[News] Unreal Tournament 3 Box to Contain Linux Version

On Oct 3, 2:42 pm, Jim Richardson <warl...@eskimo.com> wrote:[color=blue]
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 10:12:07 -0000,
>
>
>
>
>
> cc <scatnu...@hotmail.com> wrote:[color=green]
> > On Oct 2, 1:28 pm, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarna...@gmail.com> wrote:[color=darkred]
> >> [snips][/color][/color]
>[color=green][color=darkred]
> >> On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 06:36:42 +0000, cc wrote:
> >> >> Maybe I'm missing something. Was some Linux developer actually found
> >> >> guilty of murdering his wife and disposing of the body? Or is this just
> >> >> some simple-minded idiot spewing, one who can't tell the difference
> >> >> between being charged with a crime and actually being proven guilty?[/color][/color]
>[color=green][color=darkred]
> >> > You mean like the simple-minded idiot[/color][/color]
>[color=green][color=darkred]
> >> Ah, so you're agreeing,[/color][/color]
>[color=green]
> > Yes, I agree your selective snipping makes you look like an idiot and
> > proves you can't address the point.[/color]
>
> You made the comparison between the Xbox360 poster, and the Hans Reiser
> poster in question, and called them both "simple idiots"
>
> Kelsey called you on it, and you get snippy, accusing him of creative
> snipping, in a post, in which you creatively snip.
>
> Now that's funny.[/color]

That was irony, and intentional. I called no one a simple idiot. I
pointed out that Kelsey jumped all over DFS again, but said nothing
about the post DFS was responding too. He called DFS a simple idiot
for making that post, I pointed out that [H]omer must be a simple
idiot then as well by Kelsey's logic. Kelsey instead just snipped to
say that I must agree that DFS is a simple idiot. I don't agree. I
agree that Kelsey jumping on DFS is hypocritcal, but what do you
expect. If anything, [H]omer is a complex idiot, so Kelsey was way off
in his analysis.

On Oct 3, 3:53 pm, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarna...@gmail.com> wrote:[color=blue]
> [snips]
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 11:42:43 -0700, Jim Richardson wrote:[color=green][color=darkred]
> >>> > You mean like the simple-minded idiot[/color][/color]
>[color=green][color=darkred]
> >>> Ah, so you're agreeing,[/color][/color]
>[color=green][color=darkred]
> >> Yes, I agree your selective snipping makes you look like an idiot and
> >> proves you can't address the point.[/color][/color]
>[color=green]
> > You made the comparison between the Xbox360 poster, and the Hans Reiser
> > poster in question, and called them both "simple idiots"[/color]
>[color=green]
> > Kelsey called you on it, and you get snippy, accusing him of creative
> > snipping, in a post, in which you creatively snip.[/color]
>[color=green]
> > Now that's funny.[/color]
>
> High comedy - at its very lowest. :)[/color]

It was, obviously, intentional. You still ignore the point of the
post. Learn statistics first, then move on to debate.

dapunka wrote:[color=blue]
> On 3 Oct, 02:50, "DFS" <nospam@dfs_.com> wrote:[color=green]
>> Kier wrote:[color=darkred]
>>> On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 17:17:53 -0400, DFS wrote:[/color]
>>[color=darkred]
>>>> [H]omer wrote:
>>>>> Verily I say unto thee, that Roy Schestowitz spake thusly:[/color]
>>[color=darkred]
>>>>>> Who said Linux hasn't state-of-the-art games?[/color]
>>[color=darkred]
>>>>> Well it won't run "Helo", so it /must/ be inferior.[/color]
>>[color=darkred]
>>>>> But there is a up-side though, Linux doesn't burn your house down
>>>>> and kill your children either.[/color]
>>[color=darkred]
>>>> But its developers violently murder their wives, dispose of the
>>>> body, lie to their kids that they don't know what happened to
>>>> Mommy, then run to their own Mommy's basement to hide from the
>>>> policemen.[/color]
>>[color=darkred]
>>> One developer. singular, did that (if indeed he's convicted).[/color]
>>
>> He did it whether he's convicted of it or not (like murdering moron
>> OJ Simpson who was acquitted by moronic black jurors did it).[/color]
>
> DFS /knows/. I bet he doesn't personally know anyone involved in the
> Reiser case, hasn't even read any sworn testimony. Some news reports,
> some usenet crap, and DFS /knows/.[/color]

Yep. He definitely killed her. He did it the old-fashioned way, by beating
or bludgeoning or stabbing her. Then he put the body in plastic bag(s) and
disposed of it. Then he tried to cover his ineptness and disposed of the
front seat of his car. Then he lied to his children that he didn't kill
her. Then he ran home to Mommy's house because he was too broke to support
himself (he was deeply in debt, and also didn't pay the court-ordered
amounts for child care) because he insisted on working on Linux/open source
products, and that's a recipe for destitution.

I wonder how long before he murdered her was he working on Linux: an hour?
Half-hour?

Also, how much of the murderer's code is in the Linux kernel?




[color=blue]
> And he also uses an irrelevant mention of the Simpson murder to air
> his racist views.[/color]

What was racist about calling those moronic black jurors moronic? They were
moronic black jurors. They illegally ignored DNA and other evidence that
proved far beyond a reasonable doubt that OJ Simpson was guilty of murder.


[color=blue]
> Probably after getting all excited watching child pornography.[/color]

If you say "probably" you must have some evidence or reason for believing
this. What's your evidence or reason?


[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>> If you think Linux has any relevence to that, you're more biased
>>> than I thought.[/color]
>>
>> Linux has exactly as much relevance to that murder as MS has to XBox
>> fires:[/color]
>
> One little difference. Reiser is accused of murdering someone.
> Reiser, the man - not his file system, and certainly not Linux.
>
> Whereas Microsoft is accused of selling a product that overheats and
> cause house fires.[/color]

You mean a Linux/OSS developer is a murderer, but MS sold a faulty component
outsource-manufactured by another company.

On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 09:42:53 -0400, DFS wrote:
[color=blue]
> dapunka wrote:[color=green]
>> On 3 Oct, 02:50, "DFS" <nospam@dfs_.com> wrote:[color=darkred]
>>> Kier wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 17:17:53 -0400, DFS wrote:
>>>
>>>>> [H]omer wrote:
>>>>>> Verily I say unto thee, that Roy Schestowitz spake thusly:
>>>
>>>>>>> Who said Linux hasn't state-of-the-art games?
>>>
>>>>>> Well it won't run "Helo", so it /must/ be inferior.
>>>
>>>>>> But there is a up-side though, Linux doesn't burn your house down
>>>>>> and kill your children either.
>>>
>>>>> But its developers violently murder their wives, dispose of the
>>>>> body, lie to their kids that they don't know what happened to
>>>>> Mommy, then run to their own Mommy's basement to hide from the
>>>>> policemen.
>>>
>>>> One developer. singular, did that (if indeed he's convicted).
>>>
>>> He did it whether he's convicted of it or not (like murdering moron
>>> OJ Simpson who was acquitted by moronic black jurors did it).[/color]
>>
>> DFS /knows/. I bet he doesn't personally know anyone involved in the
>> Reiser case, hasn't even read any sworn testimony. Some news reports,
>> some usenet crap, and DFS /knows/.[/color]
>
> Yep. He definitely killed her. He did it the old-fashioned way, by beating
> or bludgeoning or stabbing her. Then he put the body in plastic bag(s) and[/color]

So, you don't believe in the principle of onnocent till *proven* guilty.
Thats' *proven*, not assumed.
[color=blue]
> disposed of it. Then he tried to cover his ineptness and disposed of
> the front seat of his car. Then he lied to his children that he didn't
> kill her. Then he ran home to Mommy's house because he was too broke to
> support himself (he was deeply in debt, and also didn't pay the
> court-ordered amounts for child care) because he insisted on working on
> Linux/open source products, and that's a recipe for destitution.[/color]

Liar. There are plenty of people earning good moeny with Linux, and you
have no idea how his financial situation was.
[color=blue]
>
> I wonder how long before he murdered her was he working on Linux: an hour?
> Half-hour?[/color]

Linux has nothing to do with it. If he were am MS employeee, you wouldn't
be asking that, would you?
[color=blue]
>
> Also, how much of the murderer's code is in the Linux kernel?[/color]

Who cares? He didn't murder anyone with Linux.

--
Kier

[snips]

On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 22:31:04 +0000, cc wrote:
[color=blue]
> That was irony, and intentional. I called no one a simple idiot. I
> pointed out that Kelsey jumped all over DFS again, but said nothing
> about the post DFS was responding too. He called DFS a simple idiot[/color]

No, actually, I didn't.
[color=blue]
> for
> making that post, I pointed out that [H]omer must be a simple idiot then
> as well by Kelsey's logic.[/color]

Possibly.
[color=blue]
> I don't agree. I agree that
> Kelsey jumping on DFS is hypocritcal,[/color]

Why, because I didn't jump on Homer? News for you, smart boy; I don't
read every post written here, nor do I regard DFS as worthy of the effort
involved in tracking down and examining what he's responding to.

Maybe you have some sort of weird love affair with DFS that causes you to
hang on his every word, but I don't. I saw someone making an asinine
comment about Reiser and commented on it. Are there other instances of
this sort of thing? Very likely. Does that mean one has to comment on
_all_ of them in order to comment on _one_? Apparently so, in the
fevered misfunctionings of your weird little mind.

[snips]

On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 15:09:53 -0700, dapunka wrote:
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>> > One developer. singular, did that (if indeed he's convicted).[/color]
>>
>> He did it whether he's convicted of it or not (like murdering moron OJ
>> Simpson who was acquitted by moronic black jurors did it).[/color]
>
> DFS /knows/. I bet he doesn't personally know anyone involved in the
> Reiser case, hasn't even read any sworn testimony. Some news reports,
> some usenet crap, and DFS /knows/.[/color]

Indeed. This could lead to a complete revamp of the legal system, with
vastly lowered costs and much greater efficiency - skip trials, skip
evidence, skip juries, skip the whole blinkin' mess. When there's a
question of guilt, just ask DFS. After all, he's apparently omniscient,
so he doesn't *need* things such as trials and evidence and the like in
order to determine who is guilty.

On Oct 4, 12:09 pm, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarna...@gmail.com> wrote:[color=blue]
> [snips]
>
> On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 22:31:04 +0000, cc wrote:[color=green]
> > That was irony, and intentional. I called no one a simple idiot. I
> > pointed out that Kelsey jumped all over DFS again, but said nothing
> > about the post DFS was responding too. He called DFS a simple idiot[/color]
>
> No, actually, I didn't.[/color]

Umm, ok.


[color=blue][color=green]
> > for
> > making that post, I pointed out that [H]omer must be a simple idiot then
> > as well by Kelsey's logic.[/color]
>
> Possibly.[/color]

No, it's true.

[color=blue][color=green]
> > I don't agree. I agree that
> > Kelsey jumping on DFS is hypocritcal,[/color]
>
> Why, because I didn't jump on Homer? News for you, smart boy; I don't
> read every post written here, nor do I regard DFS as worthy of the effort
> involved in tracking down and examining what he's responding to.[/color]

Yes, pardon me. I assumed you read the posts in thread you were
responding in. I also assumed you read the post you responded to,
which contained Homer's entire post. So you're saying you didn't
bother to read anything, and just fired off a post without thinking.
Why am I not surprised? Why do you think he made the Reiser comments
in the first place? Oh, you don't know because you can't be bother to
read.


[color=blue]
> Maybe you have some sort of weird love affair with DFS that causes you to
> hang on his every word, but I don't. I saw someone making an asinine
> comment about Reiser and commented on it. Are there other instances of
> this sort of thing? Very likely. Does that mean one has to comment on
> _all_ of them in order to comment on _one_? Apparently so, in the
> fevered misfunctionings of your weird little mind.[/color]

You didn't see the whole post then, which is a misfunction on your
part, not mine. Also, I don't have a weird love affair with DFS. I
have a normal love affair with Mark Kent.

[snips]

On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 21:24:48 +0000, cc wrote:
[color=blue]
> Yes, pardon me. I assumed you read the posts in thread you were
> responding in.[/color]

I did. What I didn't do was read _all_ of them. Partly because I simply
don't care to, partly because a number of posters are killfiled.
[color=blue]
> I also assumed you read the post you responded to, which
> contained Homer's entire post.[/color]

Maybe I did - so? My comment was about one particular statement. That
does not imply I agree with or condone other statements made, now does
it? No,it simply means I objected to one particular statement.
[color=blue]
> So you're saying you didn't bother to
> read anything, and just fired off a post without thinking.[/color]

If I'd not bothered to read anything, how did I see the comment to which
I responded? You're not thinking very clearly here, are you?

On Oct 4, 8:47 pm, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarna...@gmail.com> wrote:[color=blue]
> [snips]
>
> On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 21:24:48 +0000, cc wrote:[color=green]
> > Yes, pardon me. I assumed you read the posts in thread you were
> > responding in.[/color]
>
> I did. What I didn't do was read _all_ of them. Partly because I simply
> don't care to, partly because a number of posters are killfiled.
>[color=green]
> > I also assumed you read the post you responded to, which
> > contained Homer's entire post.[/color]
>
> Maybe I did - so? My comment was about one particular statement. That
> does not imply I agree with or condone other statements made, now does
> it? No,it simply means I objected to one particular statement.
>[color=green]
> > So you're saying you didn't bother to
> > read anything, and just fired off a post without thinking.[/color]
>
> If I'd not bothered to read anything, how did I see the comment to which
> I responded? You're not thinking very clearly here, are you?[/color]

You said I was wrong to call you hypocritical. If you read the post,
which you are now claiming you did, then it was a hypocritical
statement. If you didn't read the post you were responding to, then
that's your fault for looking hypocritical. What's not clear now?

[snips]

On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 02:35:40 +0000, cc wrote:
[color=blue]
> You said I was wrong to call you hypocritical.[/color]

Actually, I asked *why* you called me hypocritical. Your reasoning?
That I criticized one comment and not another.

As I pointed out, there's a lot of assumptions involved in that, such as
my reading the thread, or even the whole post, assumptions which you've
not demonstrated are valid, yet which have to be true for your conclusion
to be true.

You will, of course, now demonstrate that the assumptions you make are
valid, right?

[color=blue]
> If you read the post,
> which you are now claiming you did[/color]

Did I say I read _all_ of it? Or simply part of it? There you go
assuming again.
[color=blue]
> that's your fault for looking hypocritical. What's not clear now?[/color]

The question of whether you can cope with something as simple as a news
post without making endless unwarranted assumptions, for one.

On Oct 6, 9:24 am, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarna...@gmail.com> wrote:[color=blue]
> [snips]
>
> On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 02:35:40 +0000, cc wrote:[color=green]
> > You said I was wrong to call you hypocritical.[/color]
>
> Actually, I asked *why* you called me hypocritical. Your reasoning?
> That I criticized one comment and not another.[/color]

You asked why because you obviously think I was wrong to do so.

[color=blue]
> As I pointed out, there's a lot of assumptions involved in that, such as
> my reading the thread, or even the whole post, assumptions which you've
> not demonstrated are valid, yet which have to be true for your conclusion
> to be true.
>
> You will, of course, now demonstrate that the assumptions you make are
> valid, right?
>[color=green]
> > If you read the post,
> > which you are now claiming you did[/color]
>
> Did I say I read _all_ of it? Or simply part of it? There you go
> assuming again.[/color]


You snipped the relevant part of my post. Maybe you didn't read all of
it. Then it's not my fault that you look like a hypocrite, that's your
problem. It's a valid assumption that the person responding to a post,
you know, reads the whole post.

[color=blue][color=green]
> > that's your fault for looking hypocritical. What's not clear now?[/color]
>
> The question of whether you can cope with something as simple as a news
> post without making endless unwarranted assumptions, for one.[/color]

It's an unwarranted assumption that someone would actually read what
they respond to? It must be in your case, since I have to repeat
myself. But you are snipping the parts where I explain myself, so your
eyes are at least going over them once. Either way I'm going to have
to start making the assumption that you would rather snip and not read/
respond to all explanations if it is going to make you look foolish.