From: david@edenroad.demon.co.uk   
      
   On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 22:26:59 -0600, personalpages.tds.net/~rcsilk wrote:   
      
   > "David Mitchell"  wrote in message   
   > news:pan.2004.12.24.08.22.17.347281@edenroad.demon.co.uk...   
   >> On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 00:59:43 -0600, personalpages.tds.net/~rcsilk wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> Here it is:   
   >>> The # of the beast is 666.  Now, seriously, the one thing that has   
   >>> *changed* the world the *most* since the life of Christ is -- the   
   >>> Internet.   
   >>   
   >> Not organic fertilisers, the discovery of America, non-networked   
   >> computers,   
   >> atomic weapons, electricity, modern medicine, gunpowder (in the west)...   
   >   
   > Fertilizers do not touch everyone on every continent.   
      
   Neither does the internet.   
   The development of intensive farming practices has _directly_ led to the   
   ability of agriculture to support _millions_ more lives.   
      
   > America has little to   
   > no effect upon the more remote and isolated regions of the world.   
      
   Bwahahahahahaha.   
      
   If only that were true.   
      
   > All these things you mention are *localized* -- whereas the Net is literally   
   > world-wide, even Satellite-wide.   
      
   There are literally _billions_ of people without internet access.   
      
   >   
   >>> Simple:  Unix.   
   >>> An enormous percentage of servers on the Net run in Unix, mostly because   
   >>> it was the primary language before Windows.   
   >>   
   >> The phrase you're after is "Operating System". And you _teach_ people?   
   >   
   > I "teach" in common words.   
      
   You're teaching the _wrong_ words.   
   If you aren't able to express the ideas you are supposed to be teaching   
   without simplifying them to the point of falsehood, I think you should   
   stop teaching.   
      
   > Half (or more!) of the people who actually use   
   > computers don't even know what an "operating system" IS, much less which one   
   > is ON their computer(s) *right now!*   
      
   And telling them it's a "language" will not help them.   
      
   >>> All files (and directories, which are also "files") have a set of   
   >>> permissions assigned to them:  Read, Write, and Modify (or sometimes   
   >>> Execute).   
   >>   
   >> Always execute (or directory access).  "Modify" _is_ write.  What else   
   >> could it be?  Nothing else modifies it.   
   >   
   > No, modify is modify.  Write is write.  A modify permission gives someone   
   > the ability to modify the actual *permissions*, depending upon how the OS is   
   > set up.   
      
   No.  That's not what the permission bits you are talking about are for.   
   Did you not read the extract from the manual page I posted?   
   Here is some more:   
    There are three kinds of permissions that a user can have for a file:   
      
     1. permission to read the file.  For directories, this means   
        permission to list the contents of the directory.   
      
     2. permission to write to (change) the file.  For directories, this   
        means permission to create and remove files in the directory.   
      
     3. permission to execute the file (run it as a program).  For   
        directories, this means permission to access files in the   
        directory.   
      
      There are three categories of users who may have different   
   permissions to perform any of the above operations on a file:   
      
     1. the file's owner;   
      
     2. other users who are in the file's group;   
      
     3. everyone else.   
      
      Files are given an owner and group when they are created.  Usually   
   the owner is the current user and the group is the group of the   
   directory the file is in, but this varies with the operating system, the   
   filesystem the file is created on, and the way the file is created.  You   
   can change the owner and group of a file by using the `chown' and   
   `chgrp' commands.   
      
   > And yes, I've been there, so don't even presume to lecture me.   
      
   You're wrong, and you're, as usual, trying to bluster and obfuscate your   
   way out of it.   
      
   > A   
   > person who's been granted modify permissions can modify a file or folder to   
   > the extent that -- they can no longer modify it -- merely by removing their   
   > own modify permission.   
      
   There is no such thing as a "modify" bit.   
   You modify files by writing to them (including deletion), and permission   
   to write is, surprise, granted by the "write" bit.   
      
   >   
   >> From "man chmod" the bits represent:   
   >> read, write, execute (or access for directories)   
   >   
   > right.  I said:  "(or sometimes execute)" -- depends upon which version (not   
   > to mention YEAR) of Unix you're working with.   
      
   Not much, it doesn't.  The way file permissions are structured is very   
   standard.   
      
   >>> the bank (author of the card) has the right to read and write to your   
   >>> bank account.  They can add or subtract funds to your account, but they   
   >>> can't "just create" funds out of thin air (that would be "modify").   
   >   
   >>> Even a correction or payment or debit is still a read / write function.   
   >>   
   >> You're talking nonsense again Dick.   
   >> What you are claiming is that every account is a separate file, each with   
   >> its own permission, and that's just tosh.   
   >   
   > David:  this is for demonstration and *entertainment* purposes only, with   
   > perhaps an ounce of enlightenment, so lighten up.   
      
   Nice try Dick; but you presented it as fact, and would have continued to   
   do so if I hadn't called you out on it.   
      
   If you are serious about that, perhaps you should preface posts   
   which are not intended to be accurate with a comment to that effect.   
      
   > Of course every account   
   > is a separate file, with its own records and fields.   
      
   No it's not.  It's a record in a database.   
      
   The database is a file, the fields within it are not.   
   Just give it up Dick, you're only embarassing yourself.   
      
   That's why they are   
   > "individual accounts" -- The fact that these files make up a larger database   
   > is inconsequential.   
      
   ...and untrue.   
      
   > To wit, each merchant who transacts a card has its own   
   > account.   
      
   It's almost painful to watch.   
      
   >   
   >>> Now, the funny thing is, the only people who can make *modifications* to   
   >>> *anything* financial are top-level government officials in the treasury   
   >>> department or some secret organizations who can create bank accounts out   
   >>> of thin air.  These folk have permissions on things that include read,   
   >>> write, AND modify:  or 777, which is the "perfect number" of the Christ,   
   >>> so it's said.   
   >>   
   >> More nonsense.  You really don't have a clue do you?   
   >   
   > Hey... let's hear your *better* theory on Apocalyptic interpretations of 666   
   > and 777, eh?  I'm all ears.   
      
   I don't have a theory: I don't believe in the Apocalypse; but I have heard   
   other, differing, theories about the number 666.   
      
   My favourite is the bar-code one; but I don't believe _it_ either.   
      
   Feel free to make up your own theories; but you'll probably find it   
   possible to make them more convincing if you base them on reality.   
      
   --   
   =======================================================================   
   = David    --- If you use Microsoft products, you will, inevitably, get   
   = Mitchell --- viruses, so please don't add me to your address book.   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)