After reading the summary (seriously, do this first or this won't work at all), gauge your reaction to the article that you won't be reading to determine how long and for what purposes you read/.
If you are surprised by any of the summary, you must be new here.
If you aren't angered by the summary, you have been here too long.
If you mentally insert else statements between each of these lines, you are sleep deprived DBA. Go take a nap.
If you question Eric Goldman's credentials, but haven't done any research to to discredit him, you are a/. troll.
If you just went to research Eric Goldman's credentials so that you could respond with research to discredit him, you are a/. pedent.
If you just tried to correct the misspelling of pedant in the previous line, you are a grammar nazi.
If you instead thought that discrediting Eric Goldman wouldn't take much effort but that doing so isn't pedantic, you have a valid point, and thus, would be modded down for pointing it out.
If you just thought to yourself 'who is Eric Goldman?,' try reading the summary next time.
If you can remember another/. article that pointed out that a company ended up suing themselves (and losing), so do I.
If you read the heading of this post and thought ' this is stupid, you can gauge someone's/. age by the number of digits in the UID, its probably a valid point, but makes this entire post worthless, so keep that to yourself.
If everyone creates trends, the trend will be to ignore trends and create them yourself. Effectively, everyone will simply be following the trend. To avoud following the trend in such a situation, you would in fact have to follow someone else's trend.
Not really, no. The numbers used are not meaningless, as you have to believe that they are correct, or else you cannot make reasonable, logical analysis. You cannot go up to someone who is leaving a grocery store, ask them how much cake they bought today, hear the answer of one 4 ounce slice, and come to the conclusion that either they bought 20 slices of cake nor that the cake is a lie. Don't be absurd, the numbers are not meaningless. As for loose evidence and invalid conclusions, citation needed. Seriously, who the fuck are you to tell me that I need a refresher in critical thinking (I know for fact that my statistics knowledge and use is perfectly adequate for its purposes) when you don't back up your biased, unfounded opinions with a singular point of reference. State what conclusions are invalid, what evidence is loose, and what numbers are meaningless, and prove why. Are you the equiavalent of a 13 year old from a bad family who has the ability to make a sound, reasonable, logical argument but not the experience, or are you just an AC troll?
Respond with a logical argument to state that you are immature and stupid and wish to correct this. Don't respond at all to point out that you are an AC troll. Don't respond AC though. Take the time to stand behind your responses.
You want a citation to show that deeper analysis of trends of types of requests being made would be a proper statistical reaction? Or are you asking for citation of a partial quote? Either way, no citation needed.
I said nothing about the sensitivity of information requests. I simply stated that given a random sample of requests from the population of both years, any given item is more likely to have been rejected in the current year than in the past. My only stated assumption was precisely the opposite - we would expect the topic of requests to be focused on similar issues during a given period - so I don't understand why you believe that my logic creates unfounded assumptions, especially ones that I not only haven't stated, but have specifically refuted.
There is no problem with this analysis nor its conclusion.
If you would like to respond again, I would appreciate if you would log in so I get notification that a response has occurred. However, since nothing of any value has ever come from a trolling AC, don't do so without an apology first.
It's piracy. Get over it. The word has evolved beyond parrots and yarrh's to include appropriation and distribution of files for which no license to distribute was provided by the content creator.
Language grows. "Hacker" used to mean a really bad golfer. And "Geeks" bit the heads off chickens.
You are incorrect. I would call you wrong, but I believe your incorrect statements stem from ignorance, rather than failure to acknowledge reality.
Hacker refers to one who engages in activity without talent or skill. (see american idol tryouts). While it still could refer to a bad golfer, its has never (explicitly) meant such a thing. There are plenty of good golfers who are hackers. There are plenty of non-golfers who are hackers in many other subjects. You seem to be an English language hack. A bad golfer would be a golf hack.
Geek, on the other hand, refers to one who is peculiar or otherwise dislikeable (I have often been referred to as a geek, but while I take it as a compliment, I have never bitten the head off of a chicken). While someone who bites the heads off of chickens today would still be correctly referred to as a geek, geek has never meant chicken head biter and nothing else. Likewise, if an customary method of chicken killing in an area was human use head biting, it would be improper to call a chicken head biter a geek.
In both cases, the meaning of the word has not changed, simply the common pejorative use.
On the other hand, piracy has always referred to a person who robs or commits illegal violence at or on the shores of the sea. Referring to one who uses or reproduces without authorization or legal right is not the correct use of the noun pirate or verb to pirate. This instead has always been known as plagiarism, not piracy. The unauthorized use or close imitation of another's work as one's own.
I do not understand why are you trying to make new meanings for old words when there are other words in common use that better fit the meaning you wish to associate.
Now that you are no longer ignorant, you need to recognize that copyright infringement is not piracy. On the other hand, newly non-ignorant robot, parrots and yarrhs have never had anything to do with piracy either. Hmmm...it seems that instead of using words incorrectly, you should learn their meanings first, and then use the correct ones.Next time, try that instead of parroting the mass media and yarring (yes, also a word, meaning to growl or snarl as a dog) on slashdot.
Your reaction is a bit more absurd. You are saying that the use of statistics is wrong because in a massive outlier case, which hasn't occured, we would have to take a deeper look at the numbers to find changes or trends in the type of requests that are made. While you said you don't want to offend, what you really mean is that you don't to be modded down.
First of all, no one, and I mean no one, is trying to use FOIA to obtain Dick Cheney's cell phone number. His email address is known to be not released because of national security issues (whatever those might be).
Secondly, over time, we would expect the topic of requests to be focused on similar issues during a given period. The majority of requests are done by news organizations and by people involved in litigation (whom news groups are following). For example, REM and Pearl Jam requested to find out if their music was used to torture GITMO detainees. As it turns out, no, but Barney the dinosaur's theme song and the spangled banner, tupac shakur, and 32 others (http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/10/22/music.list.pdf) were.
Thirdly, we didn't see an absurdly large increase in the number of rejections (we saw a decrease, but a small one), nor did we see an increase in the number of requests.
However, the population is large. Year by year, with the deviations being so different (5% less denials vs 11% less requests), whereas we would expect the changes to be roughly the same, does in fact indicate that if you pick a random request, it is more likely to have been rejected in recent times. There is no problem with this analysis nor its conclusion.
Ask Slashdot: What Free Antivirus Do You Install On Windows? on Thursday March 18, @02:43PM Posted by timothy on Thursday March 18, @02:43PM from the is-clamav-no-longer-good? dept. security windows technology Techman83 writes "After years of changing between AVG Free + Avast, it's coming time to find a new free alternative for friends/relatives who run Windows. AVG and Avast have been quite good, but are starting to bloat out in size, and also becoming very misleading. Avast recently auto updated from 4.8 to 5 and now requires you to register (even for the free version) and both are making it harder to actually find the free version. Is this end of reasonable free antivirus, or is there another product I can entrust to keep the 'my computer's doing weird things' calls to a minimum?"
Buying a mac for all of his friends and family? I don't see how that would reduce the time or energy required to lower the amount of calls from people due to the issues noted with avast and AVG.
You didn't correctly respond to the topic, your solution to a question that wasn't asked was incorrect, and your response when this was pointed out to you was to claim that you were offering a shortcut. As a shortcut, this didn't address the issue either, it was just a faster response in which you incorrectly posted a non-solution to any question including the words "windows," "free anti-virus," and "suggestion." A minor glance at anyone else's response to the issue, never mind actually reading the 5 sentences (including the title) of the article would have let a rational person recognize that this was not a hardware issue. You are unbelievably wrong, and a pristine example of the downfall in quality of/. over the past couple of years.
Anti-virus software is necessary because of user behavior, not hardware. Buying an expensive mac or a cheap knockoff Chinese 'affle' computer will not stop you from getting computer viruses.
The point of the examples is to illustrate why suggesting a mac is an inappropriate response to original question. Clearly the examples are necessary, because you still don't get it. Questions regarding what free options to use cannot be answered with expensive solutions, especially when they don't address the problem. As another example, if someone asked how to improve the battery life of their cellphone (to which the correct answer is of course don't use battery draining apps and make sure the phone goes to standby as default), you would suggest going out and buying an iphone.
The article was titled "What free anti-virus do you install on windows?" The submitter was asking not for personal use, but for ease of installation and upkeep for helping out friends and family. The problems noted with Avast and AVG include - wait, why I am summarizing a paragraph for you? Go read it, like you should have in the first place.
Now, if time is money (I really don't understand the thought process behind capitalizing random words in sentences, it adds no emphasis nor does it prevent mis-comprehension), you have wasted both by not reading the question and understanding it. Shame on you.
Your suggestion for what free antivirus to use with windows, excluding avast and AVG, is to get a mac........
I can't think of a dumber (serious) response. Instead of suggesting a free software program, you have suggested an expensive hardware non-solution.
I bet if someone asked about home security systems, you would suggest moving. From a car analogy standpoint of how bad your suggestion is, someone asked you how to tell the mileage when the odometer is broken, and you suggest getting new rims for the wheels.
I'm all for reasonable, logical discussions on forums, but that suggestion does not fit.
Point 1 - hence my phrase 'not necessarily reasonably' when referring to price. What does libertoonian mean? Is it just a word you made up is it just a word someone else made up and you thoughtlessly used? Either way, its meaningless. Additionally, if you had addressed the rest of my post, the traveler isn't the issue in NYC. It's the cab driver, who due to governmental control of supply and price caps, suffers for the benefit of people who do not live in the state (by the way, the political ideal you want to bash here for me having it is anti-socialism, not libertarian; just because I am pro-free market capitalism doesn't mean I want to abolish regulation. I absolutely want businesses to fail when they are failures, even if they happen to be banks). Maybe you should recognize that the benefits are far, far overshadowed by the costs. Taxi prices are only reasonable because the cost of owning a vehicle (specifically insurance, parking, and tolls) is far, far greater than taking a cab that costs the average new yorker an hour's wage each day. NYC is raking in money so that cab drivers have to turn to gouging customers (nevermind that they tend to overcharge, refuse, and abuse passengers, according to the city of new york). Really, who can blame them, when they make no money and have no employment benefits?
Point 2 - Of course I know what by definition means, that is why I used the phrase. For your benefit, it means that something is a given. Secondarily, all businesses have owners. Shareholder implies personal financial risk (up to the amount of the investment)due to the volatility and earnings of the organization. The majority of businesses do not have shareholders (majority meaning more than half, in case you got confused about words...since you use the word libertoonian you must either be mentally retarded or not a native english speaker, but I'm going with the former for discussions sake). The ones that have shareholders, by definition, have to try to make a profit, which, by definition, means that they are creating unreasonable prices. By definition, unreasonable, when referring to price, means excessive or expensive. You are confused because you are thinking that a reasonable price means not cheap (which I took time to point out, was not the intention of the word reasonable). Instead, you should have taken the common use of reasonable, meaning equitable, just, and fair. Yes, by having shareholders, a corporation is subject to government interference, which causes both price ceilings and price floors, specific business regulation (such as where or when products or services can or can't be sold), artificial barriers to entry (see your local cable company)or exit (see banks); each of which cause unreasonable pricing (and market issues, such as restaurants not being allowed to allow smoking, unless they explicitly call themselves a bar, but then requiring bars to serve food). Yes, 100 times yes, having shareholders means that consumers get unreasonable prices. It is by definition.
Cheaper price, less money. Why would anyone buy that?
Oh right, convenience and lower price. Plus, its a PS3, not an XBOX 360. I don't know anyone who knows anyone who has had a PS3 drive fail. Plus, if the hard drive fails, you can call sony, send them the failed the drive, buy a new drive from them, and get access back to your library of PS3 purchased movies. If your dvd gets a scratch on it, you are SOL.
Lets review - cheaper, available just as fast as driving somewhere without spending gas (for the vast majority of people atleast), and more reliable than a blueray disc...who modded you insightful, and why are all 6 of you so uninsightful?
I would like to agree with you, but I can't, because you are wrong.
Its not a mistake, when you have a gps system on the vehicle that determines the rate. It tells the system whether you are in rate 1 area or rate 2 area. The vast majority of trips do not cross the border where the higher rate is used. Clearly, manual overrides are causing the issue. There is no reason, at all, for a gps to say you are a different city than you actually are, especially for an entire trip. There is no reason that trips across borders can't use a limited increased rate for the distance in which travel is across borders (ie change rates when changing areas, and not before, or having explicit rates based on area).
Hell, if 10% of NYC taxi trips changed cities requiring a change in rate, this would be a 6% error, which no accountant would allow for a system that relies on gps (especially in NY, where it is harder to not find a signal than it is to be attacked by a shark. Yes, shark attacks are more likely than lack of satellite in NY). Don't even try to claim that taxi drivers are not gouging tourisits and people who dont speak english. 0.6% is not an acceptable rate of failure for computer based error. Just ask Toyota, who shut down manufacturing due to less than 1% of 0.6% error.
Try thinking first before posting next time, m'kay? I don't care what your answer is, you should try thinking anyway. Yes, you should. If you think otherwise, don't post again, because you will once again be very, very, very wrong ( and not just incorrect).
Instead of modding you down, I am going to point out why, from every common sense and pedantic reasoning that I can think of, that you could not be more incorrect. You fucking dumbass.
Well, from an econ standpoint, no.
An artificial price ceiling means that you will have capped (not necessarily reasonably) priced services, but not available to everyone because less health care will be provided at an artificially low price.
Well, from a government controls something standpoint, no.
I don't think I really need to give examples, but as an example, let's try healthcare, specifically medicare and medicaid (http://healthcare-economist.com/2007/04/02/mises-institute-medicare-raises-health-care-costs/) Now, I'm not one to use terms such as all, always, etc that leave no room for scrutiny, but all of the healthcare bill ideas in congress over the past year have included clauses that would raise the cost of medicare and medicaid, which raise the cost of healthcare for those are under 65 years of age.
From a medallion standpoint, clearly taxi medallion prices, growing at 15% a year in price, are neither reasonably priced nor available to everyone. Even if you have the 575 to 776k to buy one, you are unlikely to be able to purchase one. Corporations own the majority of taxi medallions, and rent them at $800 per week. Thats 41600 per year, or double the average income of a family of 4, just to have the right to be a NY taxi. The average taxi driver makes 30 trips per 12 hours, at an average tab of $6. Thats revenue. figure in gas, maintenance, insurance, risk of being robbed, risk of nonpaying fare, etc, etc, etc, and after all cost, the cab driver, before the medallion, is making 50k per year (assuming a 12 hr work day). After the medallion, you may as well work at mcdonalds, 20 hours per week.
Companies that provide services easily available to everyone have to have such a volume that they have shareholders. By definition, this means that consumers are not getting reasonably priced items (not the same thing as affordable). Either that, or they have government influence, paying them well above market value to produce (see corn, gasoline, utilities).
Yes, AC Magic Obama hasn't really done anything for anyone, but the only people that voted for magic obama are those that believe in hope instead of reason. They are the same ones who think that our government can manage health care and make it better for those who already have it (by the way, we call them the vast majority, aka people who work or collect disability or unemployment. There really aren't a statistically signigicany number of people who try to make a living and want health care but cant afford it but can afford food, housing, and clothes. You are not entitled to health insurance or health care, get over it and buy it if you want it. USe a budget and figure out what is important to you. But trust me, I will not pay for both my health care and your health care, and I absolutely will not lower my level of health care so that you and I can both have a lower level of health care. This is what congress wants to push through, and it is a massive insult those of use who understand that doctors don't work for free, nor should they).
You would have to prove that when you start getting the insurance, you can hear just fine. Then, your hearing has to go, but you can't miss any insurance payments. Then part of the cost would get covered. In the long run, hearing insurance would be prohibitively expensive.
It's called eye coverage (not glasses coverage), and unless something happens to cause me to need eye surgery (not LASIK), it's a waste of money. My insurance costs $90 a year, but covers only a $45 eye exam (so if I actually go to an optometrist, instead of a walmart, it covers about 1/3 of the cost) once every 2 years. Also every 2 years, it covers 40% of a pair of glasses, up to a $250 complete pair. The cheapest pair of glasses I have ever purchased cost over $300. Glasses I don't mind wearing in public cost a lot more than that. On the other hand, I tend to save money by buying glasses without insurance. The only reason I keep the insurance is that it covers medically necessary surgery (for example, it will cover $1000 for cataract surgery, supplemental to my regular medical insurance).
I assure you, the submitter is better off putting $50 a month away explicitly for a hearing aid fund (if I could put away $500 a month while in college at an out of state school working 20 hours a week and still paying off my tuition, submiter can do this while collecting unemployment benefits) than trying to find insurance that will cover a preexisting condition.
I would imagine that San Francisco is not going to be more lax than Sacramento. On the other hand, fining the employee and the business seems like a useful deterrent. That way, when a 22 year old looks the other way when selling to his faternity, the store doesn't look the other way to make a large sale. Meanwhile, the 22 year old is less likely to take on personal risk.
Unfortunately, it seems from your experience that restrictive measures to prevent underage drinking are unintentionally preventing legal age drinking. Again, this has not been my experience.
Let's not forget that 18 year olds don't have that difficult of a time obtaining alcohol in the first place. Its a great reason to keep em out of bars until they are 21. 3-4 years of practicing drinking in mom and dad's basement or the dorm room means they show up to the bar on their 21st birthday and don't drink 30 shots sending them to the hospital (as much).
When it comes to time limits for purchasing alcohol I agree with local ordinances regarding bar closing times. I know I don't want to drive to work in heavy traffic at 7 AM along with barflies who are just leaving to also go to work (or my co-workers stopping in for a quick one before coming in to work). On the other hand, if you are a grocery store, and you are open on Sunday, you should sell beer on Sunday. If I don't have to work on Monday, and my retarded state has blue laws, I should be able to buy at 1201 on Monday, not 9 AM.
Counterfeit goods are not art. Shame on you. Are you really this stupid?
Someone stole the real products and sold them already. They were swapped with these fake items. There is no way, under any circumstances, that anyone would misconstrue this as art - something marketed for sale as a collectible.
Like, put down the weed, dude. I swear,/. used to have smart people. Now it just has trolls and morons.
but that would also not be irony; it would be an acid trip, the only time/place where it is physically possible for counterfeit items (this was pretty much a hunk of metal and some foam with a sticker on it) to work better than an actual CPU.
I would think not, as even though people may be making a big deal out of this, these fakes are not collectables. They are worthless, just like counterfeit dollar bills are comparatively worthless compared to real dollar bills. The bank who gets screwed over doesn't sell counterfeit money on ebay. Perhaps this is a bad example, because knowingly transferring counterfeit money is a felony. But wait a minute, so is knowingly selling countefeit goods.
Lets be reasonable, the person(s) swapping fake cpus for real ones are not holding on to evidence that they produced and swapped them. I would bet any amount of real money that the swappers no longer have the real cpus or any extra fake ones.
Its not ironic, its not paradoxical, its just a crime. The fact that anyone, anywhere, would knowingly buy counterfeit (not knockoff item) goods known to not serve the intended purpose of those goods makes me wonder why so relatively few people have declared bankruptcy in the US (compared to unemployment rates).
It isn't unexpected either; rarity causes higher prices, regardless of underlying value (the last slice of pizza is much more highly fought over than the first), its one of those econ 101 things you learn on the first day. Still not ironic.
It is absurd, unreasonable, and somewhat depressing (from my point of view, at least) that fakes are more valuable than useful CPUs, but it is most certainly not ironic.
Slashdot Mirror
After reading the summary (seriously, do this first or this won't work at all), gauge your reaction to the article that you won't be reading to determine how long and for what purposes you read /.
If you are surprised by any of the summary, you must be new here.
If you aren't angered by the summary, you have been here too long.
If you mentally insert else statements between each of these lines, you are sleep deprived DBA. Go take a nap.
If you question Eric Goldman's credentials, but haven't done any research to to discredit him, you are a /. troll.
If you just went to research Eric Goldman's credentials so that you could respond with research to discredit him, you are a /. pedent.
If you just tried to correct the misspelling of pedant in the previous line, you are a grammar nazi.
If you instead thought that discrediting Eric Goldman wouldn't take much effort but that doing so isn't pedantic, you have a valid point, and thus, would be modded down for pointing it out.
If you just thought to yourself 'who is Eric Goldman?,' try reading the summary next time.
If you can remember another /. article that pointed out that a company ended up suing themselves (and losing), so do I.
If you read the heading of this post and thought ' this is stupid, you can gauge someone's /. age by the number of digits in the UID, its probably a valid point, but makes this entire post worthless, so keep that to yourself.
Yes.
If everyone creates trends, the trend will be to ignore trends and create them yourself. Effectively, everyone will simply be following the trend. To avoud following the trend in such a situation, you would in fact have to follow someone else's trend.
Not really, no. The numbers used are not meaningless, as you have to believe that they are correct, or else you cannot make reasonable, logical analysis. You cannot go up to someone who is leaving a grocery store, ask them how much cake they bought today, hear the answer of one 4 ounce slice, and come to the conclusion that either they bought 20 slices of cake nor that the cake is a lie. Don't be absurd, the numbers are not meaningless. As for loose evidence and invalid conclusions, citation needed. Seriously, who the fuck are you to tell me that I need a refresher in critical thinking (I know for fact that my statistics knowledge and use is perfectly adequate for its purposes) when you don't back up your biased, unfounded opinions with a singular point of reference. State what conclusions are invalid, what evidence is loose, and what numbers are meaningless, and prove why. Are you the equiavalent of a 13 year old from a bad family who has the ability to make a sound, reasonable, logical argument but not the experience, or are you just an AC troll?
Respond with a logical argument to state that you are immature and stupid and wish to correct this. Don't respond at all to point out that you are an AC troll. Don't respond AC though. Take the time to stand behind your responses.
You want a citation to show that deeper analysis of trends of types of requests being made would be a proper statistical reaction? Or are you asking for citation of a partial quote? Either way, no citation needed.
I said nothing about the sensitivity of information requests. I simply stated that given a random sample of requests from the population of both years, any given item is more likely to have been rejected in the current year than in the past. My only stated assumption was precisely the opposite - we would expect the topic of requests to be focused on similar issues during a given period - so I don't understand why you believe that my logic creates unfounded assumptions, especially ones that I not only haven't stated, but have specifically refuted.
There is no problem with this analysis nor its conclusion.
If you would like to respond again, I would appreciate if you would log in so I get notification that a response has occurred. However, since nothing of any value has ever come from a trolling AC, don't do so without an apology first.
Quit calling it piracy already.
It's piracy. Get over it. The word has evolved beyond parrots and yarrh's to include appropriation and distribution of files for which no license to distribute was provided by the content creator.
Language grows. "Hacker" used to mean a really bad golfer. And "Geeks" bit the heads off chickens.
You are incorrect. I would call you wrong, but I believe your incorrect statements stem from ignorance, rather than failure to acknowledge reality.
Hacker refers to one who engages in activity without talent or skill. (see american idol tryouts). While it still could refer to a bad golfer, its has never (explicitly) meant such a thing. There are plenty of good golfers who are hackers. There are plenty of non-golfers who are hackers in many other subjects. You seem to be an English language hack. A bad golfer would be a golf hack.
Geek, on the other hand, refers to one who is peculiar or otherwise dislikeable (I have often been referred to as a geek, but while I take it as a compliment, I have never bitten the head off of a chicken). While someone who bites the heads off of chickens today would still be correctly referred to as a geek, geek has never meant chicken head biter and nothing else. Likewise, if an customary method of chicken killing in an area was human use head biting, it would be improper to call a chicken head biter a geek.
In both cases, the meaning of the word has not changed, simply the common pejorative use.
On the other hand, piracy has always referred to a person who robs or commits illegal violence at or on the shores of the sea. Referring to one who uses or reproduces without authorization or legal right is not the correct use of the noun pirate or verb to pirate. This instead has always been known as plagiarism, not piracy. The unauthorized use or close imitation of another's work as one's own.
I do not understand why are you trying to make new meanings for old words when there are other words in common use that better fit the meaning you wish to associate.
Now that you are no longer ignorant, you need to recognize that copyright infringement is not piracy. On the other hand, newly non-ignorant robot, parrots and yarrhs have never had anything to do with piracy either. Hmmm...it seems that instead of using words incorrectly, you should learn their meanings first, and then use the correct ones.Next time, try that instead of parroting the mass media and yarring (yes, also a word, meaning to growl or snarl as a dog) on slashdot.
It would be very bad tax design, except it doesn't work like that. The proprosal is that you get taxed the higher rate on income above 200k.
So if you make 200,001; you get taxed the higher rate on a dollar.
Your reaction is a bit more absurd. You are saying that the use of statistics is wrong because in a massive outlier case, which hasn't occured, we would have to take a deeper look at the numbers to find changes or trends in the type of requests that are made. While you said you don't want to offend, what you really mean is that you don't to be modded down.
First of all, no one, and I mean no one, is trying to use FOIA to obtain Dick Cheney's cell phone number. His email address is known to be not released because of national security issues (whatever those might be).
Secondly, over time, we would expect the topic of requests to be focused on similar issues during a given period. The majority of requests are done by news organizations and by people involved in litigation (whom news groups are following). For example, REM and Pearl Jam requested to find out if their music was used to torture GITMO detainees. As it turns out, no, but Barney the dinosaur's theme song and the spangled banner, tupac shakur, and 32 others (http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/10/22/music.list.pdf) were.
Thirdly, we didn't see an absurdly large increase in the number of rejections (we saw a decrease, but a small one), nor did we see an increase in the number of requests.
However, the population is large. Year by year, with the deviations being so different (5% less denials vs 11% less requests), whereas we would expect the changes to be roughly the same, does in fact indicate that if you pick a random request, it is more likely to have been rejected in recent times. There is no problem with this analysis nor its conclusion.
Emphasis mine.
Ask Slashdot: What Free Antivirus Do You Install On Windows? on Thursday March 18, @02:43PM
Posted by timothy on Thursday March 18, @02:43PM
from the is-clamav-no-longer-good? dept.
security
windows
technology
Techman83 writes "After years of changing between AVG Free + Avast, it's coming time to find a new free alternative for friends/relatives who run Windows. AVG and Avast have been quite good, but are starting to bloat out in size, and also becoming very misleading. Avast recently auto updated from 4.8 to 5 and now requires you to register (even for the free version) and both are making it harder to actually find the free version. Is this end of reasonable free antivirus, or is there another product I can entrust to keep the 'my computer's doing weird things' calls to a minimum?"
You are an idiot. Don't post on /. anymore.
Ok, so less than 5% reduced denials on 11% less requests...Sounds like statistically likely evidence that denials are more likely.
How is that a shortcut?
Buying a mac for all of his friends and family? I don't see how that would reduce the time or energy required to lower the amount of calls from people due to the issues noted with avast and AVG.
You didn't correctly respond to the topic, your solution to a question that wasn't asked was incorrect, and your response when this was pointed out to you was to claim that you were offering a shortcut. As a shortcut, this didn't address the issue either, it was just a faster response in which you incorrectly posted a non-solution to any question including the words "windows," "free anti-virus," and "suggestion." A minor glance at anyone else's response to the issue, never mind actually reading the 5 sentences (including the title) of the article would have let a rational person recognize that this was not a hardware issue. You are unbelievably wrong, and a pristine example of the downfall in quality of /. over the past couple of years.
Anti-virus software is necessary because of user behavior, not hardware. Buying an expensive mac or a cheap knockoff Chinese 'affle' computer will not stop you from getting computer viruses.
The point of the examples is to illustrate why suggesting a mac is an inappropriate response to original question. Clearly the examples are necessary, because you still don't get it. Questions regarding what free options to use cannot be answered with expensive solutions, especially when they don't address the problem. As another example, if someone asked how to improve the battery life of their cellphone (to which the correct answer is of course don't use battery draining apps and make sure the phone goes to standby as default), you would suggest going out and buying an iphone.
The article was titled "What free anti-virus do you install on windows?" The submitter was asking not for personal use, but for ease of installation and upkeep for helping out friends and family. The problems noted with Avast and AVG include - wait, why I am summarizing a paragraph for you? Go read it, like you should have in the first place.
Now, if time is money (I really don't understand the thought process behind capitalizing random words in sentences, it adds no emphasis nor does it prevent mis-comprehension), you have wasted both by not reading the question and understanding it. Shame on you.
Your suggestion for what free antivirus to use with windows, excluding avast and AVG, is to get a mac........
I can't think of a dumber (serious) response. Instead of suggesting a free software program, you have suggested an expensive hardware non-solution.
I bet if someone asked about home security systems, you would suggest moving. From a car analogy standpoint of how bad your suggestion is, someone asked you how to tell the mileage when the odometer is broken, and you suggest getting new rims for the wheels.
I'm all for reasonable, logical discussions on forums, but that suggestion does not fit.
...What internet users are not using the internet?
Isn't internet use part of the definition of internet user?
Yes and you can do too many things to list on an iphon eyou can't do on those, so what.
Name 3 (paying 3 times as much money for a service doesn't count as one).
Point 1 - hence my phrase 'not necessarily reasonably' when referring to price. What does libertoonian mean? Is it just a word you made up is it just a word someone else made up and you thoughtlessly used? Either way, its meaningless. Additionally, if you had addressed the rest of my post, the traveler isn't the issue in NYC. It's the cab driver, who due to governmental control of supply and price caps, suffers for the benefit of people who do not live in the state (by the way, the political ideal you want to bash here for me having it is anti-socialism, not libertarian; just because I am pro-free market capitalism doesn't mean I want to abolish regulation. I absolutely want businesses to fail when they are failures, even if they happen to be banks). Maybe you should recognize that the benefits are far, far overshadowed by the costs. Taxi prices are only reasonable because the cost of owning a vehicle (specifically insurance, parking, and tolls) is far, far greater than taking a cab that costs the average new yorker an hour's wage each day. NYC is raking in money so that cab drivers have to turn to gouging customers (nevermind that they tend to overcharge, refuse, and abuse passengers, according to the city of new york). Really, who can blame them, when they make no money and have no employment benefits?
Point 2 - Of course I know what by definition means, that is why I used the phrase. For your benefit, it means that something is a given. Secondarily, all businesses have owners. Shareholder implies personal financial risk (up to the amount of the investment)due to the volatility and earnings of the organization. The majority of businesses do not have shareholders (majority meaning more than half, in case you got confused about words...since you use the word libertoonian you must either be mentally retarded or not a native english speaker, but I'm going with the former for discussions sake). The ones that have shareholders, by definition, have to try to make a profit, which, by definition, means that they are creating unreasonable prices. By definition, unreasonable, when referring to price, means excessive or expensive. You are confused because you are thinking that a reasonable price means not cheap (which I took time to point out, was not the intention of the word reasonable). Instead, you should have taken the common use of reasonable, meaning equitable, just, and fair. Yes, by having shareholders, a corporation is subject to government interference, which causes both price ceilings and price floors, specific business regulation (such as where or when products or services can or can't be sold), artificial barriers to entry (see your local cable company)or exit (see banks); each of which cause unreasonable pricing (and market issues, such as restaurants not being allowed to allow smoking, unless they explicitly call themselves a bar, but then requiring bars to serve food). Yes, 100 times yes, having shareholders means that consumers get unreasonable prices. It is by definition.
Hmmm.
Cheaper price, less money. Why would anyone buy that?
Oh right, convenience and lower price. Plus, its a PS3, not an XBOX 360. I don't know anyone who knows anyone who has had a PS3 drive fail. Plus, if the hard drive fails, you can call sony, send them the failed the drive, buy a new drive from them, and get access back to your library of PS3 purchased movies. If your dvd gets a scratch on it, you are SOL.
Lets review - cheaper, available just as fast as driving somewhere without spending gas (for the vast majority of people atleast), and more reliable than a blueray disc...who modded you insightful, and why are all 6 of you so uninsightful?
I would like to agree with you, but I can't, because you are wrong.
Its not a mistake, when you have a gps system on the vehicle that determines the rate. It tells the system whether you are in rate 1 area or rate 2 area. The vast majority of trips do not cross the border where the higher rate is used. Clearly, manual overrides are causing the issue. There is no reason, at all, for a gps to say you are a different city than you actually are, especially for an entire trip. There is no reason that trips across borders can't use a limited increased rate for the distance in which travel is across borders (ie change rates when changing areas, and not before, or having explicit rates based on area).
Hell, if 10% of NYC taxi trips changed cities requiring a change in rate, this would be a 6% error, which no accountant would allow for a system that relies on gps (especially in NY, where it is harder to not find a signal than it is to be attacked by a shark. Yes, shark attacks are more likely than lack of satellite in NY). Don't even try to claim that taxi drivers are not gouging tourisits and people who dont speak english. 0.6% is not an acceptable rate of failure for computer based error. Just ask Toyota, who shut down manufacturing due to less than 1% of 0.6% error.
Try thinking first before posting next time, m'kay? I don't care what your answer is, you should try thinking anyway. Yes, you should. If you think otherwise, don't post again, because you will once again be very, very, very wrong ( and not just incorrect).
Instead of modding you down, I am going to point out why, from every common sense and pedantic reasoning that I can think of, that you could not be more incorrect. You fucking dumbass.
Well, from an econ standpoint, no.
An artificial price ceiling means that you will have capped (not necessarily reasonably) priced services, but not available to everyone because less health care will be provided at an artificially low price.
Well, from a government controls something standpoint, no.
I don't think I really need to give examples, but as an example, let's try healthcare, specifically medicare and medicaid (http://healthcare-economist.com/2007/04/02/mises-institute-medicare-raises-health-care-costs/) Now, I'm not one to use terms such as all, always, etc that leave no room for scrutiny, but all of the healthcare bill ideas in congress over the past year have included clauses that would raise the cost of medicare and medicaid, which raise the cost of healthcare for those are under 65 years of age.
From a medallion standpoint, clearly taxi medallion prices, growing at 15% a year in price, are neither reasonably priced nor available to everyone. Even if you have the 575 to 776k to buy one, you are unlikely to be able to purchase one. Corporations own the majority of taxi medallions, and rent them at $800 per week. Thats 41600 per year, or double the average income of a family of 4, just to have the right to be a NY taxi. The average taxi driver makes 30 trips per 12 hours, at an average tab of $6. Thats revenue. figure in gas, maintenance, insurance, risk of being robbed, risk of nonpaying fare, etc, etc, etc, and after all cost, the cab driver, before the medallion, is making 50k per year (assuming a 12 hr work day). After the medallion, you may as well work at mcdonalds, 20 hours per week.
Companies that provide services easily available to everyone have to have such a volume that they have shareholders. By definition, this means that consumers are not getting reasonably priced items (not the same thing as affordable). Either that, or they have government influence, paying them well above market value to produce (see corn, gasoline, utilities).
Yes, AC Magic Obama hasn't really done anything for anyone, but the only people that voted for magic obama are those that believe in hope instead of reason. They are the same ones who think that our government can manage health care and make it better for those who already have it (by the way, we call them the vast majority, aka people who work or collect disability or unemployment. There really aren't a statistically signigicany number of people who try to make a living and want health care but cant afford it but can afford food, housing, and clothes. You are not entitled to health insurance or health care, get over it and buy it if you want it. USe a budget and figure out what is important to you. But trust me, I will not pay for both my health care and your health care, and I absolutely will not lower my level of health care so that you and I can both have a lower level of health care. This is what congress wants to push through, and it is a massive insult those of use who understand that doctors don't work for free, nor should they).
I don't think you understand how insurance works.
You would have to prove that when you start getting the insurance, you can hear just fine. Then, your hearing has to go, but you can't miss any insurance payments. Then part of the cost would get covered. In the long run, hearing insurance would be prohibitively expensive.
It's called eye coverage (not glasses coverage), and unless something happens to cause me to need eye surgery (not LASIK), it's a waste of money. My insurance costs $90 a year, but covers only a $45 eye exam (so if I actually go to an optometrist, instead of a walmart, it covers about 1/3 of the cost) once every 2 years. Also every 2 years, it covers 40% of a pair of glasses, up to a $250 complete pair. The cheapest pair of glasses I have ever purchased cost over $300. Glasses I don't mind wearing in public cost a lot more than that. On the other hand, I tend to save money by buying glasses without insurance. The only reason I keep the insurance is that it covers medically necessary surgery (for example, it will cover $1000 for cataract surgery, supplemental to my regular medical insurance).
I assure you, the submitter is better off putting $50 a month away explicitly for a hearing aid fund (if I could put away $500 a month while in college at an out of state school working 20 hours a week and still paying off my tuition, submiter can do this while collecting unemployment benefits) than trying to find insurance that will cover a preexisting condition.
I would imagine that San Francisco is not going to be more lax than Sacramento. On the other hand, fining the employee and the business seems like a useful deterrent. That way, when a 22 year old looks the other way when selling to his faternity, the store doesn't look the other way to make a large sale. Meanwhile, the 22 year old is less likely to take on personal risk.
Unfortunately, it seems from your experience that restrictive measures to prevent underage drinking are unintentionally preventing legal age drinking. Again, this has not been my experience.
Let's not forget that 18 year olds don't have that difficult of a time obtaining alcohol in the first place. Its a great reason to keep em out of bars until they are 21. 3-4 years of practicing drinking in mom and dad's basement or the dorm room means they show up to the bar on their 21st birthday and don't drink 30 shots sending them to the hospital (as much).
When it comes to time limits for purchasing alcohol I agree with local ordinances regarding bar closing times. I know I don't want to drive to work in heavy traffic at 7 AM along with barflies who are just leaving to also go to work (or my co-workers stopping in for a quick one before coming in to work). On the other hand, if you are a grocery store, and you are open on Sunday, you should sell beer on Sunday. If I don't have to work on Monday, and my retarded state has blue laws, I should be able to buy at 1201 on Monday, not 9 AM.
...No, just no.
Counterfeit goods are not art. Shame on you. Are you really this stupid?
Someone stole the real products and sold them already. They were swapped with these fake items. There is no way, under any circumstances, that anyone would misconstrue this as art - something marketed for sale as a collectible.
Like, put down the weed, dude. I swear, /. used to have smart people. Now it just has trolls and morons.
They do consume less power...
but that would also not be irony; it would be an acid trip, the only time/place where it is physically possible for counterfeit items (this was pretty much a hunk of metal and some foam with a sticker on it) to work better than an actual CPU.
I would think not, as even though people may be making a big deal out of this, these fakes are not collectables. They are worthless, just like counterfeit dollar bills are comparatively worthless compared to real dollar bills. The bank who gets screwed over doesn't sell counterfeit money on ebay. Perhaps this is a bad example, because knowingly transferring counterfeit money is a felony. But wait a minute, so is knowingly selling countefeit goods.
Lets be reasonable, the person(s) swapping fake cpus for real ones are not holding on to evidence that they produced and swapped them. I would bet any amount of real money that the swappers no longer have the real cpus or any extra fake ones.
Its not ironic, its not paradoxical, its just a crime. The fact that anyone, anywhere, would knowingly buy counterfeit (not knockoff item) goods known to not serve the intended purpose of those goods makes me wonder why so relatively few people have declared bankruptcy in the US (compared to unemployment rates).
It isn't unexpected either; rarity causes higher prices, regardless of underlying value (the last slice of pizza is much more highly fought over than the first), its one of those econ 101 things you learn on the first day. Still not ironic.
Actually, no, thats not what irony means.
It is absurd, unreasonable, and somewhat depressing (from my point of view, at least) that fakes are more valuable than useful CPUs, but it is most certainly not ironic.