Slashdot Mirror

I'm going to put up a link to my comic since I was mentioning it anyhow, but I have a much more important link, something written by Russ Albery in net.subculture.usenet a decade ago.

You gotta read this, if you've never read it.

http://home.xnet.com/~raven/Sysadmin/Rant.html

Let's remember what this network is for.

"decent trackball" is an oxymoron

You have to be kidding. For example. The problem with kids these days is that they are to young to remember when trackballs weighed 2.5 pounds and rolled on metal bearings.

That's what you get for writing a universe in C.

Hmmmm... Does the Universe run on a Linux distro?

Soko

I notice the summary above references the BOFH. Here again we see SysAdmin confused with Operator. This is one of the problems, most people view SysAdmin as some sort of Operator. In a Data Center the Operators are low-paid monkeys who can push a few buttons and dial a phone, but most importantly are willing to WORK ANY SHIFT! I used to work as an Operator, it sucks after a year and I wouldn't go back to rotating into graveyard shift. The problem is in most organizations they view SysAdmin as a higher-paid version of that. You are doing typically some very complex work, still have to answer your pager at 3AM or on vacation, and have bosses who can't understand why any given problem can't be resolved in about 5 minutes. Everyone in the organization thinks they are smarter than you, and bring you answers that you have to implement. I can't tell you how many times I've been handed a bunch of hardware and told "we bought this without consulting you, but here make it work!" The problem has as much to do with the perception of SysAdmin by YOU, as it does with the Sysadmin. Organizations generally treat us like garbage, so that's what they get. Some good quotes from alt.sysadmin.recovery here: http://home.xnet.com/~raven/Sysadmin/ASR.Quotes.ht ml

If you really cared about software quality, would you be using windows? After all It isn't man-rated, it isn't really thing-rated, and we don't claim that it's worth a good G*dDamn for anything at all, at all.

"Lotus Notes for Dummies" is surely a single page pull out with "don't" printed on it.
Unknown

http://home.xnet.com/~raven/Sysadmin/ASR.Quotes.ht ml

From ASR ( http://home.xnet.com/~raven/Sysadmin/ASR.Quotes.ht ml )
Re : Mail Transfer Agents

Qmail : a small office of neatly dressed clerks, delivering short clipped remarks to queries, and handling mail with a rude impersonality, except in the case of failiure where they let their hair down and have an after-hours beer and let you know about it, pointing to the pertinent header sections.

MMDF: A jumped up mailroom boy with a chip on his shoulder. Loves the bureaucracy and takes great pride in stamping "illegal address" in red ink on any mail it passes. Unpacks all the mail and repacks it in his own special envelopes before delivery to end users.

PP: MMDF gone mad with standards fever. Think "Brazil".

No, PP is... well, see, when it receives a letter, it chops it into small pieces, then translates bits of it using an English-Hungarian phrasebook and puts all the bits into various pigeon-holes. When it gets round to delivering the message, it collects all the bits, translates them back using a Hungarian-English phrasebook, tapes them together, and loses the letter. Some time later, you get a bounce message:

      ----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----

      ----- Transcript of session follows ----- ... while talking to bloat.example.com.:
>>> RCPT To:
  550 My hovercraft is full of eels

PP is John Cleese.

Sendmail: Shiva as a postman. Many arms delivering mail, dancing, taking drugs, destroying as it sees fit. Often makes creative changes to the mail for kicks, but ultimately can be persuaded to do anything with the right incantation...and that includes giving you other people's mail.

VMail: No experience yet, but I'd guess something like a wisened old man sitting on the porch outside the postoffice. Looks at everyone who passes by with deep suspicion, but turns out to be friendly and helpful once he realises you're not there to rob the place.

Micro$oft IMC: The Scarlet Pimpernel of postmen. Hard to find, impossible to order about, but every once in a while it saves a piece of mail from disaster. Sometimes even with it's head(ers) intact.

cc:Mail SMTPLINK: A 5 year old child left in charge of a large sorting office. Can't reach over the counter properly, can't handle more than one letter at once and has to go looking for a grownup whenever it wants to deliver to mail to other towns. Often opens parcels to look for shiney things inside then just delivers the wrapping paper onwards.

cc:mail UUCPLINK: an insane madman sitting in a box. Mail is thrown into a box where unknown things happen to it.. sometimes mail actually leaves the box.. usually to be delivered to the administrator of a totally unrelated postoffice and containing a complaint that the madman could not find the recipient in his dark box and would you please contact the person with the key of the box. Of course, the only way to reach that person is by mail and even if the box is opened the madman cannot be pursuaded to actually send mail to unknown addressees to the person with the key anyway...
Gus, Pete Bentley, Malcolm Ray, Perry Rovers

I think teh reference is from here:

Amy, I think you're going to earn a place as our Official ASR Sysadmin's Chum. In a secondary, particularly bloody-minded sense of the word.

Steve VanDevender


First thing that I though of.

Soko

Informative? This is common knnowledge, or should be to any admin who's been on the job for more than a day or two.

Where have all the BOFHs gone? In my day, that candy bar would be 6o grams or so of C4 nougat with 3 remote detonator almonds all covered in a delicious chocolatey coating.

Kids - no sense of history.

Soko

I love that game. Fun to play, easy to win.

Sysadmins need to be given legal authority to throw people in jail.

Hmm. Maybe not.

You obviously missed my reference to the scientific method so I will quote one succinct definition here.

The scientific method is the best way yet discovered for winnowing the truth from lies and delusion. The simple version looks something like this:

1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
2. Invent a theory that is consistent with what you have observed.
3. Use the theory to make predictions.
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations.
5. Modify the theory in the light of your results.
6. Go to step 3.

This is why the theory of evolution with mutation and natural selection is science. It is useful. It can be (and has been) used to make predictions. It can be (and has been) tested.

Creationism is faith. One could reasonably argue that as an explaination it is just as good as evolution. The problem is that it is not scientific theory (no matter how much the ID folks dress it up) because it cannot be used to make predictions and it is impossible to devise tests for it.

The best creationist can do is "to trying to make itself real by trying to make" evolution false by focusing on the very marginal areas where the current evidence is weak or incomplete.

First of all, I shouldn't have said or agreed with the term, "environmentalist wackos", as if all were. So no, I don't agree with Rush Limbaugh.

Here are some citations about toxic chemicals in solar cell production. Granted, there are toxic chemicals used in almost any manufacturing process.

http://www.eere.energy.gov/solar/man_pro_implicati ons.html?print

http://www.pv.bnl.gov/art_168.pdf


Here are a few articles about the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of ethanol production:

http://www.fcpp.org/publication_detail.php?PubID=1 80

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/031128.html

From the sci.skeptic FAQ, here is a definition of "New Age" beliefs (so I am not the only one who associates the two):

http://home.xnet.com/~blatura/skep_7.html


Finally, I have no idea what the remark about chemistry is supposed to mean. Yes, I understand the tremendous amount of knowledge about chemistry that arose from the study of alchemy, but what does that have to do with your argument?

I'm sure that astrologers at one time provided much of the basis of astronomical observation, but I think astrology is ridiculous. Again, so what?

Google, on the other hand, lists linux.org, linux.com and most major distributions (although not my distro of choice) in the top ten. Now, which list of ten items do you think would benefit the Linux-curious (=anybody enough of a beginner to search for simply 'linux') more?

Overall, I've noticed that I very rarely need to check results 11-20 when Googling.

Try here: Memorable Quotes from Alt.Sysadmin.Recovery.

Guess where my .sig comes from?

Soko

That's not Occam's Razor. Although many people make that mistake.

The reason behind the razor is that for any given set of facts there are an infinite number of theories that could explain them. For instance, if you have a graph with four points in a line then the simplest theory that explains them is a linear relationship, but you can draw an infinite number of different curves that all pass through the four points. There is no evidence that the straight line is the right one, but it is the simplest possible solution. So you might as well use it until someone comes along with a point off the straight line.

Occam's Razor doesn't say anything about what's likely true or not.

Why would you want Linux on a Cube, anyway?

Because it's there!

Heh, that reminded me of a quote from from alt.sysadmin.recovery :

" I love the way Microsoft follows standards. In much the same manner that fish follow migrating caribou." - Paul Tomblin

Soko

The search for linux on MSN India have the following top results:

Linux and Unix Resources

The other side of linux

Linux for all

And not linuxsucks or whatever but bashing MS is just the default acction aint it?

Same to you, dipshit -- Coredump

Clue: You've got the appropriate amount of hostility for the Monastery, however you are metaphorically getting out of the safari jeep and kicking the lions. Guess what that means, mtepahorically?

conclusion: 2 points for gusto, minus several million for good sense

coonec

Yeah, and for an even better effect they strapped a jato unit to the frozen chicken.

T&K.

t would be nice to find programmable ROM cartriges for the 2600.

Sorry, but the Cuttle Cart has been discontinued. I'm sure there are alternatives, though.

Another interesting idea is for some small company to develop gameboy-size atari 2600 pads with most of the games built in. Could even be incorporated into cell phones, now that I would buy.

Go ahead.

But if we could only combine current media (an 8/16 MB compactflash card could hold every version of every game ever written for this machine) you'd have something. Especially now that Sean Kelly doesn't seem to be able to offer his carts for sale any more. Sorry.

I should really have split this to 3 different posts to max the karma benefits. Oh, well. Maybe I'll get the rest in offline karma.

How DARE you sully the honorific "Bastard"!!!

Direct from Memorable Quotes from Alt.Sysadmin.Recovery:

LANGUAGE: You should only call someone a 'Bastard' if they are deserving of this honorific. Under no circumstances should the word be applied to someone who is neither ruthless nor clued. It *is* appropriate to encourage budding instances of this behaviour with the term of endearment "BOFHlet".

A LART of biblical proportions on you and your house! $DIETY, what is this world coming to???

/me scribles "Bastards and Spammers are diametrically opposed!!!" on his cluebat and impresses this on BWJones' forehead

Oh, and from the same page, a quote that fits in nicely as to what these spammers are doing:

Same to you, dipshit -- Coredump

Clue: You've got the appropriate amount of hostility for the Monastery, however you are metaphorically getting out of the safari jeep and kicking the lions. Guess what that means, mtepahorically?

conclusion: 2 points for gusto, minus several million for good sense

coonec


Soko

I heard that they put code in Windows XP that will drink your last beer, leave the toilet seat up, and sleep with your wife while you are at work.

I wonder if it's related to the Good Times Virus.

If you don't know what a sysadmin goes through for you, look at:

Adminspotting

A Day in the Life of a Sysadmin

Sysadmin's voicemail

Inspired by Junkyard wars, I built a trebuchet from Legos and Duplos (base and supports) and K'nex (frame and throwing arm, counterweight, etc.) I think there are some bits of Erector set in there too. There are some pictures here until my ISP yells at me. It also threw a marble but not nearly so far. Very cool job.

A theory must be falsifiable, so I guess, in that sense, if a theory is proven false (i.e. if the theory is "The cat will always go to her food when coming in from outside" and the cat is observed going to the bed instead, it has been proven false) it's false, but more correctly,, since a theory is an *explantion* it's *wrong*. It cannot be proven to be true. It can be supported by observation. It can be generally accepted (the theory of gravity, for example) but it can't be considered true in the way an observation is true or false (I either observed the cat go to her food at 3:40pm today, or I didn't).

Some reading for you:
This
this and
this

Specifically on evolution. When people say 'the theory of evolution' they usually mean one of two things:

1. The theory that states that over generations, through natural selection, species change to better fit their environment. This one has a great deal of evidence supporting it. It's extremely hard to argue against this one. I don't bother. As far as I can tell there are no glaring inconsistancies and it's about as close to correct as we can get right now.

2. The theory that humans evolved from the same predecessor as non-human primates. This one is a bit more interesting. There's lots of evidence for: physical and genetic similarities between humans and non-human primates. But we're missing the 'missing link'. While it is, to me, far more likely that humans evolved over eons than that some outside force (god? aliens?) zapped some poor unsuspecting monkey into the first human being, we don't have enough fossil evidence (or other evidence) to show that this didn't happen. My personal opinion is that this is the most likely theory, but that data could come up, even within my lifetime that suggests otherwise.

Incidently, I don't belive in god or creationism but I'd rather talk to people who have a well reasoned response for why they don't think the theory of evolution (either version) is correct then people who parrot it as gospel without thinking.

Speech given to Senate Government Affairs Committee

RIAA's summation of anti-censorship stuff - obviously biased, but hey

Response to hearings in '98

First-hand account of Senate sub-committee testimony in '97

And while not artist related, there's also that little matter of helping found Rock the Vote

She's also active in gay rights circles, but Google wasn't as helpful in digging up stuff about that.

I'd settle for answering these arguments from the sci.skeptics FAQ. This sounds like a classic case of item 8.1: "If they can provide so much energy, why do they need the battery to keep going?"

I've heard of this happening before, and I've heard of the "chicken cannon" project.
IANAP (pilot), but I would think something could be done to protect the engines.....especially if , as you say,

To the west and south of JFK Airport is a very large marshy area that serves as a sanctuary for migratory birds (plus some native waterfowl)

and other planes have been brought down by this before. I'm not saying this theory is wrong, but I am wondering why the reaction seems to be "well, looks like this one ran into some birds....I guess that'll happen sometimes."

I'm imagining a cone of some sort, but I'm not an engineer (yet).

The author of the quote "Because it's there" was George Mallory, not Sir Edmund. Mallory died trying to climb Mt. Everest in 1924.

A complete statement of Mallory's view suggests that it does not really apply to writing software: "The first question which you will ask and which I must try to answer is this, 'What is the use of climbing Mount Everest ?' and my answer must at once be, 'It is no use'.

Software is primarily and above all, useful.

However, Mallory also says: What we get from this adventure is just sheer joy. And joy is, after all, the end of life.

Sometimes I think this view applies to writing software and sometimes I don't.

Back in 1940s or so, a dreadful series of space opera (precursor to Sci-Fi) was written. The Lensman Series by E.E. "Doc" Smith. It was a seminal work. I will avoid the particulars, but there is a minor sight gag that still rings true. AND BONUS, it's ON TOPIC today!

Early in the series, a main character is speeding on a motorcycle or car or something, heading for somewhere I forget. We learn of his annoyance and apathy at bigger and worse advertisements just in passing, but it comes back to haunt him many chapters (or is it several books?) later.

He's now got the mind-expanding powers of the mystic Lens artifact on his wrist, and he's visiting Rigel IV. On Rigel IV, apparently, the natives didn't evolve a sense of sight, since there wasn't much visible light there anyway. Instead, they evolved a sense of "knowing" where objects were spatially. The main character is tapping into a taxi-driver's sense of matter, while the taxi-driver zooms around recklessly.

The main character notes that there are these very strange areas, domes of opaque-like matter where this matter-sensing ability seems to stop. He asks the driver, and the driver replies, "Oh, those are just advertisements. I guess I just ignore them." The driver pays more attention to them, and inside the domes can now be discerned many mind-catching moving objects, pleading passersby to buy this product, or use that product.

Undercurrent: we all ignore ads, regardless of what race we are. Okay, long story for such a small anecdote, but did anyone else read this damn series?

Did you read the article from the Medical College of Wisconsin?

IANAD, but I seem to recall something called the Scientific Method, which is the accepted way by which scientists, collectively and over time, construct an accurate (that is, reliable, consistent and non-arbitrary) representation of our existence. The researchers are in the middle of that process now, so you should probably hold off on your judgements until they're finished. Then, maybe you'll have something 'a little bit more convincing'.

Then again, maybe not.

--

I still manage to be surprised that rational people can accept supernatural explanations for their own subjective experiences. Read the sci.skeptic FAQ? It's good stuff. I tend to pigeonhole theists alongside UFO freaks, crystal-waving new age bubbleheads and Carlos Castaneda fans. I really cannot understand how people who use computers daily can swallow such transparent myth.

On the other hand, I recently started reading about Buddhism here, and, modulo the culturally specific far-eastern context, found it very interesting and thought-provoking. Next thing in the reading pile happened to be The Elegant Universe, which discusses superstring theory and how it unifies quantum mechanics and relativity. (Links to Amazon, sorry B&N too slow... where else is there? anyone?) This last is utterly mind-bending. Now there are still some features of the universe and cosmology that are poorly understood; some things we may never be able to know, although we can invent untestable theories about what they might mean. I can see that there is space within this framework for something... hard to comprehend. We may call this 'the mind of god' if we like, but whatever it is, is sure as hell isn't an old guy with a big beard sitting on a cloud taking an interest in the events on planet Earth.

Christian Geeks? Do me a favour.

This comment posted with mozilla!
Camaron de la Isla 'When I sing with pleasure, my

If you want product speed, you program in C or C++. If you want fast development, you use a rapid application development package like Inprise's Delphi.

No, ya got yer "facts" wrong there. Delphi shares it's machine code generator with BCB. If you want to learn about product speed, check out this. Delphi is a visual RAD tool that is capable of generating binaries just as efficient as C++. I would argue that OP is more readable/maintainable than C++, but THAT's just my opinion.

1st. The anger involved wasn't immediate and transient. It's something that has been carefully built for years before use.

2nd. The crime is more likely to be repeated because a Nazi honestly thinks he is on a holy crusade to protect his own kind from an alien invader of sorts.

However what happens when 200 black churches ( in theory this doesn't exist. In practices American blacks and whites attend different temples. especially in the south ) are burned to the ground in one year ? It's considered an organized hate crime and someone caught for one is treated almost as a serial arsonist or a conspirator on the others. This stuff can't generally be proven but you can sometimes prove that the color of the congregation was the motive

and don't get me started on the Sphinx. The infamous "broken nose" was shot off with mortar fire by French or Italian troops because a broad flat nose on such a huge and ancient monument implies something they were not willing to consider. In theory this is an act of vandalism on par with painting a mustache on Mona Lisa ( never happened ). The racial implications add a lot to the crime however. The perpetrators wanted to claim the Sphinx and by extension the Pyramids as being the creation of Europeans or failing that space aliens. Nobody can claim a great engineer as inferior or less than human so destroy the evidence of that engineering and you can get by.

I wrote a paper for history class 10 years ago called Technology and It's Effect on Society on some of these same topics. It ranges quite far afield, from nanotech to AI and MUDs.

I'd probably structure it a lot differently today, but I'm still interested in many of the same issues.

Later,

James

X-Net (sex and dark and forbidden pleasures) Shouldn't that be XXX-Net and not the wonderous ISP?

There are flame-free zones on the net- I've seen one. It was and is a Usenet newsgroup, co-hosted on a private news network dedicated to that group and others like it, and it was created as refuge from a flame-saturated situation which showed no signs of ever easing up, i.e. the group alt.fan.furry. (If you want to see what real flames look like, go look at that- even so, there is some normal dialogue there).

A subgroup was tired of being flamed and left to create this new group, and in the charter specified that it was orthoganal to AFF interests and also specified that flaming and argument was offtopic, that nobody's opinions were to be denigrated but also that you weren't to denigrate anybody or anything. THIS WORKED. It continues to work and has worked even in the face of the occasional attack from flamers or 'meowers' or whoever. But it asks a lot- more, I think, than you, Jon, can give.

How often, Jon, do you refrain from denigrating people or things? It appears to me that you wish to have flames against you outlawed by rule or peer pressure, but you still want to flame hotheaded adolescents, corporations, movie theaters, you name it. This is unfair- and you don't deserve peace unless you are willing to start extending it.

As for myself, I've spent a lot of effort mediating and protecting this mysterious non-flame newsgroup I speak of (in which everyone has every freedom except the freedom to denigrate which must be exercised elsewhere). I compare it to Slashdot and I think it would be vastly inappropriate to subject Slashdot to such conditions. Never mind that it can't happen because it'd have to be written into the charter and have all slashdotters agree on it- even so, Slashdot is simply too feisty and controversial to function under such a system. Its primary value is that of a crucible in which the newest tech and the most bitterly contested issues are brought to light and argued about by the readership until a reader can see all the points of view and find a personal viewpoint on the matter. Even in your own articles the most important work is done by the readership, not you. Far from 'self-appointed border guards', a deeply derogatory description, these people are Slashdot.org, something you seem to not understand in your desire to be superior to them and control or silence them.

And on a personal note, I'm becoming increasingly frustrated with your characterisations of your enemies. Am I the 'Invisible Katz-Critic'? To read your take on the matter, I am an illiterate, adolescent, cowardly hothead primarily motivated by jealousy and spite, with nothing to say. I just want to take a minute to rebut this, knowing that you are not even deigning to read this, but that others are, and can form their own opinions on my character.

• I am not illiterate. I've been a writer for years, and have written for the international audio journal "The Absolute Sound" (v18, issues 87 and 88). I have fiction writing up on the web, including my first novel, "The Kings of Rainmoor".
• I am not adolescent. I was born in '68 and am 31 years old. Maybe this is not the ravages of old age, but it is certainly not adolescence, and I prefer it that way. I hated my adolescence and prefer being an adult.
• I am not a coward. It particularly rankles after I've constantly put myself out there, willingly risking 'dekarmaization' from what fans of yours remain, to criticise your failings publically, under my own name. My email is available- you certainly have not used it. I'll make a special one, just for you: IKatz@airwindows.com to make replying as easy as a single click on a word in the middle of the text you're (not) reading. I don't believe for a second this will work, but what more can I do? I honestly considered posting my full address and telephone number, might still do so someday in a fit of bravado, but this would fall more accurately under 'I am not stupid' ;)
• I am not motivated by jealousy. Jon, I've had a feature all to myself on Slashdot too. I can have another one any time I want, under two conditions- one, that I come up with a topic that is genuinely interesting and worthy of Slashdot and the attention of its readers, and two, that I put enough effort into writing it to justify its massive virtual publication. You seem to be free of either of these restrictions- am I jealous of that? No, because they are self-imposed restrictions reinforced by the necessity of going through Slashdot editorial circles. If I had story posting access like you, I can only say that I would be a great deal more sensitive to the responsibility of it.
• I am not motivated by spite. Jon, you abuse your position. You come out with the damndest notions and use your access to media to dump them on the world without a thought to your responsibility.

Rob Malda, do you really want this guy publically denigrating _your_ _creation_?? That's crazy! It's also harmful- if self-moderating discussion boards develop the public image of mere usenet groups (and who is to say even these are valueless? Russ Albery's Rant) then a major and novel mechanism for social equality is cut off at the knees. It is _important_ that people learn to respect the value, and tolerate the jarring nature, of an 'unfiltered feed' of opinion and information. It will be a tremendous victory if people can learn to coexist and thrive in an environment which contains both approval and bitter disapproval, and allow the full range of opinion to get out there, allow the public to get the whole story (including rants and even nonsense and spite) and make up their minds about it.

Except, Jon Katz does not _trust_ the new media. That which he likes, such as R-rated movies, he considers a freedom, and overrides anyone else's opinion thereof. That which he doesn't like, such as detailed, bitter criticism of himself and his whole ethic? Well, we'll assume that he does not try to have it silenced outright. (Only CmdrTaco and other Slashdot staffers can answer this, as they are the only ones who'd hear if Jon had been steadily canvassing for the banning of ACs, his pet peeve.) Assuming that he has not been surreptitiously trying to get ACs shut off, his reaction is instead to attack their reputation! It's been posted in this very thread that the overall karma value for the AC is 1975- that's a very positive moderation total! Yet to listen to Jon, they are all hothead adolescents- and the unstated implication here is that such people should not be listened to, do not have a right to an opinion. One wonders if Jon felt the same way about adolescents in the 60s when he was one...

Summary? Jon Katz abuses his position, and has increasingly been trying to discredit the very publically-moderated system that makes Slashdot what it is. He needs to be dropped. Period.

So, what we really need to be teaching our kids are the fundamentals of the scientific method; including the application of Occam's Razor. (Whether Occam's Razor lends more credence to evolution or creation is left as an exercise to the reader.)

And it's in Seattle, too. Wouldn't it be cute if anyone flaming Microsoft was prohibited from posting to usenet on trumped-up grounds of _slander_?
At the same time, I have to admit that usenet communities can be disrupted by 'speech'. For instance, see Russ Albery's Rant, which relates to disruption of newsgroups by spam and automated spewing by computer programs. There are also groups such as the meowers and alt.syntax.tactical which primarily intend to disrupt communication, and I've seen important useful groups rendered unusable by such attacks.
I would say that as long as the balance of the legal situation is even, it'll be OK. I could really _support_ legal banning of HTML newsposting on the grounds of MIME executables being attached ;) and it would be interesting and strange to see intentional attempts to _disrupt_ a functioning newsgroup as actionable. There's a point at which the frontier justice of Usenet fails to be helpful, and IMHO some of the meowers and spammers and such go over the line. You can get a spammer's account yanked (I've killed seven, which isn't even that much), but I don't think there's ever been much chance of getting someone's account pulled for trying to kill a newsgroup. That could be changing.
Lastly I would question the sense of considering 'death threats' (short of Secret Service involvement in Presidential ones, which is their job), considering that many Usenet kooks are mentally about 12 and certain that they bear no responsibility for their wild statements- and considering that there are entire groups, such as alt.flame, in which the _point_ is to cause as much verbal damage as possible. In this context, assuming 'public community' rules is absurd, and counterintuitive. Do you arrest a Bible Belt evangelist for intentionally trying to disrupt alt.satanism or alt.wiccan or alt.atheism? Maybe you'd better, if you're going to be imposing penalties for disrupting Usenet at all.

To help those newbies:

www.linux.org

sunsite.unc.edu/mdw

www.stardivision.com

www.redhat.com

www.kde.org

www.gnome.org

www.cheapbytes.com

www.freshmeat.net

www.xnet.com/~blatura/linapps.shtml

OK So I'm somewhat biased... :)

"Linux sucks. But Linux sucks less." - JWZ