> couldn't even cut his vacation short to address the blackout
Yes, because he obviously has an electrical engineering degree and could have helped bring the power up faster. What, are you a fucking moron as well as a troll? What would cutting his vacation do except piss him off & raise his stress level? Not a thing? so STFU.
> No panics, no screen of death, no finding and tweaking the registry key,
No high-scale server applications running, no ability to upgrade anything... Seriously, I think the parent was referring to servers, not your photoshop box.
> in the previous four year span, I went through THREE windows-based laptops
I suggest that, if you plan on buying a PC laptop again, you do some research before buying and not just buy "whatever." I've had 1 laptop (a Sager, even, not exactly top-quality) for 7 years with no problems, and another (Dell) for 1 year with just 1 HD failure, nothing else (it had been in use for 1.5 yrs before I acquired it). And it wasn't even a complete failure, I was able to backup everything before replacing it.
> your comment about not making it in the consumer market is downright ignorant
How is it ignorant? In the Real World(TM), Apple ISN'T growing by leaps & bounds, if at all. The consumer market is showing that it is not making it in the consumer market. Apple has been niche market item, which is fine. It has its points that it excels at, but trying to say it's a great business investment (unless your business is in image editing, video, music... basically, multimedia) is downright ignorant. Hell, I could have made the same arguments for Amigas back in the day. I LOVED them, they rarely crashed, they were speedy as heck, and there was some good software for it. They weren't even as expensive as Apples (IIRC), but were they a good idea for business work? Hell no (again, unless it was for multimedia or games).
> especially considering the appearance of OS X.
Appearance is, of course, the most important factor in buying a computer.
> I place a lot of blame on these poor class action lawsuit-filing "victims".
What is there to blame them for? Even if they did their research, the product claims to run on their hardware. It doesn't. That's false advertising, therefore they had no reason to suspect they were buying faulty software. You are incorrect in assuming that:
> these consumers [purchased] OS X for systems [on] which it was known not to work
The software WASN'T known to be inoperable on these systems.
From the article:
> The suit claimed that Apple had promised that OS X would be "fully optimized" to run on all G3 machines
This optimization was NOT done, and that is what the suit is about.
> If I could figure out a way to clear the dye out of the heating oil, I could run it in my Dodge RAM..
What, your Dodge won't run with the dye in it, but the backhoe will? Besides that dye, there is absolutely no difference between product A (Diesel #2 for cars) & B (Diesel #2 for other), yes they come at different prices? Screw PenDOT, that's bullshit. Of course, I have different reasons for hating PenDOT -- like all of Pittsburgh.
So, then, since I am a libertarian, it is a conflict of interests for me to invite republicans or democrats to my wedding? The political position of my friends has nothing to do with my own political position, so what is your point?
> I can't exactly blame them for their feelings on the matter.
What? Of course you can! You (and I) can blame anyone who lets their feelings stop cold any rationalization.
As for the movie? Yes, the knowledge would be usable. That is NOT to say that the doctor should not be thrown in jail & assraped for the rest of his life.
Assume that we could get useful information about curing cancer by studying bear attack victims. We should not promote bears attacking people, but if it happened, it happened, and we can use any available information to our advantage. "Monsters" exist, but that doesn't mean we can't learn something from them.
> the fact that mosquitoes have a rather important role in the food chain
However, you don't know the role of malaria in the food chain. Did it ever occur to you that by removing all diseases we could wipe out all life? They are bacteria & viruses, which are living (arguably) organisms as well. They are a part of our "fragile ecosystem" (which isn't reallyvery fragile at all).
> that pompous blowhard, "fair and balanced" my ass
What the hell are you talking about? Are you mixing up the O'Reilly books, which are very common & usually very good, with Bill (?) O'Reilly the Conservative figure?
That is some wierd shit. I wonder if it's like some artsy thing or just the HTML ramblings of a lunatic. Or maybe he was just bored and threw some stuff together.
> How the hell will innnovation occur with out a patent?
Well, they must be lieing about their conclusions, because obviously, people want to profit from their ideas, and if they were right, they'd be rich. Betterment of society? That's SOOO twentieth century.
> Are we really that grateful for the splitting of the atom? Is society better off with the capability to annhilate entire cities
Yes, I am. Is society better off with the capability to power 10 cities with one plant that gives off extremely minimal pollution and, despite worry-makers' dated ideas, are not disasters waiting to happen?
> to attempt to clone a human would be to produce an individual whose life would be filled with pain and probably an early death
Yes, you are absolutely correct that to attempt to create an entire human without first having a pretty darn good idea that there will be no complications (resulting in agonizing life/death, etc) is "Bad." The problem with this argument, however, is that to make use of stem cells does not require a human to be cloned. A heart, or whatever part, can be "grown" without growing the rest of the human along with it. Therefore, there is no agonizing, screaming, built-from-scratch infant to bring the moral question into it. (unless you consider the aborted fetus, of course, but it has been stated elsewhere that abortions go on anyway, might as well take advantage of resources that are there anyway -- this is not what I am arguing)
> does it make you any less human at any stage of your existance?
So, then, no one has ever donated their body to "science" after they died? Abortion is not the question here. It is what can we do with this tissue afterward. So after these babies are killed, (your interpretation, not mine) don't the parents of said dead baby have the right to "donate it to science" for the advancement of humankind, regardless of whether they are excercising their rights or being legally-murderous heathens?
Who said that the women would be paid for their fetus? You are taking South Park and putting it into the real world. The question is not "who will get paid." The question is more "why throw this away when it can be used to benefit humanity." And certainly, with the number of abortions that go on today, it wouldn't be too long before they had "enough" cells, or at least the current flow of appropriate tissues is enough.
> Do you feel the say way about the vast medical knowledge that was collected by torturing and killing a certain group of people in the 1940s?
Well, it's not exactly "vast," but you are saying that we shouldn't use any information that was gathered in a way we deem immoral? That's a pretty stupid statement. Even though the info was gathered in a bad way, we can still use it in a good way.
> what if the homeless today were rounded up by a medical group and experimented on?
That's a pretty horrible argument too, as no one is currently "rounding up" any homeless people, although the fetus tissues are already. A more correct analogy would be that we are "rounding up" homeless people that were murdered already by someone else and then brought to one place. Not to mention, there would have to be something that medically applies to homeless people that does not apply to others. There is no such benefit/difference.
> the SCO execs have more information than outsiders: they know whether their lawsuit is bogus or not.
Ah, very true, but the SEC can't do anything until they actually KNOW the lawsuit was bogus & the whole thing was set up to get rich off of their own failing customers.
And the SEC can't accuse a company just because of the stock sales of the CEO, unless they have good reason to believe he is selling it to screw other shareholders & make a quick buck or two (million). SEC also cannot even ask for the "illegal code" in question until it is public record or they are actually accused of a crime.
It's pointless to whine about moderations, but life is pointless anyway...
I can understand the flamebait mod, that is sorta' what I was going for, and funny - well, I guess, but insightful? Hell, I wrote it and I don't think it's insightful in the slightest. *SIGH* Oh well, I'll take the point and shrug.
> this is SO blatent, why is the SEC not in this up to their necks?
Because, supposedly, SCO executives have exactly the same information as everyone else. Everyone else can learn about the lawsuit & dump their shares too. If it turns out, however, that SCO had no valid claims (according to a judge), the SEC could probably look a bit closer & ask why they were dumping stock when they knew they were in the middle of a frivolous/blatantly false lawsuit.
> Hey loser- you may think it is funny to joke about shooting babies, but [...] that is not funny and it's rather offensive.
Hey whiner- yes it is. It's very funny. Almost anything can be funny except to those without a sense of humor, as yourself and your closer-knit inner circle of fanatical, ghost-worshipping, intolerant, acting-like-I'm-speaking-in-tongues-cuz-I-want-to- look-like-I'm-so-fucking-religious-too freaks.
Slashdot Mirror
> couldn't even cut his vacation short to address the blackout
Yes, because he obviously has an electrical engineering degree and could have helped bring the power up faster. What, are you a fucking moron as well as a troll? What would cutting his vacation do except piss him off & raise his stress level? Not a thing? so STFU.
> And here's the proof...
What's the uptime on that box? It's mysteriously not there. And what is it proof of? There are no statistics on there.
> No panics, no screen of death, no finding and tweaking the registry key,
No high-scale server applications running, no ability to upgrade anything... Seriously, I think the parent was referring to servers, not your photoshop box.
> in the previous four year span, I went through THREE windows-based laptops
I suggest that, if you plan on buying a PC laptop again, you do some research before buying and not just buy "whatever." I've had 1 laptop (a Sager, even, not exactly top-quality) for 7 years with no problems, and another (Dell) for 1 year with just 1 HD failure, nothing else (it had been in use for 1.5 yrs before I acquired it). And it wasn't even a complete failure, I was able to backup everything before replacing it.
> your comment about not making it in the consumer market is downright ignorant
How is it ignorant? In the Real World(TM), Apple ISN'T growing by leaps & bounds, if at all. The consumer market is showing that it is not making it in the consumer market. Apple has been niche market item, which is fine. It has its points that it excels at, but trying to say it's a great business investment (unless your business is in image editing, video, music... basically, multimedia) is downright ignorant. Hell, I could have made the same arguments for Amigas back in the day. I LOVED them, they rarely crashed, they were speedy as heck, and there was some good software for it. They weren't even as expensive as Apples (IIRC), but were they a good idea for business work? Hell no (again, unless it was for multimedia or games).
> especially considering the appearance of OS X.
Appearance is, of course, the most important factor in buying a computer.
> In Natalie Portman's Soviet Russia, our iron-eating overlords use dead *BSD to goatse all your hot grits. SCO sue ever Zig!
If you had a beowulf cluster of those, you'd be set.
> I place a lot of blame on these poor class action lawsuit-filing "victims".
What is there to blame them for? Even if they did their research, the product claims to run on their hardware. It doesn't. That's false advertising, therefore they had no reason to suspect they were buying faulty software. You are incorrect in assuming that:
> these consumers [purchased] OS X for systems [on] which it was known not to work
The software WASN'T known to be inoperable on these systems.
From the article:
> The suit claimed that Apple had promised that OS X would be "fully optimized" to run on all G3 machines
This optimization was NOT done, and that is what the suit is about.
> If I could figure out a way to clear the dye out of the heating oil, I could run it in my Dodge RAM..
What, your Dodge won't run with the dye in it, but the backhoe will? Besides that dye, there is absolutely no difference between product A (Diesel #2 for cars) & B (Diesel #2 for other), yes they come at different prices? Screw PenDOT, that's bullshit. Of course, I have different reasons for hating PenDOT -- like all of Pittsburgh.
> he had Kurt Waldheim as guest of honour
So, then, since I am a libertarian, it is a conflict of interests for me to invite republicans or democrats to my wedding? The political position of my friends has nothing to do with my own political position, so what is your point?
> a journalist asking a major political candidiate questions about his past is bad now?
Bullshit. It's a journalist bringing up his FATHER'S past, which has nothing to do with him.
> After all, laden would have been younger and probably less important back then.
Umm... You don't know much about bin Laden, do you? Maybe Carter. Then he would have been "young and less important."
> when I was new to the tech world and didn't know what FUD was, I first read it as Fucked-Up Drivel.
When I was new to tech FUD MEANT Fucked up Data, but then IBM got a hold on it.
> I can't exactly blame them for their feelings on the matter.
What? Of course you can! You (and I) can blame anyone who lets their feelings stop cold any rationalization.
As for the movie?
Yes, the knowledge would be usable. That is NOT to say that the doctor should not be thrown in jail & assraped for the rest of his life.
Assume that we could get useful information about curing cancer by studying bear attack victims. We should not promote bears attacking people, but if it happened, it happened, and we can use any available information to our advantage. "Monsters" exist, but that doesn't mean we can't learn something from them.
> the fact that mosquitoes have a rather important role in the food chain
However, you don't know the role of malaria in the food chain. Did it ever occur to you that by removing all diseases we could wipe out all life? They are bacteria & viruses, which are living (arguably) organisms as well. They are a part of our "fragile ecosystem" (which isn't reallyvery fragile at all).
> that pompous blowhard, "fair and balanced" my ass
What the hell are you talking about? Are you mixing up the O'Reilly books, which are very common & usually very good, with Bill (?) O'Reilly the Conservative figure?
That is some wierd shit. I wonder if it's like some artsy thing or just the HTML ramblings of a lunatic. Or maybe he was just bored and threw some stuff together.
> How the hell will innnovation occur with out a patent?
Well, they must be lieing about their conclusions, because obviously, people want to profit from their ideas, and if they were right, they'd be rich. Betterment of society? That's SOOO twentieth century.
> Are we really that grateful for the splitting of the atom? Is society better off with the capability to annhilate entire cities
Yes, I am. Is society better off with the capability to power 10 cities with one plant that gives off extremely minimal pollution and, despite worry-makers' dated ideas, are not disasters waiting to happen?
> to attempt to clone a human would be to produce an individual whose life would be filled with pain and probably an early death
Yes, you are absolutely correct that to attempt to create an entire human without first having a pretty darn good idea that there will be no complications (resulting in agonizing life/death, etc) is "Bad." The problem with this argument, however, is that to make use of stem cells does not require a human to be cloned. A heart, or whatever part, can be "grown" without growing the rest of the human along with it. Therefore, there is no agonizing, screaming, built-from-scratch infant to bring the moral question into it.
(unless you consider the aborted fetus, of course, but it has been stated elsewhere that abortions go on anyway, might as well take advantage of resources that are there anyway -- this is not what I am arguing)
> does it make you any less human at any stage of your existance?
So, then, no one has ever donated their body to "science" after they died? Abortion is not the question here. It is what can we do with this tissue afterward. So after these babies are killed, (your interpretation, not mine) don't the parents of said dead baby have the right to "donate it to science" for the advancement of humankind, regardless of whether they are excercising their rights or being legally-murderous heathens?
> women willing to have abortions for money.
Who said that the women would be paid for their fetus? You are taking South Park and putting it into the real world. The question is not "who will get paid." The question is more "why throw this away when it can be used to benefit humanity." And certainly, with the number of abortions that go on today, it wouldn't be too long before they had "enough" cells, or at least the current flow of appropriate tissues is enough.
> Do you feel the say way about the vast medical knowledge that was collected by torturing and killing a certain group of people in the 1940s?
Well, it's not exactly "vast," but you are saying that we shouldn't use any information that was gathered in a way we deem immoral? That's a pretty stupid statement. Even though the info was gathered in a bad way, we can still use it in a good way.
> what if the homeless today were rounded up by a medical group and experimented on?
That's a pretty horrible argument too, as no one is currently "rounding up" any homeless people, although the fetus tissues are already. A more correct analogy would be that we are "rounding up" homeless people that were murdered already by someone else and then brought to one place. Not to mention, there would have to be something that medically applies to homeless people that does not apply to others. There is no such benefit/difference.
> You could use a stainless steel stylus and never scratch it!
Wow, that's one I hadn't thought of before. Eventually, we could (theoretically) have diamond glasses that would never break.
> the SCO execs have more information than outsiders: they know whether their lawsuit is bogus or not.
Ah, very true, but the SEC can't do anything until they actually KNOW the lawsuit was bogus & the whole thing was set up to get rich off of their own failing customers.
And the SEC can't accuse a company just because of the stock sales of the CEO, unless they have good reason to believe he is selling it to screw other shareholders & make a quick buck or two (million). SEC also cannot even ask for the "illegal code" in question until it is public record or they are actually accused of a crime.
It's pointless to whine about moderations, but life is pointless anyway...
I can understand the flamebait mod, that is sorta' what I was going for, and funny - well, I guess, but insightful? Hell, I wrote it and I don't think it's insightful in the slightest. *SIGH* Oh well, I'll take the point and shrug.
> this is SO blatent, why is the SEC not in this up to their necks?
Because, supposedly, SCO executives have exactly the same information as everyone else. Everyone else can learn about the lawsuit & dump their shares too. If it turns out, however, that SCO had no valid claims (according to a judge), the SEC could probably look a bit closer & ask why they were dumping stock when they knew they were in the middle of a frivolous/blatantly false lawsuit.
> Hey loser- you may think it is funny to joke about shooting babies, but [...] that is not funny and it's rather offensive.
- look-like-I'm-so-fucking-religious-too freaks.
Hey whiner- yes it is. It's very funny. Almost anything can be funny except to those without a sense of humor, as yourself and your closer-knit inner circle of fanatical, ghost-worshipping, intolerant, acting-like-I'm-speaking-in-tongues-cuz-I-want-to
> Learn some respect, moron.
Get a sense of humor, troll.