Slashdot Mirror
320GB Hard Drives announced
SparkyTWP writes "Maxtor has once again shown the world that we need more room for porn by announcing new IDE hard drives with capacities of up to 320GB. Prices will be between $300 and $400 and be commercially available by the end of the year."
did i get first post?
HOORAH.
Semper FI!!
Man, 100GB just doesn't go as far as it used too. Stinkin' RoadRunner is too dang fast!
Damn you, USENET and Kazaa! I need a DVD burner!
Define nasty. If you don't like it, ignore it. The problem isn't pR0n, the problem is SPAM. Get rid of spam and you wouldn't even know there was any porn on the net, unless you went looking for it.
Demand more! More, more more!
"Porn, porn, sausage and porn. Porn, eggs, bacon and porn. Porn, porn, porn and porn".
"Can I have it without porn?"
"Eeew, without porn? That's disgusting!"
Man I dont' know about you but I happen to be single twenty three years old and heterosexual.
wow -- I stopped reading your nonsense when you
said it's just like the Nazis and the Jews.
it's nothing like that, and you should get some help
Do you have any idea what the RAID levels mean, or are you just trolling? Either way you're an idiot.
I agree with your post. Just acknowledge the thoughts for what they are and let them slide.
You will need 1TB just to install the next version of Windows.
That's Bigboo TAY! TAY!
my xbox for when the OPEN SOURCE MOVEMENT gets linux ported over?????
And that's a perfect example of the kind of ignorance and stupidity we face: someone who can't recognize an existance proof by example, in extremis.
The point being made, oh dim anonymous one, is that just because something is a law does not mean it has to be followed blindly: there exist laws which should not be followed. As with most existance proofs, it is usually involves a boundary condition -- in this case, an extreme socio-political situation.
The interesting question then becomes, if there is some law which should clearly not be followed because of the depravity it represents, are there less-depraved laws which should also not be followed? The implication is that there may be a line to be drawn. Given the existance of such a line, it stands to reason that debate of whether a particular law is on one side or the other of that line is worthwhile, and just becase there may be a more deprived law does not mean the answer is no. (By analogy, if this were case, rape would be legal because it was not murder, and murder would be legal because it was not genocide. Genocide, of course, is legal when the "other side" does not do it to you first. See where this goes? Not a nice place.)
Those that decry an activity simply because it is illegal need to learn that while the law can be a useful proxy for a moral compass, it is not an absolute one, and should be questioned. In fact, effective participation in a democracy almost demands that all laws be examined to determine who they benefit and who suffers by them. It is a sad state of apathy that hangs in the air when people only care about extreme laws.
You could've hired me.