same in return. Either all are
anonymous or nobody is, either all are naked or nobody is. It's not fair if
only some are naked but some are not. It's not fair when only some have the
"guts" to tell their names but others don't. I know I'm a dinosaur, because
the anonymity becomes a norm for Internet. But I refuse to adapt my ethical
principles to this. My ethical principles are the pillar for my life - if I
remove them, I will probably very soon get a serious psychiatric disease :(
Excuse me being so old-fashioned. I still have my honour and my dignity. If
that's old fashion, then nobody can save what's left from humanity anymore.
Regards,
Lucho
fib...@otr.com
anonymous
because his real name is unknown. I feel it's unfair when someone
stretches
his hand saying his name and doesn't get the same in return. Either all
are
anonymous or nobody is, either all are naked or nobody is. It's not fair
if
only some are naked but some are not. It's not fair when only some have
the
"guts" to tell their names but others don't. I know I'm a dinosaur,
because
the anonymity becomes a norm for Internet. But I refuse to adapt my
ethical
principles to this. My ethical principles are the pillar for my life -
if I
remove them, I will probably very soon get a serious psychiatric disease
:(
Excuse me being so old-fashioned. I still have my honour and my dignity.
If
that's old fashion, then nobody can save what's left from humanity
anymore."
There is no ethical question. Any or all of those who post with full
name could be using an alias, even you. Ethics come into the picture
only if one is trying to decieve by a name choice or using the name of
another to make problems for that other person.
As for your personal choice and ethics, then do as seems best to you and
you are fully "ethical". Your choice bears in no way on that of others
as to naming convention, except as in deception as mentioned. There is
no universal standard by which to measure "ethical" in this context by
which you fail or not except for your choice and not of any others. Nor
does your choice bear upon that of others.
Fibber mcgee
CBFalconer
> CBFalconer пишет:
>
>>>> What is anonymous about "tikbalang <tikb...@gmail.com>"?
>>>
>>> The tikbalang is a mythical creature of the Philippine folklore
>>
>> So what? Isn't the point whether or not that email address
>> functions and reaches him. I maintain that has not been decided.
>
> The point isn't whether the e-mail address is valid but that it's
> anonymous because his real name is unknown. I feel it's unfair
> when someone stretches his hand saying his name and doesn't get
> the same in return. Either all are anonymous or nobody is, either
Somebody has been stripping attribution lines here. Bad.
Of course it is your decision. I am just trying to give you
reasons to be more relaxed. Many people don't want to publicize
their names on the Internet, because of nuts who harass them.
Luchezar Georgiev
> Somebody has been stripping attribution lines here. Bad.
Excuse me but my English isn't so good to understand what you mean above...
> Of course it is your decision. I am just trying to give you
> reasons to be more relaxed. Many people don't want to publicize
> their names on the Internet, because of nuts who harass them.
I could understand this only if their name is very rare but the probability
for this is likewise very low, and there are so many millions of people who
share the most frequently used first names - how could then a harasser tell
that a given person is exactly their victim?
Regards,
Lucho
Luchezar Georgiev
> There is no ethical question. Any or all of those who post with full
> name could be using an alias, even you.
This would be a deception too! I don't post under an alias, of course, but
another question is that my real name is not Luchezar Georgiev - this is a
quite approximate Latin alphabet transliteration of my REAL name, which is
Лъчезар Георгиев. Unfortunately many of you can't read it so I'm forced to
use the transliterated approximation here.
> Fibber mcgee
Nice to meet you!
I understand your point that there is no universal ethics valid to everyone
but there must at least exist a [hard to define] lowest common denominator.
Regards,
Лъчо
fib...@otr.com
ce to meet you!
understand your point that there is no universal ethics valid to
everyone
t there must at least exist a [hard to define] lowest common
denominator."
Yes, and it was already defined. Any or no identification has no
inherent "ethical" value if and when it does not involve deception or
intent to harm.
Steve Fabian
By "harass" CBF undoubtedly means "by emailing them a lot of spam". Would
you object if people provide their names and email addresses encrypted in
some manner, provided every one of their messages specifies how to decrypt
them? Some methods I have seen include reversing the character order in each
address element, or in the whole address, or replacing the significant
punctuation characters period . and "at sign" @ with words, or ROT13
encoding, etc, any one of which would stop most of the spam.
--
Steve
Steve Fabian
| There is no ethical question. Any or all of those who post with full
| name could be using an alias, even you.
|
| This would be a deception too! I don't post under an alias, of
| course, but another question is that my real name is not Luchezar
| Georgiev - this is a quite approximate Latin alphabet transliteration
| can't read it so I'm forced to use the transliterated approximation
| here.
| I understand your point that there is no universal ethics valid to
| everyone, but there must at least exist a [hard to define] lowest
| common denominator.
| Yes, and it was already defined. Any or no identification has no
| inherent "ethical" value if and when it does not involve deception or
| intent to harm.
I agree with "fibber". Anonymity is not inherently unethical. Yes, using an
alias is deception, but deception, like the desire for anonymity, is
likewise not inherently unethical. And yes, I myself have a name on my birth
certificate that is different from the name on my US "Certificate of
Naturalization": Fábián v. Fabian, István v. Stephen. Of course, that
difference is perfectly legal, so using either one is ethical.
--
Steve
Luchezar Georgiev
> By "harass" CBF undoubtedly means "by emailing them a lot of spam". Would
> you object if people provide their names and email addresses encrypted in
> some manner, provided every one of their messages specifies how to decrypt
> them? Some methods I have seen include reversing the character order in each
> address element, or in the whole address, or replacing the significant
> punctuation characters period . and "at sign" @ with words, or ROT13
> encoding, etc, any one of which would stop most of the spam.
I think that there is some misunderstanding here. The Usenet newsgroups
have the e-mail address of the sender in each message and that's how my
e-mail address I use to post here got included in their spam lists too.
Unfortunately there's nothing we can do about it - that's a part of the
protocol. As to the name, it can be encoded but the key(s) of this code
must be exchanged in some private manner. I can assure you however that
since tikbalang's IP address is visible, it can be used to track him to
exact location (with the cooperation of his ISP, of course). That's why
it's absolutely pointless to hide one's name, with the exception of one
case. And this case is, if one's name is relatively rare, like mine is,
some enemies of mine can trace my activity. So what?! They already know
that I will do my best to bring maximum benefit to the people, hence no
news to them. The cause to which "tikbalang" has devoted - creating the
ultimate boot disk - is likewise noble, so none of us must fear anyone.
Regards,
Lucho
Steve Fabian
| Steve Fabian пишет:
|| By "harass" CBF undoubtedly means "by emailing them a lot of spam".
|| Would you object if people provide their names and email addresses
|| encrypted in some manner, provided every one of their messages
|| specifies how to decrypt them? Some methods I have seen include
|| reversing the character order in each address element, or in the
|| whole address, or replacing the significant punctuation characters
|| period . and "at sign" @ with words, or ROT13 encoding, etc, any one
|| of which would stop most of the spam.
|
| I think that there is some misunderstanding here. The Usenet
| newsgroups have the e-mail address of the sender in each message and
| that's how my e-mail address I use to post here got included in their
| spam lists too. Unfortunately there's nothing we can do about it -
| that's a part of the protocol.
However, in most NGs it is not an enforced element of the protocol, i.e.,
using an encrypted sender e-mail address does not prevent posting of
messages, as it is in this NG, and in many moderated NGs as well - the NG
administrator must be provided with the real name and address, but that can
be done through private channels. Even the old, semimoderated JPsoft NGs
allowed that.
| As to the name, it can be encoded but
| the key(s) of this code must be exchanged in some private manner. I
| can assure you however that since tikbalang's IP address is visible,
| it can be used to track him to exact location (with the cooperation
| of his ISP, of course). That's why it's absolutely pointless to hide
| one's name, with the exception of one case. And this case is, if
| one's name is relatively rare, like mine is, some enemies of mine can
| trace my activity. So what?! They already know that I will do my best
| to bring maximum benefit to the people, hence no news to them. The
| cause to which "tikbalang" has devoted - creating the ultimate boot
| disk - is likewise noble, so none of us must fear anyone.
"Enemies" is not usually the issue, esp. in usenet and usenet-like NGs.
Whether or not the actual message posted in the NG includes a traceable
IP-address depends on the degree of obfuscation the sender wishes to apply.
I don't bother, many do. Many use mail servers like gmail, yahoo mail, etc.
that do not reveal the sender's actual location.
Regardless, Lucho, I do wish you would distinguish between anonymity and
ethics, and not consider the use of an alias to be unethical. But enough on
this subject.
--
Steve
Luchezar Georgiev
> Luchezar Georgiev:
> | I understand your point that there is no universal ethics valid to
> | everyone, but there must at least exist a [hard to define] lowest
> | common denominator.
>
> fib...@otr.com:
> | Yes, and it was already defined. Any or no identification has no
> | inherent "ethical" value if and when it does not involve deception or
> | intent to harm.
If we don't agree on anonymity, it's not in the lowest common denominator,
but only the rule to not use anyone else's identity, as you note. Sigh...
> I agree with "fibber".
As he noted, Fibber is actually his real name.
> Anonymity is not inherently unethical. Yes, using an
> alias is deception, but deception, like the desire for anonymity, is
> likewise not inherently unethical.
I respectfully disagree with you both. Would you be pleased to receive an
anonymous letter (I mean real written letter) in your post box?! Would you
be pleased to receive an anonymous fax or telephone call? Why would you be
pleased if you receive an anonymous e-mail message of Usenet posting then?
> And yes, I myself have a name on my birth
> certificate that is different from the name on my US "Certificate of
> Naturalization": Fábián v. Fabian, István v. Stephen. Of course, that
> difference is perfectly legal, so using either one is ethical.
You're a special case :) It's natural that now that we write in English, we
use the English version of your name (Stephen). But if I knew Hungarian, be
sure that I'd address you by your Hungarian (native) name - István! ;-)
Regards,
Lucho
Luchezar Georgiev
> | I think that there is some misunderstanding here. The Usenet
> | newsgroups have the e-mail address of the sender in each message and
> | that's how my e-mail address I use to post here got included in their
> | spam lists too. Unfortunately there's nothing we can do about it -
> | that's a part of the protocol.
>
> However, in most NGs it is not an enforced element of the protocol, i.e.,
> using an encrypted sender e-mail address does not prevent posting of
> messages, as it is in this NG, and in many moderated NGs as well - the NG
> administrator must be provided with the real name and address, but that can
> be done through private channels. Even the old, semimoderated JPsoft NGs
> allowed that.
I didn't know that but I'm not aware of any free Usenet "news" server which
allows e-mail address encryption, or I must be "fallen from Mars" as usual.
Whatever we do, when the cops come, they'll find a way to trace us, be sure
- so ethical or not, hiding one's name wouldn't hinder them, in my opinion.
Regards,
Lucho
ras...@highfiber.com
> As he noted, Fibber is actually his real name.
And his wife's name is Molly, no doubt. "On the Internet, nobody
knows you're a dog."
--
Charles Dye ras...@highfiber.com
fib...@otr.com
which
allows e-mail address encryption, or I must be "fallen from Mars" as
usual.
Whatever we do, when the cops come, they'll find a way to trace us, be
sure
- so ethical or not, hiding one's name wouldn't hinder them, in my
opinion."
When usanet was set up it was done under the us government program under
which the internet was established. It was used mainly as a way for
university people to exchange information about their academic area. It
is rather crude in many respects and security was then not a compelling
fact.
These days if one wants to make sure to have an email address harvested
by spammers and those who use the internet to commit crime, then put a
real email address in the "from:" field. One will see almost overnight
a 100 to 200 percent increase in spam mail and criminal efforts.
CBFalconer
> Steve Fabian пишет:
>
>
>> Anonymity is not inherently unethical. Yes, using an alias is
>> deception, but deception, like the desire for anonymity, is
>> likewise not inherently unethical.
>
> I respectfully disagree with you both. Would you be pleased to
> receive an anonymous letter (I mean real written letter) in your
> post box?! Would you be pleased to receive an anonymous fax or
> telephone call? Why would you be pleased if you receive an
> anonymous e-mail message of Usenet posting then?
I receive them all the time. Some joker wants me to buy whatever
from whomever, for example. Once in a blue moon I do.
CBFalconer
> CBFalconer пишет:
>
>> Somebody has been stripping attribution lines here. Bad.
>
> Excuse me but my English isn't so good to understand what you
> mean above...
Attribution lines are the "Joe wrote:" initial lines, installed by
the quoting newsreader (usually). Stripping them prevents
identifying the author of quoted lines. Only strip them when you
have removed all material written by that author, in that message.
Luchezar Georgiev
> Attribution lines are the "Joe wrote:" initial lines, installed by
> the quoting newsreader (usually). Stripping them prevents
> identifying the author of quoted lines. Only strip them when you
> have removed all material written by that author, in that message.
OK, I understand. Thanks for the hint, I'll try to follow this rule from
now on.
Regards,
Lucho
Luchezar Georgiev
> When usanet was set up it was done under the us government program under
> which the internet was established. It was used mainly as a way for
> university people to exchange information about their academic area. It
> is rather crude in many respects and security was then not a compelling
> fact.
The Internet wasn't seen as an instrument for making profit then. Because
all bad things began when Internet started to be used commercially in the
1990s. Nothing else could happen in a society where profit is above all.
> These days if one wants to make sure to have an email address harvested
> by spammers and those who use the internet to commit crime, then put a
> real email address in the "from:" field. One will see almost overnight
> a 100 to 200 percent increase in spam mail and criminal efforts.
Yes, but the free news servers do not allow one to post from a different
e-mail address than the VALID e-mail address one must have used, when he
was subscribing to their service.
So I must cope with those tens of spam messages daily now. What should I
have done to prevent this?
I see - 16 years of experience with Internet are nothing. We must not do
anything but constantly learn new tricks forgetting the old tricks which
don't work anymore. I give up. I'm too tired already. Spammers have won.
Regards,
Lucho
Luchezar Georgiev
> Luchezar Georgiev wrote:
>> I respectfully disagree with you both. Would you be pleased to
>> receive an anonymous letter (I mean real written letter) in your
>> post box?! Would you be pleased to receive an anonymous fax or
>> telephone call? Why would you be pleased if you receive an
>> anonymous e-mail message of Usenet posting then?
>
> I receive them all the time. Some joker wants me to buy whatever
> from whomever, for example. Once in a blue moon I do.
One in 2 years and a half? :) Too often. I never do! By the way, when I've
been in Italy, I've seen people stick labels saying "No pubblicita" (which
means "No ads") in their post boxes. Do you do anything similar to prevent
the flood of paper spam (pity for the trees cut to make the wasted paper)?
There things started to happen here after the profit was placed above all.
Regards,
Lucho
Luchezar Georgiev
> On Jan 26, 11:09 am, Luchezar Georgiev <lu...@gawab.com> wrote:
>> As he noted, Fibber is actually his real name.
>
> And his wife's name is Molly, no doubt. "On the Internet, nobody
> knows you're a dog."
I've seen this caricature somewhere. But, seriously, we must have at least
minimal trust to each other, otherwise the whole point becomes pointless!
Perhaps you don't understand. Before 1989, the assumption among people was
"good person until otherwise proven"... it was not uncommon for people who
don't know each other to trust each other. After 1989 the reverse suddenly
(let me stress: SUDDENLY!) became true: "homo homini lupus est" et cetera.
In other words, all these bad things happened when profit was placed above
all. But I have grown in a different society and can't adapt to this cruel
one! That's why I still make the first assumption, keep getting burned but
can't change. I hope you understand now, although this may be difficult...
Just don't tell me that being bad is "embedded" in human nature. It's not.
Society makes man, not the opposite. Whatever the society, such is the man
Am I myself not the proof of my words, with my work on 4DOS and with a new
one ( at http://avcd.hit.bg/ ) I'm doing now? :) Take into account that in
those old times, people like myself were the NORM here, not the exception!
And aren't you yourself with your noble work on the 4DOS help plus all the
rest of your works also a proof for this? No - man is NOT inherently evil,
liar, etc. The society can make him so, however. In a society of wolves we
can't stay sheep (lambs). We must be at least sheep with... a wolf's skin!
Regards,
Lucho
Steve Fabian
| ...
| Perhaps you don't understand. Before 1989, the assumption among
| people was "good person until otherwise proven"... it was not
| uncommon for people who don't know each other to trust each other.
| After 1989 the reverse suddenly (let me stress: SUDDENLY!) became
| true: "homo homini lupus est" et cetera. In other words, all these
| bad things happened when profit was placed above all. But I have
| grown in a different society and can't adapt to this cruel one!
| That's why I still make the first assumption, keep getting burned but
| can't change. I hope you understand now, although this may be
| difficult...
Well, unless your country's legal system changed fundamentally, it is still
based on Roman or Napoleonic principle "guilty until proven innocent". Cf.
anglo-saxon law: "innocent until proven guilty".
| Just don't tell me that being bad is "embedded" in human nature. It's
| not. Society makes man, not the opposite. Whatever the society, such
| is the man
|
| Am I myself not the proof of my words, with my work on 4DOS and with
| a new one ( at http://avcd.hit.bg/ ) I'm doing now? :)
The Christian belief of man being born a sinner does not mean "bad", not all
sins are agains men's law, in fact more and more of the biblical sins are
legalized every year. Your behavior of volunteering on software projects is
not proof that you don't commit other sins.
If greed is instilled by society, why is one of the earliest concepts
children grasp is "mine! mine! It is mine!"?
But this has become a debate about beliefs. Let us not go there.
| Take into
| account that in those old times, people like myself were the NORM
| here, not the exception!
Interesting. Why was it not the norm elsewhere in the communist dominated
world? "Exceeding the norm" was frowned upon by others, because it raised
the norm for everyone without increased pay.
| And aren't you yourself with your noble work on the 4DOS help plus
| all the rest of your works also a proof for this?
If you refer to me, the answer is NO. All I do on the 4DOS and other
software fora is from intellectual curiosity, from time on my hand (even
time I ought to spend on household chores), and probably - worst of all -
trying to prove myself superior.
Note that greed by itself is not "evil". Not as long as the "greedy" person
does not try to take what's yours without offering something in return. What
they offer me be of no interest to you, but so were automobiles, telephones,
personal computers, radios, television, etc. to the vast majority of the
people less than 100 years ago. And yes, here in the USA our mailboxes are
inundated with advertisements (and we cannot stop them). One out of a
thousand (10000?) is of interest to me. Most go in the paper recycling bin
without opening.
--
Steve
ras...@highfiber.com
> Am I myself not the proof of my words, with my work on 4DOS and with a new
> one ( athttp://avcd.hit.bg/) I'm doing now? :)
You're a human being; your motivations are probably complex. You may
not entirely understand them yourself. Certainly I can't claim to.
Good manners suggest that I assume the best, until proven otherwise.
I choose to extend the same courtesy to tikbalang. Anonymity does
carry some potential for mischief, yes. But "capability does not
imply intent" and thus far, the guy has been perfectly polite.
--
Charles Dye ras...@highfiber.com
Richard Bonner
> fib...@otr.com пишет:
> > These days if one wants to make sure to have an email address harvested
> > by spammers and those who use the internet to commit crime, then put a
> > real email address in the "from:" field. One will see almost overnight
> > a 100 to 200 percent increase in spam mail and criminal efforts.
> Yes, but the free news servers do not allow one to post from a different
> e-mail address than the VALID e-mail address one must have used, when he
> was subscribing to their service.
> So I must cope with those tens of spam messages daily now. What should I
> have done to prevent this?
> I see - 16 years of experience with Internet are nothing. We must not do
> anything but constantly learn new tricks forgetting the old tricks which
> don't work anymore. I give up. I'm too tired already. Spammers have won.
>
> Lucho
*** Not necessarily. I have four websites - two of which get major
traffic. My e-mail address is open to all on them, as it is here and in a
couple dozen other newsgroups. I chose a Chebucto account because of
their excellent spam filters. I might get maybe five - ten spams a day.
Anyone can sign up for such an account. It's only $25 Cdn. a year for
the shell server version and includes a 2 GB mailbox.
Richard Bonner
http://www.chebucto.ca/~ak621/DOS/
Richard Bonner
> By the way, when I've
> been in Italy, I've seen people stick labels saying "No pubblicita" (which
> means "No ads") in their post boxes.
>
*** Canada has a similar policy. Canada Post will not deliver flyers, as
will not most private services if one posts such a sign on one's postbox
or mailslot.
Richard Bonner
http://www.chebucto.ca/~ak621/DOS/
Luchezar Georgiev
> You're a human being; your motivations are probably complex. You may
> not entirely understand them yourself. Certainly I can't claim to.
Yes, there's a subconsciousness too, I probably have vanity, and so on :)
> Good manners suggest that I assume the best, until proven otherwise.
Exactly what I'm trying to say.
> I choose to extend the same courtesy to tikbalang. Anonymity does
> carry some potential for mischief, yes. But "capability does not
> imply intent" and thus far, the guy has been perfectly polite.
I agree with you on him - moreover, he wrote that he wanted to create the
ultimate boot disk, which is a very good intention. I don't have anything
against him personally - just against the anonymity as practice and claim
that it's pointless and I just can't accept it, unlike everybody else...
Regards,
Lucho
P.S. On the question of the ultimate boot disk, there is one: the Hiren's
boot CD. Perfectly illegal, but still millions of people use it. He has a
good reason to hide his identity but still I think that his first name is
really Hiren. So what?! There are many thousands of Hirens in India hence
the police cannot catch him. He's a good example for our Filipino friend.
Luchezar Georgiev
> *** Not necessarily. I have four websites - two of which get major
> traffic. My e-mail address is open to all on them, as it is here and in a
> couple dozen other newsgroups. I chose a Chebucto account because of
> their excellent spam filters. I might get maybe five - ten spams a day.
>
> Anyone can sign up for such an account. It's only $25 Cdn. a year for
> the shell server version and includes a 2 GB mailbox.
Until a fortnight ago, I was getting ZERO spam messages per month, on my 3
e-mail accounts, including the one at "Gawab" (means letter in Arabic). My
e-mail address have probably been "harvested" a long time ago, but so far,
there was absolutely NO spam. So, I suspect that something got "broken" in
Alexandria, Egypt, where "Gawab" is maintained. I hope that they install a
better spam filter (SpamAssassin or something similar) and fix this issue.
Regards,
Lucho
Luchezar Georgiev
> Well, unless your country's legal system changed fundamentally, it is still
> based on Roman or Napoleonic principle "guilty until proven innocent". Cf.
> anglo-saxon law: "innocent until proven guilty".
Sorry, Bulgaria's legal system has never been based on the "guilty until
proven otherwise" principle, except during fascism (1923 - 1944). In all
other times, it has always been "innocent until proven guilty", which is
not only the Anglo-Saxon law, but an universal law principle, worldwide.
Not always and not everywhere has this universal principle been followed
however.
What I was meaning was not the legal principle but just the suspicious
nature of the today's man. Once upon a time, we weren't so suspicious.
Today, everybody is treated as a criminal by others, even after proven
otherwise. (Even though the law states otherwise - I mean the people's
attitude to each other, not the law.) An ill society without future...
> The Christian belief of man being born a sinner does not mean "bad", not all
> sins are agains men's law, in fact more and more of the biblical sins are
> legalized every year. Your behavior of volunteering on software projects is
> not proof that you don't commit other sins.
I didn't mean that I'm not sinful - we all are. For example, my lack of
modesty in the example above is a sin. I mean good man, not good god :)
> If greed is instilled by society, why is one of the earliest concepts
> children grasp is "mine! mine! It is mine!"?
Very good example! Now imagine that the child is alone. Would he cry
"mine!" then? Since there is nobody else, the concept of property is
meaningful then. What makes this difference is the presence of other
children. They're just a small society which reflects the society of
grown-up people, like a mirror. Also - the mere wish of the child to
possess something is NOT a greed - everybody has the right to have a
mini-universe of his own. But when this mini-universe becomes a MEGA
universe (how Microsoft became Megasoft!), then there is real greed.
Indeed, it all starts with innocent small things, but without limits
everybody's innocent wishes can become monstrous some day. It's guys
without such limits who commit real greed. Like Gates, like Ballmer.
> But this has become a debate about beliefs. Let us not go there.
I agree. We're a good example how people with different beliefs can work
together. When one tries to impose his beliefs on the others, the effect
usually is the opposite.
> | Take into
> | account that in those old times, people like myself were the NORM
> | here, not the exception!
>
> Interesting. Why was it not the norm elsewhere in the communist dominated
> world? "Exceeding the norm" was frowned upon by others, because it raised
> the norm for everyone without increased pay.
We're talking about different things here. You're right about the norm in
the manufacture (production). I'm talking about the norm that the normal,
friendly, trusting people, without fear of each other, were a norm then -
not like today when people lock everything and place grids on everything,
and still get robed - because the Mammon (Golden Calf) rules above all...
> If you refer to me, the answer is NO. All I do on the 4DOS and other
> software fora is from intellectual curiosity, from time on my hand (even
> time I ought to spend on household chores), and probably - worst of all -
> trying to prove myself superior.
I was referring to Charles, but you also have big contribution with your
ideas, and not only with them. Proving yourself superior is not a sin by
itself, only when this becomes a mania which tries to eclipse the others
(which is not so in your case).
> Note that greed by itself is not "evil". Not as long as the "greedy" person
> does not try to take what's yours without offering something in return. What
> they offer me be of no interest to you, but so were automobiles, telephones,
> personal computers, radios, television, etc. to the vast majority of the
> people less than 100 years ago.
Advertisement creates greed (the wish to have something that somebody needs
more than you), therefore advertisement is an even greater evil than greed!
Indeed, today's over-advertisement is something that I just cannot get used to.
> And yes, here in the USA our mailboxes are
> inundated with advertisements (and we cannot stop them). One out of a
> thousand (10000?) is of interest to me. Most go in the paper recycling bin
> without opening.
What a waste of paper! How many trees have been cut to make this paper! How
many terabytes of spam flows each day, congesting our networks! Indeed, the
efficiency of our society is very low, if it not only creates such a waste,
but even RELIES on it! (Because capitalism without advertisement is like...
Windows without menus :)
Regards,
Lucho
Luchezar Georgiev
> Since there is nobody else, the concept of property is
> meaningful then.
I mean "meaningless", not "meaningful". Sorry for my typo.