I think the phrase "within reason" would apply, here. I see what you're saying - there are subjective calls in all sports. The question is, in this case, is the guy's performance with these limbs within reason? If this guy were trouncing the competition, setting inhuman records, I'd be more concerned. Since he hasn't even qualified, it seems like a tempest in a teapot.
Specifically, what was wrong with the Cube? Need to change the RAM, HDD, or video card? It's not really that difficult. In fact, I wish more computer cases were as easy to open as the Cube.
Changing the CPU isn't for everyone - I've done it a few times - but not a lot of people need to do that with their desktops, either.
The only thing missing from the Cube, really, is USB 2.0, but it wasn't available when they made the machine. It can't be added, after-market, but FW 400 is just about as fast, anyway.
Apple's OS is _not_ expensive. I bought the 5-user pack for $199, which breaks down to $40 per seat. That's hardly expensive. It also includes _everything_ in the OS, unlike Windows, which has how many versions, lately?
If you're comparing $40 to $0 for Linux, don't forget the "opportunity cost" for Linux: my 70-year old mother can install software on her Mac by herself. I'd really hate to see her try "ftp the software from the source; open a shell; cd to the download location; make; make test; make install" - that's assuming that all required libraries are in place. And that's _after_ she's had to install Linux and customize it on her machine.
Nope, that $40 is like "insurance": it lets me, and other Mac users rest assured that it will "just work" in most cases. For that kind of peace-of-mind, $40 is reasonable.
If you say so. I'm not sure what or who gives you the authority to make these unilateral decisions for everyone. If you're taking on that decision making responsibility, you should be kind enough to pick up the cost, too, since you're not giving me a choice.
> What's next, getting a bill from the police for investigating a crime done against you?
Don't even flippin' _kid_ about this! I can already hear some politician saying, "Hey, that's an idea... Say, chief, can you send out some of your off-duty thugs, er, officers, and break a few windows to rustle up some business? There's a couple of new cruisers in it for ya..."
How do you know that Mrs. F even asked anyone to bother searching for Mr. F? If she didn't ask, why should she pay? Of course, that begs the question of why _wouldn't_ she ask, but that's another argument.
If you come over, uninvited, and mow my lawn, don't expect me to pay you, simply because you mowed my lawn.
Recently, though I doubt I could find it, there was a pretty good rebuttal to the whole idea of caring for an incapacitated person. It was along the lines of, "If I'm hurt, and you automatically assume that I want emergency care, how does that make me responsible for your actions?"
If I didn't ask to be carted off in an ambulance, why should I be responsible for the bill? Perhaps I didn't want any help at all, and if I died, it's not your concern.
I'm not being snarky. I'm just presenting a possible viewpoint, which I think is reasonable. If I'm lost in the woods, and I call for help, that's one thing. If I'm "missing," and you / the government assume I want you to search for me, why should I pony up the cash?
It's good that you bring up the right of the people to abolish the government. However, if a group of people were to show up at the White House and Congress to suggest that they no longer represent us and are forthwith removed from power, I could guarantee you that they'd either be laughed out of town or arrested, probably charged with high treason. If it came to the Supreme Court, I wonder how it would be adjudicated, since it's clearly, right there, a right that We the People have. Anyone want to try it? It's either this or I go out and buy a red sports car to get over my mid-life crisis.
No arguing with your headline statement, but if that's what they're doing, they'd have to be pretty damned stupid to think they'll find anything of use. The only people they'd catch with this are the incredibly dumb; those not smart enough to either a) use "leet speak," or some low-tech encryption / pidgin English, or b) actual encryption. The "serious" bad guys are not going to write about "dirty bombs," "ied," or "kalishnikovs" in plain text. Not unless it was a "honey pot" effort aimed to distract the feds in their search.
Ya know, I usually don't agree with anything a repub / conservative - let's not quibble about semantics - says, but I have to say this is pretty good. Well done, sir. I wish there were a few good men in Congress who would stand up and say something similar, rather than simply regurgitate the party line at Bush / Cheney / Rove's behest.
Would you mind if I e-mailed this around to my friends?
The points I made, specifically the unconstitutionality of warrantless searches of a US citizen, are not covered.
Others were, though:
> Generally, "searches made at the border . . . are reasonable simply by virtue of the fact that they occur at the border . . .." United States v. Ramsey, 431 U.S. 606, 616 (1977).
This logic seems somewhat weak, and unsustainable. A search at the border is reasonable because it's a search at the border. Is there something magical about the border? Is it like the Twilight Zone? Can they shoot me for no reason and get away with it, simply because I'm at the border? What are the limitations of what these agents can do at the border, simply because it's the border?
And it still doesn't address the rights of a US citizen to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. Just because I'm coming back through the border shouldn't make one iota of difference. I know this now enters "internet arguing" territory, but if I establish that I'm a US citizen, my Fourth Amendment protections should automatically kick in. I emphasize "should"; reality currently says it doesn't work that way. That's my point. I don't understand why our rights are suspended just because we're at the border - and we're certainly not informed of the fact when we leave the country.
Here's a though: If they let me pass, and I drive away from the Customs inspection, and then they change their mind about inspecting my vehicle, can they drag my ass back to the border and wreck my vehicle - apparently that's Ok, if it's deemed necessary - just to satisfy their curiosity? Where does the scrutiny of the border agents end? As soon as I'm cleared to pass? Seems like a lot of subjectivity - and flexibility of our Constitutional protections - granted to these border agents.
Don't take my perceived hostile tone personally; this whole notion just vexes me. I'm terribly vexed.
See, what I'm not quite sure about is how our 4th Amendment rights as US CITIZENS just evaporate because we're at the border. Big effin deal. I'm a US Citizen, coming home from elsewhere, but I'm still a US citizen, and should be protected by my Constitutional rights.
If the border is considered some nebulous non-US area, then I should be able to tell border agents to toss off; I'm not subjecting myself to any search, and they have no jurisdiction, if it isn't actually American soil.
I'd say absolutely well and good that the border goons search non-citizens trying to enter America - they're not protected by our Constitution - but, dammit, I'm a US citizen, and my rights as a US Citizen were not waived simply because I left the country and came back.
I bloody hate our government, sometimes. ^wmost times.
> Why is no one buying CDs?... I don't know. But there is one, inescapable truth - Internet piracy is mostly to blame.
You just admitted you don't know, but you're sure it piracy. Does that make sense?
Maybe they're not coming to your store because they don't like the hypocrisy of some Jesus Freek pulling a Dirty Harry on teenage kids.
> fought the War on Drugs with skill.
Either you're Nancy Reagan, still with the blinders on, but after a real heavy binge, or you're a shill for the *AA.
Regardless, if you can't see that your business is doomed - or you _do_ see that it's doomed, but you persist - then you deserve whatever untoward fate befalls you.
Which "patriots" are you talking about? The droids that mindlessly follow Bush - eg. Republicans - and nod their heads at everything he asks for, and wink and look the other way when he violates the law? Or those of us who have read and still support the Constitution; decry Bush's violation of our laws, and his oath to protect the Constitution; and generally think that Bush and his yes-men are killing the "real" America?
The original patriots were traitors. Today's "patriots," by commonly accepted definition, are not, in fact, patriots; they're actually oligarchists.
Do I assume correctly that if you strap Maemo / Linux on top of it, you can't use it as a phone, anymore? How about as a wireless modem, rather than just WiFi? It would be way neat if I could ssh into the office from "out there" where I don't have a WiFi connection.
It's not so much the difficulty in leaving as it is in finding someplace else to go. When considering a number of other "civilized" locations, it smacks of "jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire." UK? Nah. Russia? Hardly. N. Korea? They can't feed their people. Canada? It's basically "US-lite." Plus, it's cold up dere, eh?
Slashdot Mirror
I think the phrase "within reason" would apply, here. I see what you're saying - there are subjective calls in all sports. The question is, in this case, is the guy's performance with these limbs within reason? If this guy were trouncing the competition, setting inhuman records, I'd be more concerned. Since he hasn't even qualified, it seems like a tempest in a teapot.
Specifically, what was wrong with the Cube? Need to change the RAM, HDD, or video card? It's not really that difficult. In fact, I wish more computer cases were as easy to open as the Cube.
Changing the CPU isn't for everyone - I've done it a few times - but not a lot of people need to do that with their desktops, either.
The only thing missing from the Cube, really, is USB 2.0, but it wasn't available when they made the machine. It can't be added, after-market, but FW 400 is just about as fast, anyway.
Apple's OS is _not_ expensive. I bought the 5-user pack for $199, which breaks down to $40 per seat. That's hardly expensive. It also includes _everything_ in the OS, unlike Windows, which has how many versions, lately?
If you're comparing $40 to $0 for Linux, don't forget the "opportunity cost" for Linux: my 70-year old mother can install software on her Mac by herself. I'd really hate to see her try "ftp the software from the source; open a shell; cd to the download location; make; make test; make install" - that's assuming that all required libraries are in place. And that's _after_ she's had to install Linux and customize it on her machine.
Nope, that $40 is like "insurance": it lets me, and other Mac users rest assured that it will "just work" in most cases. For that kind of peace-of-mind, $40 is reasonable.
If you say so. I'm not sure what or who gives you the authority to make these unilateral decisions for everyone. If you're taking on that decision making responsibility, you should be kind enough to pick up the cost, too, since you're not giving me a choice.
> What's next, getting a bill from the police for investigating a crime done against you?
Don't even flippin' _kid_ about this! I can already hear some politician saying, "Hey, that's an idea... Say, chief, can you send out some of your off-duty thugs, er, officers, and break a few windows to rustle up some business? There's a couple of new cruisers in it for ya..."
And what if someone wants to just sit it out on the top of their car until the flood recedes? Do they _have_ to be rescued?
How do you know that Mrs. F even asked anyone to bother searching for Mr. F? If she didn't ask, why should she pay? Of course, that begs the question of why _wouldn't_ she ask, but that's another argument.
If you come over, uninvited, and mow my lawn, don't expect me to pay you, simply because you mowed my lawn.
Recently, though I doubt I could find it, there was a pretty good rebuttal to the whole idea of caring for an incapacitated person. It was along the lines of, "If I'm hurt, and you automatically assume that I want emergency care, how does that make me responsible for your actions?"
If I didn't ask to be carted off in an ambulance, why should I be responsible for the bill? Perhaps I didn't want any help at all, and if I died, it's not your concern.
I'm not being snarky. I'm just presenting a possible viewpoint, which I think is reasonable. If I'm lost in the woods, and I call for help, that's one thing. If I'm "missing," and you / the government assume I want you to search for me, why should I pony up the cash?
It's good that you bring up the right of the people to abolish the government. However, if a group of people were to show up at the White House and Congress to suggest that they no longer represent us and are forthwith removed from power, I could guarantee you that they'd either be laughed out of town or arrested, probably charged with high treason. If it came to the Supreme Court, I wonder how it would be adjudicated, since it's clearly, right there, a right that We the People have. Anyone want to try it? It's either this or I go out and buy a red sports car to get over my mid-life crisis.
No arguing with your headline statement, but if that's what they're doing, they'd have to be pretty damned stupid to think they'll find anything of use. The only people they'd catch with this are the incredibly dumb; those not smart enough to either a) use "leet speak," or some low-tech encryption / pidgin English, or b) actual encryption. The "serious" bad guys are not going to write about "dirty bombs," "ied," or "kalishnikovs" in plain text. Not unless it was a "honey pot" effort aimed to distract the feds in their search.
Ya know, I usually don't agree with anything a repub / conservative - let's not quibble about semantics - says, but I have to say this is pretty good. Well done, sir. I wish there were a few good men in Congress who would stand up and say something similar, rather than simply regurgitate the party line at Bush / Cheney / Rove's behest.
Would you mind if I e-mailed this around to my friends?
Being scorched by molten metal at high velocity is not how I'd want to go.
I wonder if this would be ruled inhumane. As if it's any worse than a nuke, just on a smaller scale.
On your advice, I went back and read the opinion:
." United States v. Ramsey, 431 U.S. 606, 616 (1977).
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6D5D931898D8168188257432005AC9B8/$file/0650581.pdf?openelement
The points I made, specifically the unconstitutionality of warrantless searches of a US citizen, are not covered.
Others were, though:
> Generally, "searches made at the border . . . are reasonable simply by virtue of the fact that they occur at the border . . .
This logic seems somewhat weak, and unsustainable. A search at the border is reasonable because it's a search at the border. Is there something magical about the border? Is it like the Twilight Zone? Can they shoot me for no reason and get away with it, simply because I'm at the border? What are the limitations of what these agents can do at the border, simply because it's the border?
And it still doesn't address the rights of a US citizen to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. Just because I'm coming back through the border shouldn't make one iota of difference. I know this now enters "internet arguing" territory, but if I establish that I'm a US citizen, my Fourth Amendment protections should automatically kick in. I emphasize "should"; reality currently says it doesn't work that way. That's my point. I don't understand why our rights are suspended just because we're at the border - and we're certainly not informed of the fact when we leave the country.
Here's a though: If they let me pass, and I drive away from the Customs inspection, and then they change their mind about inspecting my vehicle, can they drag my ass back to the border and wreck my vehicle - apparently that's Ok, if it's deemed necessary - just to satisfy their curiosity? Where does the scrutiny of the border agents end? As soon as I'm cleared to pass? Seems like a lot of subjectivity - and flexibility of our Constitutional protections - granted to these border agents.
Don't take my perceived hostile tone personally; this whole notion just vexes me. I'm terribly vexed.
What?! Sacrilege! RTFA... This _is_ Slashdot, ya know...
See, what I'm not quite sure about is how our 4th Amendment rights as US CITIZENS just evaporate because we're at the border. Big effin deal. I'm a US Citizen, coming home from elsewhere, but I'm still a US citizen, and should be protected by my Constitutional rights.
If the border is considered some nebulous non-US area, then I should be able to tell border agents to toss off; I'm not subjecting myself to any search, and they have no jurisdiction, if it isn't actually American soil.
I'd say absolutely well and good that the border goons search non-citizens trying to enter America - they're not protected by our Constitution - but, dammit, I'm a US citizen, and my rights as a US Citizen were not waived simply because I left the country and came back.
I bloody hate our government, sometimes. ^wmost times.
> Why can't humans devolve into a more ape-like form?
You, sir, have obviously _not_ been to any rural Wal-Mart. This devolution is already happening.
Hmm. On second thought, maybe they're homo- branches that were slow to catch up in the first place.
What kind of Slashdot analogy is this? There's no car in it. You know, the "honk honk, and the vroom vroom."
Hey, it's working for Bush and the Republicans... (Funny, I feel dirty for saying that, now.)
> Why is no one buying CDs? ... I don't know. But there is one, inescapable truth - Internet piracy is mostly to blame.
You just admitted you don't know, but you're sure it piracy. Does that make sense?
Maybe they're not coming to your store because they don't like the hypocrisy of some Jesus Freek pulling a Dirty Harry on teenage kids.
> fought the War on Drugs with skill.
Either you're Nancy Reagan, still with the blinders on, but after a real heavy binge, or you're a shill for the *AA.
Regardless, if you can't see that your business is doomed - or you _do_ see that it's doomed, but you persist - then you deserve whatever untoward fate befalls you.
Which "patriots" are you talking about? The droids that mindlessly follow Bush - eg. Republicans - and nod their heads at everything he asks for, and wink and look the other way when he violates the law? Or those of us who have read and still support the Constitution; decry Bush's violation of our laws, and his oath to protect the Constitution; and generally think that Bush and his yes-men are killing the "real" America?
The original patriots were traitors. Today's "patriots," by commonly accepted definition, are not, in fact, patriots; they're actually oligarchists.
So, which "patriots" are you talking about?
Do I assume correctly that if you strap Maemo / Linux on top of it, you can't use it as a phone, anymore? How about as a wireless modem, rather than just WiFi? It would be way neat if I could ssh into the office from "out there" where I don't have a WiFi connection.
Definitely deserves a "fuckin eh, man."
If it isn't a phone - for you - what do you do with it?
Ah, now that's an idea. I'd need a gun, though, for those occasional pirates. Aaarrr!
It's not so much the difficulty in leaving as it is in finding someplace else to go. When considering a number of other "civilized" locations, it smacks of "jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire." UK? Nah. Russia? Hardly. N. Korea? They can't feed their people. Canada? It's basically "US-lite." Plus, it's cold up dere, eh?
So, let's say I want out. Where do I go?