Couple comments...first the 5 year expressed warranty in Maine. It seems rather odd that everything sold in Maine automagically gets a 5 year warranty that can not be waived.
Regardless, about your battery issue. This is very common on laptops. In fact, it's MORE commonly found on laptops that are plugged in most of the time and left on 24/7. You see, even magical Li-Ion batteries self-discharge...especially if kepy toasty warm sitting next to a CPU running 24/7 with that tiny little fan to keep it "cool". That battery creeps down a few % (particularly if you unplug it to walk around the house and then plug it back in) and then recharges. That counts as a cycle. That's how batteries die on laptops used primarialy as desktop replacements. IBM has (or had, last IBM i had was a T43) a nifty battery mgmt utility that let you specify the discharge % before it would start recharging. I always kept it lowered to about 90% and it did wonders for extending battery life.
Just keep in mind - keeping a laptop on 24/7/365 or anywhere close to that is not "normal use".
And that sums it up. People want commodity pricing on computers and support but premier performance from both. They want to be able to call up tech support and occupy someone for a few hours troubleshooting, testing, and re-imaging their computer because the "free iPod, download this" didn't work out as planned.
Not only that, but 3 months later they do it again. Now tell me how anyone is going to include several hours of support per month in the price of a $300 computer...and maintain any bit of quality.:)
I agree dell brought them upon themselves (as a corporate gold customer i never call india) but it was indirectly or inadvertantly at the request of the consumer.
Except you could do this on a machine that gets logged into by a domain admin or similar power user. Heck, you could just fish passwords. Once a box is comprimised anything it accesses can then be comprimised.
I want to disagree with that. Anything your previous employer says that effects your ability to get whatever job you're going for they are liable for. If it's ANYTHING that could be based on opinion the generally will not say it...because you could disagree and sue them. I've seen it happen. Sucks for us people who work hard and could use a good reference to help weed through the zillion people that apply for every "good" job
And thus is the difference between a young/.'er and an experienced corporate peon. I'd have gladly accepted his call and direct-billed a very lofty hourly rate.
While watching someone suffer is great compensation, $200+/hr coming out of someone's budget pool certainly seems a bit more rewarding...while still causing some pain.
I should say I know I won't be permitted to stay on as an active employee during my 'final days'. The day I give notice will undoubtedly be my last day of actually working - by their choice...hence the 3 month notice I want to give:)
Actually you're unlikely to get a formal reccomendation out of a company anyhow. Most big companies have formal policies against giving reccomendations - HR departments will verify dates of employment...usually. Some will verify your title, others your salary information with written permission.
The rest? Every company i've worked for since the mom-and-pop camera repair store had a formal policy against referrals/references.
Yep. NY is also an 'at-will' employment state. Even given that, it's against the law to retailitate against someone. After all, your example is essentially firing someone because they're quitting.
All the more reason to give 3 months notice:) I'm tempted to try that next time i change jobs actually. Because of the industry I work in (and the fact that I've done it myself to others) I know i won't be active between resigning and the final day.
Ah, but don't you know? No individual (without an executive title) is ever considered 'important' to a company. Proving that fact is far more important than meeting deadlines:)
And for those thinking to flag troll - i've seen this actually happen numerous times. Besides, if you miss a deadline because of someone who's no longer around it's pretty easy to blame them eh?
Private companies have financial accountability to the shareholders. Gov't has accountability to...erm.
In private enterprise, you leave on a "quitting" employee and s/he does something that costs the company money then not only is your job on the line but the possibility of being sued personally if you're high enough up the food chain.
...but I'd be willing to bet that someone watching child porn is no more likely to abuse a child than someone watching regular porn is to go out a rape an adult woman...
Let's assume, for argument's sake, you're right. Let's go further and sepcify that said individuals would NOT be apt abused a child if they hadn't had access to the kiddie pron. (e.g. cause and effect, not the whole people who do "X" are more likely to "Y" even though one does not directly cause the other)
Given all that you still have ABSOLUTULY ZERO reason to arrest said 'viewer' in the USA - if possession by itself weren't illegal. Rightfully so in my opinion - after all, just because someone is more likely than another to commit a crime doesn't mean the have or will. After all, a muslim (i.e. someone who does not drink alcohol) is far less likely to drive drunk but we don't arrest everyone who's not a muslim because they *might* drunkenly drive though a pre-school.
The opposite argument can also be made - viewing said acts might keep someone from committing the crime. As with you, I have no evidence either way and I'd bet money most related "studies" are extremely biased.
I'd NEVER advocate abusing young children (or abusing anyone at all for that matter) and I think anyone who does deserves the most vile punishment immaginable. But our government is unable to find those individuals most of the time so they go after those who often aren't actually hurting anyone (directly, semantics if you think it's victimless or not) just to look like they're doing something. In the process, they pass all kinds of stupid laws.
It's similar here with the youtube videos. In addition, if the videos are so "evil" and "bad" then any "proper" citizen would not watch them or give them no attention. What's the issue? Besides, if you don't now how stupid the whole jiihad thing is then how can you laugh at them?:)
Or uhm...how about places where 17 is legal to have sex? You could have an orgy of 1000 17 year olds...but it becomes illegal the second someone whips out a camera. Or more oddly, 17 year olds (and 16, 15, 14 in some places) can HAVE sex but can't WATCH it.
Should minors (or anyone for that matter) be exploited? No. Never. Are these retarded laws about photoshopping pictures actually going to stop THAT? I somehow doubt it. A market exists and by making the desired product illegal you just ensure the 'product' is produced under less controlled, monitored, and generally safe conditions.
But seriously. I can understand the possibility of a civil lawsuit if i mod a picture and spread it with the intent to hard someone. If some mods a picture of me and i never even see it, how am i a victim? How is my life altered it it never comes to my attention or to someone i interact with?
As for making this illegal because someone might to go jail when they don't deserve it - it's called fraud. It's the same as if I altered anything else to make someone else seem guilty of a crime. There are laws that make such actions illegal.
Oh, and embarassment by itself isn't fatal. In fact, i think it's rather effective at character building. I know too many people in their early 20's that have been so sheltered and hidden from real life that they can barely function as adults. While we're at it, let's make name calling illegal (and yes, i'm sure someone could quote case law that effectively does).
And that data is very sketchy when you dig into it. For starters you're comparing 2006 data with 2007.
I can't speak for global use but in the US... MS is definitely NOT the #1 chat client. i woudln't put it beyond MS to consider 'active' use having the thing installed and running in the background (which would be what...every windows installation?)
But the rising cost of oil isn't significantly changing the demand either. I think the commodities traders somewhere along the way realized energy consumption will change very little regardless of the price and that they could bid up to just about any level they wanted.
I remember a year ago...MAYBE 2...there was talk about all this oil reserves but it cost to much to extract. 'but if oil ever hit $60 a barrel it would start becoming ecconomical'... then there were the doom-sayers going on about 'omg one day we might see $100/barrel oil' and everyone laughed. errr....
That said, i think further taxes is a horrible idea. Our gov't seems unable to do it's job now, why would we want to give them more money to.... errr...i'm going to stop before i get tagged troll.
No, though if you step foot into NY our laws very much would apply. But the point - you're not subject to NY law if you aren't *IN* NY still holds valid.
I, for one, strongly assert this: if you want to lower crime, focus on improving access to adequate healthcare, education, and nutrition for those of lower SES. I've got statistics, naturalistic research and a wealth of behavioral sciences on my side.
While I'm not arguing that mandatory gun ownership is the only method, I'm not sure what your suggesting would be any better - or even as good.
Healthcare and nutrition might trend along with lowered crime rates but they're indicitave of improved quality of life, not the direct cause of it. Education can make a difference but in order to GET educated people have to care, their family has to care, they have to be raised properly. I'm guessing but i highly doubt most (or even a significant % of) crime is committed to buy food, healthcare, or education.
Giving people hand-outs motivates them to be just loyal enough to the 'hand' to get their freebies. Give people the choice of not committing crime or run the very real risk of getting shot and killed when doing so. Staying alive can be a pretty good motivator to do something honest and the rest who wind up dead probably are just speeding up the process of reducing crime.
I suppose my point is you assume that criminals WANT to be something different and that's not necessarialy true. Motivation is carrot or stick and in this case the carrot just breeds more and more lazy people.
If you removed control gun laws (and did provide gun education) would crime go up or down? At first, perhaps you'd think crimians could go buy lots of guns and take over. Except...your average citizen isn't afraid of guns, knows how to be safe with them, and probably owns at least one and perhaps carrys it around?
If half the population was armed at any given time or place, who would ever EVER pull out a gun to commit a violent crime that they wouldn't otherwise commit regardless? Seriously. Who would rob a grocery store if you know that the clerk was almost definitely armed (perhaps better than you are) as well as at least several other patrons in the store? You pull out your gun and 5 other people pull out theirs. Sure, you might kill someone but then you're CERTAINLY dead yourself. This kind of problem has a very fast way of working itself out.
I sincerely doubt this is true on a realistic scale. Sure if you compare the number of gun-related deaths in the US (with our what, 100 million people?) to a 3rd world country the size of a postage stamp at war with 50,000 total people we might be about equal.
Statistics that don't explicitly define the conditions are worth spit. How else does every car manufacturer have the #1 selling or #1 rated car in America?
Except for waste heat. Solar takes energy out of the local enviornment. Nuclear generates about twice the waste heat as it generates (~30-35% efficiency in commercial LWR). I wouldn't want to see what 1400PWh/year would do to that 31,000 square miles.
No argument nuclear can achieve greater power density though. I'm actually a huge fan of nuclear power. It's hear, it works, it's not evil like many believe, and it's cheaper than oil/gas while being far cleaner than coal. Solar is not any of those things on a large scale other than perhaps clean (depending on the manufacturing). I'm looking forward to the day that it is though!
Slashdot Mirror
Try replacing a system board though. CPU cooler? Maaaaaybe.
Couple comments...first the 5 year expressed warranty in Maine. It seems rather odd that everything sold in Maine automagically gets a 5 year warranty that can not be waived.
Regardless, about your battery issue. This is very common on laptops. In fact, it's MORE commonly found on laptops that are plugged in most of the time and left on 24/7. You see, even magical Li-Ion batteries self-discharge...especially if kepy toasty warm sitting next to a CPU running 24/7 with that tiny little fan to keep it "cool". That battery creeps down a few % (particularly if you unplug it to walk around the house and then plug it back in) and then recharges. That counts as a cycle. That's how batteries die on laptops used primarialy as desktop replacements. IBM has (or had, last IBM i had was a T43) a nifty battery mgmt utility that let you specify the discharge % before it would start recharging. I always kept it lowered to about 90% and it did wonders for extending battery life.
Just keep in mind - keeping a laptop on 24/7/365 or anywhere close to that is not "normal use".
Xcessivly Priced System?
And that sums it up. People want commodity pricing on computers and support but premier performance from both. They want to be able to call up tech support and occupy someone for a few hours troubleshooting, testing, and re-imaging their computer because the "free iPod, download this" didn't work out as planned.
Not only that, but 3 months later they do it again. Now tell me how anyone is going to include several hours of support per month in the price of a $300 computer...and maintain any bit of quality.
I agree dell brought them upon themselves (as a corporate gold customer i never call india) but it was indirectly or inadvertantly at the request of the consumer.
Except you could do this on a machine that gets logged into by a domain admin or similar power user. Heck, you could just fish passwords. Once a box is comprimised anything it accesses can then be comprimised.
Heh, i suppose we're a bit different. For enough money i'll deal with just about anyone.
That is, as long as i'm confident they'll pay their invoice or i can get them to "buy hours" up front.
I want to disagree with that. Anything your previous employer says that effects your ability to get whatever job you're going for they are liable for. If it's ANYTHING that could be based on opinion the generally will not say it...because you could disagree and sue them. I've seen it happen. Sucks for us people who work hard and could use a good reference to help weed through the zillion people that apply for every "good" job
And thus is the difference between a young /.'er and an experienced corporate peon. I'd have gladly accepted his call and direct-billed a very lofty hourly rate.
While watching someone suffer is great compensation, $200+/hr coming out of someone's budget pool certainly seems a bit more rewarding...while still causing some pain.
I should say I know I won't be permitted to stay on as an active employee during my 'final days'. The day I give notice will undoubtedly be my last day of actually working - by their choice...hence the 3 month notice I want to give :)
Actually you're unlikely to get a formal reccomendation out of a company anyhow. Most big companies have formal policies against giving reccomendations - HR departments will verify dates of employment...usually. Some will verify your title, others your salary information with written permission.
The rest? Every company i've worked for since the mom-and-pop camera repair store had a formal policy against referrals/references.
Yep. NY is also an 'at-will' employment state. Even given that, it's against the law to retailitate against someone. After all, your example is essentially firing someone because they're quitting.
:) I'm tempted to try that next time i change jobs actually. Because of the industry I work in (and the fact that I've done it myself to others) I know i won't be active between resigning and the final day.
All the more reason to give 3 months notice
Ah, but don't you know? No individual (without an executive title) is ever considered 'important' to a company. Proving that fact is far more important than meeting deadlines :)
And for those thinking to flag troll - i've seen this actually happen numerous times. Besides, if you miss a deadline because of someone who's no longer around it's pretty easy to blame them eh?
Private companies have financial accountability to the shareholders. Gov't has accountability to...erm.
In private enterprise, you leave on a "quitting" employee and s/he does something that costs the company money then not only is your job on the line but the possibility of being sued personally if you're high enough up the food chain.
Let's assume, for argument's sake, you're right. Let's go further and sepcify that said individuals would NOT be apt abused a child if they hadn't had access to the kiddie pron. (e.g. cause and effect, not the whole people who do "X" are more likely to "Y" even though one does not directly cause the other)
Given all that you still have ABSOLUTULY ZERO reason to arrest said 'viewer' in the USA - if possession by itself weren't illegal. Rightfully so in my opinion - after all, just because someone is more likely than another to commit a crime doesn't mean the have or will. After all, a muslim (i.e. someone who does not drink alcohol) is far less likely to drive drunk but we don't arrest everyone who's not a muslim because they *might* drunkenly drive though a pre-school.
The opposite argument can also be made - viewing said acts might keep someone from committing the crime. As with you, I have no evidence either way and I'd bet money most related "studies" are extremely biased.
I'd NEVER advocate abusing young children (or abusing anyone at all for that matter) and I think anyone who does deserves the most vile punishment immaginable. But our government is unable to find those individuals most of the time so they go after those who often aren't actually hurting anyone (directly, semantics if you think it's victimless or not) just to look like they're doing something. In the process, they pass all kinds of stupid laws.
It's similar here with the youtube videos. In addition, if the videos are so "evil" and "bad" then any "proper" citizen would not watch them or give them no attention. What's the issue? Besides, if you don't now how stupid the whole jiihad thing is then how can you laugh at them?
Well the need SOMETHING to go after the middle and upper class white men for right?
Or uhm...how about places where 17 is legal to have sex? You could have an orgy of 1000 17 year olds...but it becomes illegal the second someone whips out a camera. Or more oddly, 17 year olds (and 16, 15, 14 in some places) can HAVE sex but can't WATCH it.
Should minors (or anyone for that matter) be exploited? No. Never. Are these retarded laws about photoshopping pictures actually going to stop THAT? I somehow doubt it. A market exists and by making the desired product illegal you just ensure the 'product' is produced under less controlled, monitored, and generally safe conditions.
If a tree falls in the woods...
But seriously. I can understand the possibility of a civil lawsuit if i mod a picture and spread it with the intent to hard someone. If some mods a picture of me and i never even see it, how am i a victim? How is my life altered it it never comes to my attention or to someone i interact with?
As for making this illegal because someone might to go jail when they don't deserve it - it's called fraud. It's the same as if I altered anything else to make someone else seem guilty of a crime. There are laws that make such actions illegal.
Oh, and embarassment by itself isn't fatal. In fact, i think it's rather effective at character building. I know too many people in their early 20's that have been so sheltered and hidden from real life that they can barely function as adults. While we're at it, let's make name calling illegal (and yes, i'm sure someone could quote case law that effectively does).
And that data is very sketchy when you dig into it. For starters you're comparing 2006 data with 2007.
... MS is definitely NOT the #1 chat client. i woudln't put it beyond MS to consider 'active' use having the thing installed and running in the background (which would be what...every windows installation?)
I can't speak for global use but in the US
But the rising cost of oil isn't significantly changing the demand either. I think the commodities traders somewhere along the way realized energy consumption will change very little regardless of the price and that they could bid up to just about any level they wanted.
... then there were the doom-sayers going on about 'omg one day we might see $100/barrel oil' and everyone laughed. errr....
.... errr...i'm going to stop before i get tagged troll.
I remember a year ago...MAYBE 2...there was talk about all this oil reserves but it cost to much to extract. 'but if oil ever hit $60 a barrel it would start becoming ecconomical'
That said, i think further taxes is a horrible idea. Our gov't seems unable to do it's job now, why would we want to give them more money to
No, though if you step foot into NY our laws very much would apply. But the point - you're not subject to NY law if you aren't *IN* NY still holds valid.
While we're at it: "omg people kill people! ban people"
While I'm not arguing that mandatory gun ownership is the only method, I'm not sure what your suggesting would be any better - or even as good.
Healthcare and nutrition might trend along with lowered crime rates but they're indicitave of improved quality of life, not the direct cause of it. Education can make a difference but in order to GET educated people have to care, their family has to care, they have to be raised properly. I'm guessing but i highly doubt most (or even a significant % of) crime is committed to buy food, healthcare, or education.
Giving people hand-outs motivates them to be just loyal enough to the 'hand' to get their freebies. Give people the choice of not committing crime or run the very real risk of getting shot and killed when doing so. Staying alive can be a pretty good motivator to do something honest and the rest who wind up dead probably are just speeding up the process of reducing crime.
I suppose my point is you assume that criminals WANT to be something different and that's not necessarialy true. Motivation is carrot or stick and in this case the carrot just breeds more and more lazy people.
Something to ponder:
If you removed control gun laws (and did provide gun education) would crime go up or down? At first, perhaps you'd think crimians could go buy lots of guns and take over. Except...your average citizen isn't afraid of guns, knows how to be safe with them, and probably owns at least one and perhaps carrys it around?
If half the population was armed at any given time or place, who would ever EVER pull out a gun to commit a violent crime that they wouldn't otherwise commit regardless? Seriously. Who would rob a grocery store if you know that the clerk was almost definitely armed (perhaps better than you are) as well as at least several other patrons in the store? You pull out your gun and 5 other people pull out theirs. Sure, you might kill someone but then you're CERTAINLY dead yourself. This kind of problem has a very fast way of working itself out.
I sincerely doubt this is true on a realistic scale. Sure if you compare the number of gun-related deaths in the US (with our what, 100 million people?) to a 3rd world country the size of a postage stamp at war with 50,000 total people we might be about equal.
Statistics that don't explicitly define the conditions are worth spit. How else does every car manufacturer have the #1 selling or #1 rated car in America?
Except for waste heat. Solar takes energy out of the local enviornment. Nuclear generates about twice the waste heat as it generates (~30-35% efficiency in commercial LWR). I wouldn't want to see what 1400PWh/year would do to that 31,000 square miles.
No argument nuclear can achieve greater power density though. I'm actually a huge fan of nuclear power. It's hear, it works, it's not evil like many believe, and it's cheaper than oil/gas while being far cleaner than coal. Solar is not any of those things on a large scale other than perhaps clean (depending on the manufacturing). I'm looking forward to the day that it is though!