If we're going to consider systems that were released very recently, I think we should include the retro system that was released recently.
Like many others, I owned an Atari 2600 when I was about 6. I came to acquire a large number of games for it, which somehow I managed to stop my parents from throwing away. I still have those games, but of course the old 2600 doesn't hoot up to any TV I own, nor does it likely still function.
Enter the Atari flashback2. 40 games on a system that still uses my old Atari joysticks. And even better, people have already demonstrated how to hack it to play the original 2600 cartridges!
Now I just have to get my hands on a second one, so that if I screw up the hack, my wife and I can still play pong on the first flashback2 I bought...
Personally, I don't think the solution lies in national-level action. It lies either in economics
I agree with you on that one. Spam is an economic problem, and as I've said before it needs an economic solution. We can keep playing whack-a-mole with the spammers and their spam, or we can actually do something to get them out of the spamming business.
So far, whack-a-mole as been the much more popular option, based on the enormous number of spam filtering programs on the market right now.
I had read through the Wikipedia page on Leo Kuvayev that he may be (one of the?) main guy(s) behind the storm worm botnet.
Here's the reference to Leo Kuvayev having a role with the storm botnet. Considering the massive amounts of spam that is pumped out for domains that he purchases, it wouldn't surprise me in the least.
Though according to his Crooked RegistrarPartners, he apparently lives in Finland. Though I somehow doubt that he really owns an entire Finnish city, as his address would have you believe.
as I've proven your lies more than three times
If that is true, than it shouldn't be hard to point out even one time where I lied or you demonstrated such.
I have asked you many times now to show where you feel I lied. You have yet to answer my request. You seem to be following the author's statement verbatim, on your insistence that people believe whatever you say after you've said it repeatedly.
Please, show us all where I lied, and why I am such a horrible human being.
While your at it, show us where I called for the extermination of other human beings as you want to imply. Or even where I called for people to be rounded up and imprisoned simply for being who they are and posing no threat to public safety and well-being.
I'd really appreciate you backing up your claims against me. You have used a lot of venom against me, and I'd really appreciate you showing why you hate me so dearly. Certainly, if my lies are so prolific and horrid, it shouldn't take you long to find them and point them out. Just give us a link to a post where you feel I lied, and show us how that was a lie.
The way you keep talking about how much I apparently lied in this thread, that should be a very easy request for you to fulfill.
That is, if you can resist the temptation for just a moment to simply continue on with your hateful, baseless accusations.
Have a nice day.
I don't know what part of Alaska you are in, but I see that Anchorage is now up to about 7.5 hours of daylight. Maybe that will help your anger?
The government has done things like pay for a study to prove marijuana makes someone an unsafe driver, then suppress the results when the study found that people that are high crashed less than even the sober people
So where did you find this study? Even if it was "suppressed" as you claim, you must have gotten the data somewhere. So where did it come from? This is likely the closest to a fact that you have come in a week, but yet you can't be bothered to say where it came from. Why should we believe you didn't just make this up?
Show us why this should be credible.
People that understand critical thinking realize that the value of the statements depends not only on the person saying them, but the context.
I'm puzzled to see this statement from you, considering the way you tend to respond to anything I bring up by hurling insults at me. We'll have to wait and see if you actually can show a meaningful source for the "study" you are referring to here, or if you just expect that like your other statements, it should simply be accepted after you've repeated it thrice.
You desire to see all druggies rounded up off the streets and thrown in jail indicates hate to me.
That is your own distortion of my statement, fueled by your hatred towards me. I never stated any such desire. You know that you cannot possibly back this statement, and yet you keep repeating it hoping that at some point I will leave it alone so that you can start pretending it to be true.
That simply will not happen, though. This statement of yours in an outright lie. I never said anything of that magnitude, and if you were to actually go back and read what I wrote, you would know that to be true. Instead you take what you want to see, and pretend it to be factually accurate.
It was a reference to history that you were too dense to get and immediately jumped to the wrong conclusion about.
With the extremist hatred that you were throwing at me prior to that statement, it would have been par for the course if you were to accuse me of being an anti-Semite. And considering the fact that you have repeatedly called me a Nazi, it would seem that indeed for some reason you consider me an anti-Semite.
And I see that again, you are returning to your roots of simply insulting me.
so you are trying to turn on me something that was never said about you
My accusation of your extremist hatred towards others is much better supported by your writings than your accusation against me of hatred against any group.
Perhaps you should also ask about my feelings against those two groups.
Nope, I'm not particularly concerned. We've seen enough of your ego and hatred exhibited towards me, we'll leave the rest of the world alone. They can thank me for it later.
But really, I've been asking you for some time now to show where you believe I lied. You have yet to answer this request with anything other than just additional statements of you hating me and your claiming me to be a liar.
I would really like to see where you feel I was lying.
Really
Show me why you feel I am such a horrible waste of a human life, such a monstrous, despicable, bigoted, hateful liar.
Please re-present the points that you feel you have presented, but do so without being insulting or repeating propaganda. I will willingly respond to points presented in such a manner.
explain how comparing the specific risks of alcohol and the specific risks of marijuana in the same post is not a comparison of the two
This is another of your statements that you seem to expect to be accepted as truth simply because you have repeated it. I have asked you to show where I compared the two and said that one is any better than the other. You of course have been unable to find such a spot because I never made such a comparison. But yet your hatred of me exempts you (in your own mind) from needing to support your claim, and you just keep repeating yourself as if someone other than you believe it to be true.
Since you will lie about what it means, it is pointless for me to quote your contradictory statements yet again.
This is at least the third time today that I have asked you to show where I said something untrue. You have yet to respond to any of my requests for you to demonstrate this. You are supporting my own statement that you seem to want people to believe what you say, simply because you have said it multiple times.
The same type of "logic" is what has cost the lives of almost 4,000 US soldiers in Iraq.
If you don't want to look like a Nazi, stop advocating the arrest of people for the sole reason that you don't approve of them
This has nothing to do with my approval of people. It has to do with my concern for the safety of the public as a result of choices that people make.
If you are so loving of people, then for one you shouldn't be exhibiting such vile hatred towards me. And two, you should also be pushing for the repeal of DUI laws so that people can freely do anything they want while intoxicated.
I call 'em as I see 'em. You are a lying Nazi. The more you post, the more you lie. That's another point I've made regarding your lies.
Again with the hatred, again with the baseless accusations.
Please, show us my "lies". Show us what makes me a "Nazi".
You called for the arrest of high people for the reason that you don't want to see them.
That is an unfounded lie coming from you. I never said anything about wanting or not wanting to see anyone. I have stated several times that I don't care if people want to use drugs, I just don't want them putting the public at risk.
But of course, you won't let that reality get in your way. You are enjoying your hatred far too much at this point.
Stating an agreement with a law that results in the arrest of someone is the same thing as supporting the arrest of them.
Except that you are refusing to separate people from actions. You are too determined to use your hatred to make me into some kind of monster. I support laws that result in arrests based on actions. You seem to refuse to separate these two for reasons that are unclear.
For your statements to be true, there would have to be some difference wanting them arrested and advocating for their arrest, and there just isn't a difference between those points.
No, there is a huge difference between the two. At least in the way you describe it, since you are so adamant to try to "prove" that I "want people arrested". I advocate the arrest of people that are acting irresponsibly with regards to public safety. This is what I stated at the beginning, and it is what I continue to state now. Instead because you harbor such deep and profound hatred towards me, you draw your own conclusion based on your own fears and hate.
but instead dismiss everything I say because you can't hold a c
And if you read the article cited in that post, you will find a quote from the author about "endarkenment":
a society where what I say three times is true and never mind the facts.
Perhaps the author was reading the allegations that you have been throwing at me? More likely a coincidence, since no other sensible person would still be looking at your tirades at this point. But still rather interesting to see that someone recognizes your tactic as being a parallel to the decline of science.
As the federal government attributes somewhere in the neighborhood of 100,000 deaths per year to alcohol, perhaps we could check their records as to those that, in the absence of all other drugs, died from use of marijuana, including all lung cancer deaths, overdoses, asphyxia from smoking it
It is quite interesting that you don't trust the government to handle public safety in the issue of people being under the influence of drugs in public, yet you believe their numbers. And for that matter what numbers did you check? You said
there isn't a single documented case
But didn't say where those numbers came from. And beyond that is the problem that it is very difficult to study marijuana deaths in vacuo. Many marijuana users smoke tobacco as well, or are involved in other activities where they willingly subject themselves to danger. But if someone smokes both tobacco and marijuana, and dies of lung cancer, its much more likely that the tobacco smoke will be reported.
Whereas the study I pointed to actually showed several well-studied, unexpected deaths in individuals whose only common trait was marijuana use. Had they all died in vastly different locations or at vastly different times, then the marijuana use likely would not have even been paid any attention to.
You just simply don't have a large enough sample to state that marijuana use is as safe as you want to claim. The claims you have made cannot be supported by acceptable study methods, and have yet to be in any studies that have passed peer review.
I would treat claims of the danger of both situations in the same manner
If you're talking about the claims of danger for alcohol and marijuana, then yes. If you're talking about marijuana and unicorns, then your logic doesn't hold water. Anyone who approaches a product whose safety has not been clearly ascertained without concern is short-sighted at best. It wasn't that long ago that we thought trans fats were a good idea, and not much longer prior to that athletes on the Tour De France were smoking cigarettes while riding to help their lungs.
I asked who was next on your laundry list of people to go after because you didn't like them
You are welcomed to show where I ever said anything about not liking people who choose to use drugs. I never said anything of the sort. As I already stated, my concern is for public safety.
But because your argument is based on your own hatred (against me), you of course took my comment to be equal to hatred.
And beyond that is the fact that you keep saying I want to "go after" people. I never said anything of the sort. There is a rather huge difference between picking up people in public who are being a safety threat to the public, and "going after" them.
Seeing as how your comments about people making alternate choices were second class citizens you shouldn't have to see or deal with
That is counter to what I said, and you should be smart enough to realize that, if you were to actually read what I wrote. I said earlier that I could really care less how much people chose to use drugs, as long as they stay out of the public realm. If they want to use drugs, and can be responsible enough in doing so to not subject the public to their choices, then they can feel free to do so. I said this before, and I repeat it for you now. I never in this thread, or anywhere else, suggested "going after" anyone. Nor did I ever say that they were "second class citizens" as a result of their choices. My concern is public safety, just as I said before. Or would you rather have people driving while under the influence?
any further statements that I called you anti-semitic are lies
I hoped at first that you were not serious when you asked if I was going to go after the Jews, but who would
I have multiple times, then you lied about it
Please, stop telling us that you've demonstrated this (when you haven't), and just show us.
This all parallels your basic strategy in this entire discussion though - you just keep repeating something in the hopes that it will become true simply by virtue of your own repetition. You have yet to prove any of your allegations against me. Please, I ask you again, show me where I was lying. Don't just keep repeating your allegations in the hopes that they will magically become true just because you're repeating them.
If I am such a horrible liar and worthless individual, then show us why. Don't just keep telling us that it is so without actually backing up your claim.
You have, on multiple occassions, compared the risks of alcohol and marijuana, then claimed you didn't compare them
I am still waiting for you to point to a single occasion where I did such a thing. I have asked you many times to show us where I said that, and you have yet to make good on it.
Again, you seem to expect that your statement will become credible simply because you've repeated it many times over.
Since I have pointed out the directly contradictory statements before
Nonsense. You have done no such thing. I have yet to find a single response of yours where you did such a thing. Feel free to show us where it happened. I have asked you many times to do this, and you conveniently ignore the request every time, instead furthering your own desire to make me look like a Nazi for some odd reason.
Since, as we all know by now, you are a liar.
I guess in this case, we would be you and only you. The likelihood of anybody else reading this at this point is around zero. And the odds of anyone else agreeing with your absurd ramblings ought to be the same. You've been constantly repeating your allegations and propaganda throughout this thread, just hoping that it will become the truth.
And I have asked you many times to provide something to back up what you claim to be true, and every time you ignore the request.
You quit lying, and I'll quit calling you a liar.
You could start by showing where I was lying. I have ignored your accusations of my "lying" thus far because they seem to simply be your defense mechanism when you realize that you are facing actual, meaningful information that disagrees with your beliefs.
From my vantage point, I would say that you really should have stopped calling me a liar a long time ago, because I don't see any points where I was lying. But feel free to point one out where you can actually defend your accusation with something better than a statement of faith.
Thus far you haven't bothered to meet any similar challenge, so I don't expect that you will this time, either.
You haven't been able to contradict any of my statements ever.
That's not true. Of course, you haven't made many statements aside from your own beliefs, but I've shown why they don't hold water as well.
One key example is your repeated statement that "nobody in the history of the world" has died from marijuana. That statement is a statement of belief at the most, as nobody could ever be qualified to back up that kind of statement.
The closest you came was a study where they concluded they didn't know what happened, but since marijuana was found, they would be more than happy to blame it,
You obviously didn't read the study closely or pay attention to who did it. The study was ran in a country where marijuana is legal. Furthermore, the cases that were reviewed in it all followed similar patterns in very different individuals, where the only thing in common was the marijuana use immediately preceding death. But you can feel free to call it bias if you want, you'll just happen to be terribly short sighted in doing so. Beyond that, if the study was indeed so terribly biased, it never should have passed peer review in a country that allows the use of marijuana.
But again, I should never expect that reality could ever stand in the way of your own beliefs.
I never claimed such thing
You did too accuse me of next going to send the government for the Jews. But feel free to try to dodge your way out of your statements if you want. If that was just supposed to be an analogy, it was a horrible one at that.
encouraging the government to take away those they don't like. You are such an advocate.
That is still an absurd stretch. I never said anything to the sort of disliking the people, as you try to assign to me. I support the laws that are passed in the interest of public safety, to keep people who are abusing substances that reduce their own mental faculties from being out in public.
But feel free to continue fantasizing about horrible nasty people such as myself chairing concentration camps that house and exterminate marijuana users that were kidnapped from their own homes. At least that certainly seems to be what you want to associate with me.
attempt to claim I said you were anti-semitic is a lie
You tried to extend me to wanting to persecute the Jews. It was in your own post.
You advocated that they come for people walking the streets in a manner you don't like, even if they are bothering no one.
So then you must be in favor of repealing the DUI laws and allowing people to wander the streets drunk?
And I never said anything about having police "come for" anyone. People who end up arrested for being under the influence in public end up arrested because of the nuisance that they cause. It is in the end a public safety concern - the laws are there for the same reason that you can't walk the streets with a machine gun in plain sight.
But thanks for proving my point that you are a liar. You haven't managed a single post after your first that didn't directly contradict one before.
I'm still waiting for you to prove any of this. Again, your entire argument rests on your own faith that if you repeat something enough it will become inarguable truth. I have, and will again, ask you to please show where I contradicted myself. You still have yet to show it, because I didn't.
But of course, far be it from me to allow reality to get in the way of you and whatever you think you're saying.
Since once again you are basing your argument on repetition rather than any verifiable information, I thought perhaps it would make just as much sense to make my own fun conclusion.
I own a shotgun. I use my shotgun safely. Therefore, shotguns must be absolutely safe, and everyone should own one or more shotguns.
This argument follows just as well as your argument for the inarguable safety of marijuana, or your interesting attempt to classify me as an anti-semite.
You are obviously unaware of a little thing called the holocaust. See, from that, there came some sayings regarding freedom. One popular one in particular was a poem.
Hey, condescending and oblivious in a single response. Good job.
You're response is completely irrelevant because I never advocated for the government to "come for" anyone. It was only your own dsitortion of what I wrote that lead you to that conclusion. By your logic, we should probably abolish drunk driving laws, since the government is out to imprison all drunks, right? You are arguing that the enforcement of such laws leads to the inevitable persecution of minority groups.
Funny, though. We've had DUI laws on the books since prohibition ended (indeed we had them before as well). Yet it has lead to no cultural holocaust.
But of course we all know how the Hitler comparison works in an argument - the first person to invoke it against the other obviously has a much better point and wins by default, right?
Oh wait, thats completely the opposite of reality. But it seems to be the foundation for a lot of what you've been trying to say ad naseum.
you stating that eating a marijuana brownie increases your chance of lung cancer?
I don't see why this question is even relevant. The question should be whether or not eating a marijuana brownie is completely safe as you want to say. To which the answer is of course no.
you know everything and are so much better than everyone else that you don't have to convince them of the truth, but you can just ignore the little people and mock them for not believing your truth
Hmmm... Which one of us damn near exhausted the supply of English language expletives in a single post?
If you would even pay attention to what I've been saying, rather than throwing insults and propaganda, you might realize your claims are still as baseless as they were the first time you started insulting me.
I've read/. plenty and am a long time AC troll and figured it was time I registered, but wow, you've never noticed it was spelt Blu-ray?
I trolled for years before I bothered to register as well...
As for the proper spelling, I'm sure I probably noticed it before and didn't think anything of it when I started this thread. I was likely typing in more of a stream-of-thought manner, and hence spelled "blue" the way that it would normally be spelled. Heck, I may have even let spell check correct me that time...
It's "Blu-ray". Why the hell people "refuse" to call it so is just stupid.
Well, I cannot speak for everyone in this thread, but as the person who started this particular thread from this discussion, I can tell you that in my case, it was just a mistake. I had simply forgotten that it was "Blu-ray" rather than "Blue-ray". While I do admit to generally having an anti-sony bias, I did not intentionally carry that over into the subject line.
Thank you for pointing out the typo. As you read more on slashdot, you will find that indeed, most of us don't bother to read entire articles before commenting. I suspect that had I read the article in question, I probably would have seen the correct spelling for the product.
Which is stating that you support laws that ban druggies from the streets because you don't want them there.
Well, at least you're almost coming close to reality. Of course this still leaves a tremendous act of non sequitur when you tried to use it to call me an anti-semite.
However, you are still not quite there. I said I support laws that treat the act of being in public while under the influence as a crime. That is not the same as "laws that ban druggies from the street". I support laws that are made in the interest of the public good when they keep people who are under the influence out of the public environment.
Considering how evil you have painted alcohol in your previous posts, I would think you could appreciate this, as I said that I support laws that continue to have the same consequences for being in public under the influence of drugs as under the influence of alcohol.
But I'm sure you'll yet find a way that this makes me a horrible person.
You compared them multiple times. You stated that the risks are different, but that you don't agree that it is safer than alcohol. That is a statement that you think marijuana is the same or worse than alcohol.
There you are dead wrong, as you have been from your first reply in this thread. I never compared the two. If you would read back to my initial post, which obviously you still have not done, you would see that I said you cannot call one safer than the other because the risks are not the same.
At no time did I ever say one was actually safer than the other. I have challenged you mutliple times to show where I ever did, and you have yet to meet that challenge.
Obviously, you never will be able to met that challenge, because no amount of reading of my posts will ever find a point where I said that. But you can continue to claim that I did, as obviously you will.
I found studies that indicate that smoking marijuana does not increase the chance of cancer, and I found none that indicated an increased chance of cancer
I'd love to see these studies, if you can find any that actually have been peer reviewed. If you read the AC post that came after one of your curse-laden tirades, you will find a study that was run but never reviewed. I replied to that post by showing why it cannot be taken as completely credible, and if you have any others I'd love to see them.
Does marijuana use, including the possibility that someone administers it solely through oral ingestion, necessarily increase the chance of lung cancer?
Is it absolutely 100% safe under all cirumstances? You cannot claim that it is, no matter how much propaganda you want to repeat.
Frankly, your posts remind me of the same kind of indoctrinated drivel that comes from religious fundamentalists. Your entire strategy seems to revolve around repeating something so many times over that you hope it will eventually be accepted as fact just due to your own repetition.
I hate to tell you this, but nothing becomes fact purely through repetition. You can have your own point of view, but not your own truth. If that was true, then Saddam would have really been in the process of building nukes to attack the US.
But you have, by your own insistence to stay on (your own very strange) message, proven that you are unwilling to read my earlier posts. Had you read my first post in this thread, you would realize that your claims about my alleged comparisons between marijuana and alcohol are nothing more than baseless claims fathered by your own fear and hatred.
So even if what you heard was true, there's undoubtedly people buying the PS3 for the BluRay capabilities basing that decision at least partially on price.
Thats a valid point, for sure. I did not intend to say that people who bought PS3's did not know they could play blue ray discs, as they are one of (if not the) cheapest blue ray players on the market.
I guess the one person I know who bought a PS3 may be something of an anomaly in the fact that he has yet to buy a single blue ray movie. Of course my own data set is likely not a good reflection of the general populace, as I don't know many gamers.
Previously, I had heard that the total sales for blue ray players included sales of PS3 consoles. Are they included in these numbers as well? I know that there are certainly people out there who bought PS3's with the intention of playing PS3 games, and didn't really care that they could play blue ray movies as well.
That said, of course the loss of another studio from HD DVD to Blue Ray likely didn't hurt sales of stand-alone blue ray players, either.
You directly compared the danger level of marijuana with alcohol. "No less dangerous" is a comparison of the danger. You then stated that they aren't comparable.
I guess you answered the question then as to whether or not you would ever read the statements that you are trying to critique, as clearly you have not.
Had you actually read them, you would have realized that in my first post on this matter, I stated that they are not comparable. At no time did I actually try to compare them.
But again, I'd hate to allow reality to get in your way of bashing me...
You directly compare alcohol and marijuana
No, I never did any such thing. But going on...
say they aren't comparable
I'll take this as the closest you've ever come to reading my post. But since you already made a false assertion before stating this, you really voided your own statement. Thanks for playing, though...
You state that you think druggies should be banned from the streets because you don't want to see them there
No, I did not. I stated that I support the existing laws that prohibit people under the influence of drugs or alcohol from being in public. But feel free to continue to try to extrapolate that into wild and fantastic things, since that is what you've been doing all along, really...
Oh, and you claim that all marijuana use will cause lung cancer,
I never said that either. But why try to bring reality into the picture now? I stated that inhaling particulate matter can cause lung cancer. But clearly you can't be bothered to check on the statements that you try to claim I made.
Instead, you are continuing to imply that an eaten brownie causes lung cancer
I never made that claim, either. But considering you thought I was an anti-semite a few days ago, I guess I can't really be surprised that you would place a claim like that on me as well. You haven't really bothered to read anything important that I've written since the beginning, instead looking just for fodder for your propaganda.
This has been a fascinating discussion, I suppose. And when I posted this remaining question, I really figured you would never respond, since you would be too arrogant to admit that you allowed your own false assumptions about me to severely warp your view of what I wrote.
Now instead, it seems that indeed you are too ignorant of the writing in front of you to see that your hatred got the better of you. You have been throwing hatred and propaganda at me this entire time, and ignoring any statement that I made if you couldn't find a way to turn it into an insult.
I have to wonder what color the sky is in your world.
Is whether or not "AK Marc" will come forward and admit that he let his imagination get the better of him in his interpretation of my writings. Even better of course would be if he came forward and then apologized for the hateful things that he said about me as a result of his twisted interpretations.
Yet somehow, I doubt either of these will ever happen. Instead this thread will close quietly and we will here nothing new from him. I suspect this may be ultimately a reflection of what he has learned from this experience - which is of course the true loss in this situation.
Really, the only value to the post of his that I am writing this final reply to is that he only made a single insult or false accusation in it - perhaps I can take that as a possible sign that he is maturing in his strategy. Though likely it would be erroneous of me to expect it a sign that he is willing to accept the fact that his claims were all based on his own biased view of my writings, as opposed to what I actually wrote.
Hey, how come you get an opinion and I don't?
I never said you weren't entitled to your own opinion. As I said, you are free to not use it if you don't think it's useful. However, you said its useless, which doesn't reflect the opinion of everyone.
I just remember around the same time as XP came out reloading a red hat box and finding that as a new feature.
I am not a redhat user myself, so I don't know at what rate they adopted certain desktop elements. IIRC, they have traditionally been fans of GNOME, so we could probably check the GNOME development history to see when they brought it in as standard. I can tell you from my own experience, though, that at least KDE in FreeBSD had multiple desktops as a standard feature at least as far back as 1999.
Of course, if you just reloaded the system circa 2003 or so, when was the install done on the same system? Few *nix systems really need to have their OS reinstalled or upgraded on the wholesale level (a la microsoft products) on any regular basis.
There's been one in the FREE powertoys that microsoft puts out for ages... maybe since win2k
Actually, it was added in winXP. But it wasn't particularly good, and some of us can't use XP for various reasons.
As long as most linux distros have had it, so has M$.
No, various X windows systems have supported multiple desktops for a lot longer than that. CDE has supported multiple desktops (at least in Solaris) for many years - and done it with the best multi-desktop controls I've seen so far. KDE and GNOME have both done it for quite some time as well. Considering XP came out October 2001, and the powertoys sometime after, I don't think one could reasonably claim that microsoft has had it as long as linux.
That said, it's as useless in windows as it is in linux
If you find it useless, then don't use it. But don't try to tell the rest of us that it isn't useful. Many of us find it to be very beneficial. I suspect it comes down to how one tends to organize things in your own mind.
At this time 20 years ago we finally got OS/2 1.0. No GUI at all in that version.
Actually, you'll find that X windows started in 1984. The protocol was established at least circa 1987. And X windows is the base that KDE sits on top of for window management. So even if OS/2 didn't have a GUI in 1988, there were GUI's available.
Slashdot Mirror
If we're going to consider systems that were released very recently, I think we should include the retro system that was released recently.
Like many others, I owned an Atari 2600 when I was about 6. I came to acquire a large number of games for it, which somehow I managed to stop my parents from throwing away. I still have those games, but of course the old 2600 doesn't hoot up to any TV I own, nor does it likely still function.
Enter the Atari flashback2. 40 games on a system that still uses my old Atari joysticks. And even better, people have already demonstrated how to hack it to play the original 2600 cartridges!
Now I just have to get my hands on a second one, so that if I screw up the hack, my wife and I can still play pong on the first flashback2 I bought...
I agree with you on that one. Spam is an economic problem, and as I've said before it needs an economic solution. We can keep playing whack-a-mole with the spammers and their spam, or we can actually do something to get them out of the spamming business.
So far, whack-a-mole as been the much more popular option, based on the enormous number of spam filtering programs on the market right now.
I had read through the Wikipedia page on Leo Kuvayev that he may be (one of the?) main guy(s) behind the storm worm botnet.
Here's the reference to Leo Kuvayev having a role with the storm botnet. Considering the massive amounts of spam that is pumped out for domains that he purchases, it wouldn't surprise me in the least.
Though according to his Crooked Registrar Partners, he apparently lives in Finland. Though I somehow doubt that he really owns an entire Finnish city, as his address would have you believe.
If that is true, than it shouldn't be hard to point out even one time where I lied or you demonstrated such.
I have asked you many times now to show where you feel I lied. You have yet to answer my request. You seem to be following the author's statement verbatim, on your insistence that people believe whatever you say after you've said it repeatedly.
Please, show us all where I lied, and why I am such a horrible human being.
While your at it, show us where I called for the extermination of other human beings as you want to imply. Or even where I called for people to be rounded up and imprisoned simply for being who they are and posing no threat to public safety and well-being.
I'd really appreciate you backing up your claims against me. You have used a lot of venom against me, and I'd really appreciate you showing why you hate me so dearly. Certainly, if my lies are so prolific and horrid, it shouldn't take you long to find them and point them out. Just give us a link to a post where you feel I lied, and show us how that was a lie.
The way you keep talking about how much I apparently lied in this thread, that should be a very easy request for you to fulfill.
That is, if you can resist the temptation for just a moment to simply continue on with your hateful, baseless accusations.
Have a nice day.
I don't know what part of Alaska you are in, but I see that Anchorage is now up to about 7.5 hours of daylight. Maybe that will help your anger?
So where did you find this study? Even if it was "suppressed" as you claim, you must have gotten the data somewhere. So where did it come from? This is likely the closest to a fact that you have come in a week, but yet you can't be bothered to say where it came from. Why should we believe you didn't just make this up?
Show us why this should be credible.
People that understand critical thinking realize that the value of the statements depends not only on the person saying them, but the context.
I'm puzzled to see this statement from you, considering the way you tend to respond to anything I bring up by hurling insults at me. We'll have to wait and see if you actually can show a meaningful source for the "study" you are referring to here, or if you just expect that like your other statements, it should simply be accepted after you've repeated it thrice.
You desire to see all druggies rounded up off the streets and thrown in jail indicates hate to me.
That is your own distortion of my statement, fueled by your hatred towards me. I never stated any such desire. You know that you cannot possibly back this statement, and yet you keep repeating it hoping that at some point I will leave it alone so that you can start pretending it to be true.
That simply will not happen, though. This statement of yours in an outright lie. I never said anything of that magnitude, and if you were to actually go back and read what I wrote, you would know that to be true. Instead you take what you want to see, and pretend it to be factually accurate.
It was a reference to history that you were too dense to get and immediately jumped to the wrong conclusion about.
With the extremist hatred that you were throwing at me prior to that statement, it would have been par for the course if you were to accuse me of being an anti-Semite. And considering the fact that you have repeatedly called me a Nazi, it would seem that indeed for some reason you consider me an anti-Semite.
And I see that again, you are returning to your roots of simply insulting me.
so you are trying to turn on me something that was never said about you
My accusation of your extremist hatred towards others is much better supported by your writings than your accusation against me of hatred against any group.
Perhaps you should also ask about my feelings against those two groups.
Nope, I'm not particularly concerned. We've seen enough of your ego and hatred exhibited towards me, we'll leave the rest of the world alone. They can thank me for it later.
But really, I've been asking you for some time now to show where you believe I lied. You have yet to answer this request with anything other than just additional statements of you hating me and your claiming me to be a liar.
I would really like to see where you feel I was lying.
Really
Show me why you feel I am such a horrible waste of a human life, such a monstrous, despicable, bigoted, hateful liar.
I'd really like to know.
Have a nice day.
You don't answer the points I present
Please re-present the points that you feel you have presented, but do so without being insulting or repeating propaganda. I will willingly respond to points presented in such a manner.
explain how comparing the specific risks of alcohol and the specific risks of marijuana in the same post is not a comparison of the two
This is another of your statements that you seem to expect to be accepted as truth simply because you have repeated it. I have asked you to show where I compared the two and said that one is any better than the other. You of course have been unable to find such a spot because I never made such a comparison. But yet your hatred of me exempts you (in your own mind) from needing to support your claim, and you just keep repeating yourself as if someone other than you believe it to be true.
Since you will lie about what it means, it is pointless for me to quote your contradictory statements yet again.
This is at least the third time today that I have asked you to show where I said something untrue. You have yet to respond to any of my requests for you to demonstrate this. You are supporting my own statement that you seem to want people to believe what you say, simply because you have said it multiple times.
The same type of "logic" is what has cost the lives of almost 4,000 US soldiers in Iraq.
If you don't want to look like a Nazi, stop advocating the arrest of people for the sole reason that you don't approve of them
This has nothing to do with my approval of people. It has to do with my concern for the safety of the public as a result of choices that people make.
If you are so loving of people, then for one you shouldn't be exhibiting such vile hatred towards me. And two, you should also be pushing for the repeal of DUI laws so that people can freely do anything they want while intoxicated.
I call 'em as I see 'em. You are a lying Nazi. The more you post, the more you lie. That's another point I've made regarding your lies.
Again with the hatred, again with the baseless accusations.
Please, show us my "lies". Show us what makes me a "Nazi".
You called for the arrest of high people for the reason that you don't want to see them.
That is an unfounded lie coming from you. I never said anything about wanting or not wanting to see anyone. I have stated several times that I don't care if people want to use drugs, I just don't want them putting the public at risk.
But of course, you won't let that reality get in your way. You are enjoying your hatred far too much at this point.
Stating an agreement with a law that results in the arrest of someone is the same thing as supporting the arrest of them.
Except that you are refusing to separate people from actions. You are too determined to use your hatred to make me into some kind of monster. I support laws that result in arrests based on actions. You seem to refuse to separate these two for reasons that are unclear.
For your statements to be true, there would have to be some difference wanting them arrested and advocating for their arrest, and there just isn't a difference between those points.
No, there is a huge difference between the two. At least in the way you describe it, since you are so adamant to try to "prove" that I "want people arrested". I advocate the arrest of people that are acting irresponsibly with regards to public safety. This is what I stated at the beginning, and it is what I continue to state now. Instead because you harbor such deep and profound hatred towards me, you draw your own conclusion based on your own fears and hate.
but instead dismiss everything I say because you can't hold a c
Are we in the age of endarkenment?
And if you read the article cited in that post, you will find a quote from the author about "endarkenment":
a society where what I say three times is true and never mind the facts.
Perhaps the author was reading the allegations that you have been throwing at me? More likely a coincidence, since no other sensible person would still be looking at your tirades at this point. But still rather interesting to see that someone recognizes your tactic as being a parallel to the decline of science.
As the federal government attributes somewhere in the neighborhood of 100,000 deaths per year to alcohol, perhaps we could check their records as to those that, in the absence of all other drugs, died from use of marijuana, including all lung cancer deaths, overdoses, asphyxia from smoking it
It is quite interesting that you don't trust the government to handle public safety in the issue of people being under the influence of drugs in public, yet you believe their numbers. And for that matter what numbers did you check? You said
there isn't a single documented case
But didn't say where those numbers came from. And beyond that is the problem that it is very difficult to study marijuana deaths in vacuo. Many marijuana users smoke tobacco as well, or are involved in other activities where they willingly subject themselves to danger. But if someone smokes both tobacco and marijuana, and dies of lung cancer, its much more likely that the tobacco smoke will be reported.
Whereas the study I pointed to actually showed several well-studied, unexpected deaths in individuals whose only common trait was marijuana use. Had they all died in vastly different locations or at vastly different times, then the marijuana use likely would not have even been paid any attention to.
You just simply don't have a large enough sample to state that marijuana use is as safe as you want to claim. The claims you have made cannot be supported by acceptable study methods, and have yet to be in any studies that have passed peer review.
I would treat claims of the danger of both situations in the same manner
If you're talking about the claims of danger for alcohol and marijuana, then yes. If you're talking about marijuana and unicorns, then your logic doesn't hold water. Anyone who approaches a product whose safety has not been clearly ascertained without concern is short-sighted at best. It wasn't that long ago that we thought trans fats were a good idea, and not much longer prior to that athletes on the Tour De France were smoking cigarettes while riding to help their lungs.
I asked who was next on your laundry list of people to go after because you didn't like them
You are welcomed to show where I ever said anything about not liking people who choose to use drugs. I never said anything of the sort. As I already stated, my concern is for public safety.
But because your argument is based on your own hatred (against me), you of course took my comment to be equal to hatred.
And beyond that is the fact that you keep saying I want to "go after" people. I never said anything of the sort. There is a rather huge difference between picking up people in public who are being a safety threat to the public, and "going after" them.
Seeing as how your comments about people making alternate choices were second class citizens you shouldn't have to see or deal with
That is counter to what I said, and you should be smart enough to realize that, if you were to actually read what I wrote. I said earlier that I could really care less how much people chose to use drugs, as long as they stay out of the public realm. If they want to use drugs, and can be responsible enough in doing so to not subject the public to their choices, then they can feel free to do so. I said this before, and I repeat it for you now. I never in this thread, or anywhere else, suggested "going after" anyone. Nor did I ever say that they were "second class citizens" as a result of their choices. My concern is public safety, just as I said before. Or would you rather have people driving while under the influence?
any further statements that I called you anti-semitic are lies
I hoped at first that you were not serious when you asked if I was going to go after the Jews, but who would
Please, stop telling us that you've demonstrated this (when you haven't), and just show us.
This all parallels your basic strategy in this entire discussion though - you just keep repeating something in the hopes that it will become true simply by virtue of your own repetition. You have yet to prove any of your allegations against me. Please, I ask you again, show me where I was lying. Don't just keep repeating your allegations in the hopes that they will magically become true just because you're repeating them.
If I am such a horrible liar and worthless individual, then show us why. Don't just keep telling us that it is so without actually backing up your claim.
You have, on multiple occassions, compared the risks of alcohol and marijuana, then claimed you didn't compare them
I am still waiting for you to point to a single occasion where I did such a thing. I have asked you many times to show us where I said that, and you have yet to make good on it.
Again, you seem to expect that your statement will become credible simply because you've repeated it many times over.
Since I have pointed out the directly contradictory statements before
Nonsense. You have done no such thing. I have yet to find a single response of yours where you did such a thing. Feel free to show us where it happened. I have asked you many times to do this, and you conveniently ignore the request every time, instead furthering your own desire to make me look like a Nazi for some odd reason.
Since, as we all know by now, you are a liar.
I guess in this case, we would be you and only you. The likelihood of anybody else reading this at this point is around zero. And the odds of anyone else agreeing with your absurd ramblings ought to be the same. You've been constantly repeating your allegations and propaganda throughout this thread, just hoping that it will become the truth.
And I have asked you many times to provide something to back up what you claim to be true, and every time you ignore the request.
Have a nice day.
You could start by showing where I was lying. I have ignored your accusations of my "lying" thus far because they seem to simply be your defense mechanism when you realize that you are facing actual, meaningful information that disagrees with your beliefs.
From my vantage point, I would say that you really should have stopped calling me a liar a long time ago, because I don't see any points where I was lying. But feel free to point one out where you can actually defend your accusation with something better than a statement of faith.
Thus far you haven't bothered to meet any similar challenge, so I don't expect that you will this time, either.
Have a nice day.
That's not true. Of course, you haven't made many statements aside from your own beliefs, but I've shown why they don't hold water as well.
One key example is your repeated statement that "nobody in the history of the world" has died from marijuana. That statement is a statement of belief at the most, as nobody could ever be qualified to back up that kind of statement.
The closest you came was a study where they concluded they didn't know what happened, but since marijuana was found, they would be more than happy to blame it,
You obviously didn't read the study closely or pay attention to who did it. The study was ran in a country where marijuana is legal. Furthermore, the cases that were reviewed in it all followed similar patterns in very different individuals, where the only thing in common was the marijuana use immediately preceding death. But you can feel free to call it bias if you want, you'll just happen to be terribly short sighted in doing so. Beyond that, if the study was indeed so terribly biased, it never should have passed peer review in a country that allows the use of marijuana.
But again, I should never expect that reality could ever stand in the way of your own beliefs.
I never claimed such thing
You did too accuse me of next going to send the government for the Jews. But feel free to try to dodge your way out of your statements if you want. If that was just supposed to be an analogy, it was a horrible one at that.
encouraging the government to take away those they don't like. You are such an advocate.
That is still an absurd stretch. I never said anything to the sort of disliking the people, as you try to assign to me. I support the laws that are passed in the interest of public safety, to keep people who are abusing substances that reduce their own mental faculties from being out in public.
But feel free to continue fantasizing about horrible nasty people such as myself chairing concentration camps that house and exterminate marijuana users that were kidnapped from their own homes. At least that certainly seems to be what you want to associate with me.
attempt to claim I said you were anti-semitic is a lie
You tried to extend me to wanting to persecute the Jews. It was in your own post.
Just to remind you: Here is where you called me a Nazi in one of your posts, and Here is where you said I would go after the Jews. I will look forward to seeing how you try to claim that you didn't actually say that, when its right there in writing.
So then you must be in favor of repealing the DUI laws and allowing people to wander the streets drunk?
And I never said anything about having police "come for" anyone. People who end up arrested for being under the influence in public end up arrested because of the nuisance that they cause. It is in the end a public safety concern - the laws are there for the same reason that you can't walk the streets with a machine gun in plain sight.
But thanks for proving my point that you are a liar. You haven't managed a single post after your first that didn't directly contradict one before.
I'm still waiting for you to prove any of this. Again, your entire argument rests on your own faith that if you repeat something enough it will become inarguable truth. I have, and will again, ask you to please show where I contradicted myself. You still have yet to show it, because I didn't.
But of course, far be it from me to allow reality to get in the way of you and whatever you think you're saying.
Since once again you are basing your argument on repetition rather than any verifiable information, I thought perhaps it would make just as much sense to make my own fun conclusion.
I own a shotgun. I use my shotgun safely. Therefore, shotguns must be absolutely safe, and everyone should own one or more shotguns.
This argument follows just as well as your argument for the inarguable safety of marijuana, or your interesting attempt to classify me as an anti-semite.
Hey, condescending and oblivious in a single response. Good job.
You're response is completely irrelevant because I never advocated for the government to "come for" anyone. It was only your own dsitortion of what I wrote that lead you to that conclusion. By your logic, we should probably abolish drunk driving laws, since the government is out to imprison all drunks, right? You are arguing that the enforcement of such laws leads to the inevitable persecution of minority groups.
Funny, though. We've had DUI laws on the books since prohibition ended (indeed we had them before as well). Yet it has lead to no cultural holocaust.
But of course we all know how the Hitler comparison works in an argument - the first person to invoke it against the other obviously has a much better point and wins by default, right?
Oh wait, thats completely the opposite of reality. But it seems to be the foundation for a lot of what you've been trying to say ad naseum.
you stating that eating a marijuana brownie increases your chance of lung cancer?
I don't see why this question is even relevant. The question should be whether or not eating a marijuana brownie is completely safe as you want to say. To which the answer is of course no.
you know everything and are so much better than everyone else that you don't have to convince them of the truth, but you can just ignore the little people and mock them for not believing your truth
Hmmm... Which one of us damn near exhausted the supply of English language expletives in a single post?
If you would even pay attention to what I've been saying, rather than throwing insults and propaganda, you might realize your claims are still as baseless as they were the first time you started insulting me.
I trolled for years before I bothered to register as well...
As for the proper spelling, I'm sure I probably noticed it before and didn't think anything of it when I started this thread. I was likely typing in more of a stream-of-thought manner, and hence spelled "blue" the way that it would normally be spelled. Heck, I may have even let spell check correct me that time...
Well, I cannot speak for everyone in this thread, but as the person who started this particular thread from this discussion, I can tell you that in my case, it was just a mistake. I had simply forgotten that it was "Blu-ray" rather than "Blue-ray". While I do admit to generally having an anti-sony bias, I did not intentionally carry that over into the subject line.
Thank you for pointing out the typo. As you read more on slashdot, you will find that indeed, most of us don't bother to read entire articles before commenting. I suspect that had I read the article in question, I probably would have seen the correct spelling for the product.
Well, at least you're almost coming close to reality. Of course this still leaves a tremendous act of non sequitur when you tried to use it to call me an anti-semite.
However, you are still not quite there. I said I support laws that treat the act of being in public while under the influence as a crime. That is not the same as "laws that ban druggies from the street". I support laws that are made in the interest of the public good when they keep people who are under the influence out of the public environment.
Considering how evil you have painted alcohol in your previous posts, I would think you could appreciate this, as I said that I support laws that continue to have the same consequences for being in public under the influence of drugs as under the influence of alcohol.
But I'm sure you'll yet find a way that this makes me a horrible person.
You compared them multiple times. You stated that the risks are different, but that you don't agree that it is safer than alcohol. That is a statement that you think marijuana is the same or worse than alcohol.
There you are dead wrong, as you have been from your first reply in this thread. I never compared the two. If you would read back to my initial post, which obviously you still have not done, you would see that I said you cannot call one safer than the other because the risks are not the same.
At no time did I ever say one was actually safer than the other. I have challenged you mutliple times to show where I ever did, and you have yet to meet that challenge.
Obviously, you never will be able to met that challenge, because no amount of reading of my posts will ever find a point where I said that. But you can continue to claim that I did, as obviously you will.
I found studies that indicate that smoking marijuana does not increase the chance of cancer, and I found none that indicated an increased chance of cancer
I'd love to see these studies, if you can find any that actually have been peer reviewed. If you read the AC post that came after one of your curse-laden tirades, you will find a study that was run but never reviewed. I replied to that post by showing why it cannot be taken as completely credible, and if you have any others I'd love to see them.
Does marijuana use, including the possibility that someone administers it solely through oral ingestion, necessarily increase the chance of lung cancer?
Is it absolutely 100% safe under all cirumstances? You cannot claim that it is, no matter how much propaganda you want to repeat.
Frankly, your posts remind me of the same kind of indoctrinated drivel that comes from religious fundamentalists. Your entire strategy seems to revolve around repeating something so many times over that you hope it will eventually be accepted as fact just due to your own repetition.
I hate to tell you this, but nothing becomes fact purely through repetition. You can have your own point of view, but not your own truth. If that was true, then Saddam would have really been in the process of building nukes to attack the US.
But you have, by your own insistence to stay on (your own very strange) message, proven that you are unwilling to read my earlier posts. Had you read my first post in this thread, you would realize that your claims about my alleged comparisons between marijuana and alcohol are nothing more than baseless claims fathered by your own fear and hatred.
Thats a valid point, for sure. I did not intend to say that people who bought PS3's did not know they could play blue ray discs, as they are one of (if not the) cheapest blue ray players on the market.
I guess the one person I know who bought a PS3 may be something of an anomaly in the fact that he has yet to buy a single blue ray movie. Of course my own data set is likely not a good reflection of the general populace, as I don't know many gamers.
Previously, I had heard that the total sales for blue ray players included sales of PS3 consoles. Are they included in these numbers as well? I know that there are certainly people out there who bought PS3's with the intention of playing PS3 games, and didn't really care that they could play blue ray movies as well.
That said, of course the loss of another studio from HD DVD to Blue Ray likely didn't hurt sales of stand-alone blue ray players, either.
I guess you answered the question then as to whether or not you would ever read the statements that you are trying to critique, as clearly you have not.
Had you actually read them, you would have realized that in my first post on this matter, I stated that they are not comparable. At no time did I actually try to compare them.
But again, I'd hate to allow reality to get in your way of bashing me...
You directly compare alcohol and marijuana
No, I never did any such thing. But going on...
say they aren't comparable
I'll take this as the closest you've ever come to reading my post. But since you already made a false assertion before stating this, you really voided your own statement. Thanks for playing, though...
You state that you think druggies should be banned from the streets because you don't want to see them there
No, I did not. I stated that I support the existing laws that prohibit people under the influence of drugs or alcohol from being in public. But feel free to continue to try to extrapolate that into wild and fantastic things, since that is what you've been doing all along, really...
Oh, and you claim that all marijuana use will cause lung cancer,
I never said that either. But why try to bring reality into the picture now? I stated that inhaling particulate matter can cause lung cancer. But clearly you can't be bothered to check on the statements that you try to claim I made.
Instead, you are continuing to imply that an eaten brownie causes lung cancer
I never made that claim, either. But considering you thought I was an anti-semite a few days ago, I guess I can't really be surprised that you would place a claim like that on me as well. You haven't really bothered to read anything important that I've written since the beginning, instead looking just for fodder for your propaganda.
This has been a fascinating discussion, I suppose. And when I posted this remaining question, I really figured you would never respond, since you would be too arrogant to admit that you allowed your own false assumptions about me to severely warp your view of what I wrote.
Now instead, it seems that indeed you are too ignorant of the writing in front of you to see that your hatred got the better of you. You have been throwing hatred and propaganda at me this entire time, and ignoring any statement that I made if you couldn't find a way to turn it into an insult.
I have to wonder what color the sky is in your world.
Is whether or not "AK Marc" will come forward and admit that he let his imagination get the better of him in his interpretation of my writings. Even better of course would be if he came forward and then apologized for the hateful things that he said about me as a result of his twisted interpretations.
Yet somehow, I doubt either of these will ever happen. Instead this thread will close quietly and we will here nothing new from him. I suspect this may be ultimately a reflection of what he has learned from this experience - which is of course the true loss in this situation.
Really, the only value to the post of his that I am writing this final reply to is that he only made a single insult or false accusation in it - perhaps I can take that as a possible sign that he is maturing in his strategy. Though likely it would be erroneous of me to expect it a sign that he is willing to accept the fact that his claims were all based on his own biased view of my writings, as opposed to what I actually wrote.
... "then there are people out there who would take advantage of that."
But here's a map to where they are, that is posted on the same friggin' article... map
Certainly journalism at its finest... I would truly expect nothing less from a network called ABC news, I suppose.
I never said you weren't entitled to your own opinion. As I said, you are free to not use it if you don't think it's useful. However, you said its useless, which doesn't reflect the opinion of everyone.
I just remember around the same time as XP came out reloading a red hat box and finding that as a new feature.
I am not a redhat user myself, so I don't know at what rate they adopted certain desktop elements. IIRC, they have traditionally been fans of GNOME, so we could probably check the GNOME development history to see when they brought it in as standard. I can tell you from my own experience, though, that at least KDE in FreeBSD had multiple desktops as a standard feature at least as far back as 1999.
Of course, if you just reloaded the system circa 2003 or so, when was the install done on the same system? Few *nix systems really need to have their OS reinstalled or upgraded on the wholesale level (a la microsoft products) on any regular basis.
Actually, it was added in winXP. But it wasn't particularly good, and some of us can't use XP for various reasons.
As long as most linux distros have had it, so has M$.
No, various X windows systems have supported multiple desktops for a lot longer than that. CDE has supported multiple desktops (at least in Solaris) for many years - and done it with the best multi-desktop controls I've seen so far. KDE and GNOME have both done it for quite some time as well. Considering XP came out October 2001, and the powertoys sometime after, I don't think one could reasonably claim that microsoft has had it as long as linux.
That said, it's as useless in windows as it is in linux
If you find it useless, then don't use it. But don't try to tell the rest of us that it isn't useful. Many of us find it to be very beneficial. I suspect it comes down to how one tends to organize things in your own mind.
Actually, you'll find that X windows started in 1984. The protocol was established at least circa 1987. And X windows is the base that KDE sits on top of for window management. So even if OS/2 didn't have a GUI in 1988, there were GUI's available.