Re:Most people don't understand that it's a bad id
on
Is Overclocking Over?
·
· Score: 0
980Xs are expensive because Dell fucks up cooling? REALLY?!?!
Do you know the warranty request rates when they are in Dell machines? No? Thanks.
Re:Most people don't understand that it's a bad id
on
Is Overclocking Over?
·
· Score: 0
Inside a computer case, with other stuff creating heat as well and only so many places for the heat to go.
There is only one place for the heat to go.. in that tiny little space called THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE OUTSIDE THE CASE.
Plenty of people have 300W video cards.. those go inside the case... with other stuff creating heat... somehow the facts have eluded you. Talk about things that you dont know about much?
Re:Most people don't understand that it's a bad id
on
Is Overclocking Over?
·
· Score: 0
Plenty of people have 300W video cards. Those go inside computer cases... with other stuff creating heat...
Please stop advertising your ignorance.
Re:Most people don't understand that it's a bad id
on
Is Overclocking Over?
·
· Score: 0
200W is really hard (and expensive) to cool.
When you dont know what you are talking about, dont talk! Seriously...
There is a reason that gaming machines have 600W and higher power supplies.. and its not because the machine isnt drawing way the fuck over 200W, or has "hard" and "expensive" cooling solutions..
Fuck man.. video cards pull as much as 300W these days... amazingly you think that Intel cant offer a cooler for a $1000 CPU?? Intels problem is that regardless of what heat sink and fan they throw on, the OEM's stick it in a shitty case with poor ventilation. Period. Thats the fucking problem.. dont imagine problems that don't exist.. people are clocking the latest CPU's at 4.5ghz on the stock coolers.. but not in shitty dell cases.
Corporate Welfare is what the Democrats did the first 2 years of Obama's presidency, several trillion dollars worth in fact, when they also held majorities in both House and Senate.
I bet it feels really good being "part" of the party that "cares."
You are just repeating what the Democrats say, without a fucking clue what you are talking about.
Re:Most people don't understand that it's a bad id
on
Is Overclocking Over?
·
· Score: 1
..yeah.. thats it.. Intel wouldnt want to advertise and sell faster CPU's... because of a number that consumers dont understand or care about...
Re:Most people don't understand that it's a bad id
on
Is Overclocking Over?
·
· Score: 3
While "low end" chips may be conservatively binned to reduce manufacturing costs, thats really not the whole story at all.
When the highest end chips can be clocked from 3.8 to 4.5ghz and higher using the stock cpu cooler, doesnt it make you wonder why Intel/AMD do not sell any 4.5ghz versions of these chips? Its because the OEM's fuck up case cooling every single time.
If Intel sold a 4.5ghz i7, Dell would still put it into a case with horrible venting and only a single fan that has been poorly placed, and then Intel would be footing the bill for loads of warranty replacements. The reason the i7 980X's cost so much isnt just because Intel was taking advantage of performance enthusiasts irrationality.. its because the Dell's of the world fuck up cooling every single time. The sandy bridge i7's perform nearly as well but run a lot cooler so can survive the harsh conditions the OEM is going to hamstring them into, and THAT is the main reason why they are so much cheaper than the 980X's.
So... they are a successful ad company because they have manged to convince millions of people to use their search engine/browser/whatever by having the best available free search engine/browser/whatever. This makes them a monopoly?
It makes it an anti-trust violation. Its called tying one product or service to another and its only OK to do that when you do not have a dominant leverage, and it does not matter at all why it is that you have that dominant leverage.
Does Google have the leverage necessary in one market to pick the winners and losers in another? Yes, right?
Has Google used its leverage in one market to pick winners and losers in another? Thats the question.. not the shit you are going on about.. is Google paying you?
But there were obvious issues as early as 2000, when the mortgage debt consolidation started to go into overdrive, and banks were basically gambling with our money... gambling on us losing.
Yeh, thats why I began with 2001, blind-boy.
The Republicans tried to do something about it the whole way while the Democrats prevented anything from being done about it the whole way.
You keep touting McCain. The LONE Republican that stood against the deregulation.
The only major related deregulation that the Republicans had any control over was the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, but this bill passed the House with a vote of 377 in favor and only 4 again. In other words, the Democrats influenced by a presidential working groups public support (thats Clinton, Democrat) were gleefully in favor of this bill and almost unanimously voted in favor of it.
Why are you trying to claim that the Republicans are to blame for deregulation when the Democrats were nearly unanimously in favor of the deregulation that you are blaming on the Republicans?
My guess is that you really didnt know that the Democrats were gung-ho in favor if it because while they were nearly unanimously voting for the deregulation, they were already (always and forever) blaming it on the Republicans (just like they blamed the obscene vote buying for the health care bill on the Republicans, while they were in closed sessions buying democrat votes with thousands of pages of corruption!)
The fact remains that the Republicans repeatedly tried to regulate fannie and freddie from 2001 on and the Democrats repeatedly blocked them from doing so... of course thats not what the Democrats are telling you.. they are amazingly blaming their nearly unanimous support for the deregulation on the Republicans and getting away with it because of clueless fucks that only want to listen to what they say, rather than look at what they actually do.
The question you still should be asking yourself is how you ended up so ignorant about the largest financial melt-down in 80 years.
Well I can tell you that while it of course isn't gonna compete with my 6 core with an HD4850 it is a pretty damned nice mobile unit IMHO and frankly I'd say it beats Atom+ION as far as battery life + performance goes.
I think "stomps all over it" is the correct performance comparison. For gaming the E-350 even bests core i5 solutions in GPU-bound games (which is almost always the case with IGP's) like Modern Warfare 2.
In CPU-performance, there isnt an Atom that performs better (most are much worse) and the E-350 uses less power.
People say how AMD isnt competitive in the high end, and they are right.. AMD doesnt even have high end parts! But on the same token, Intel has absolutely nothing that can compete with AMD's E-350 anywhere near its price point, nor do they have anything on the horizon that might touch it.
Add to this that AMD now has the E-450, with only a very small increment in clock speed but adds "Turbo Core" onto the GPU getting as much as 22% more FPS in games, a huge improvement.
I am strongly considering building an E-450 desktop system for my guest room, because it can be done for under $150.
The subprime lending bubble (2008 recession) was not the brainchild of Democrats, but rather was directly caused by systematic deregulation and removal of banking financial oversight by each Republican administration starting with President Reagan.
Thats what the Democrats told you.
2001: Bush Administration asks congress to look into heavier regulations, stating that they are a "potential problem, financial trouble could cause strong financial repercussions in financial markets"
2003: Bush Administration pushed hard for a new federal agency to regulate and supervise fannie and freddie, stating "We need a strong regulatory agency to oversee the prudential operations of the GSE's, and the safety and soundness of their financial activities." The Democrats, in committee led by Frank (D), responds "Fannie and freddie are not in a crisis" and further says that the federal government should be encouraging even more lending by the GSE's, and "The more people, in my judgment, exaggerate a threat of safety and soundness, the more people conjure up the possibility of serious financial losses to the Treasury, which I do not see. I think we see entities that are fundamentally sound financially" -- the Democrats blocked the legislation.
2004: Royce (R) calls for "a new regulatory structure for fannie, freddie, and the federal home loan banks." Clay (D) responds by calling the proposal a "political lynching" (referring to the fannie scandal) and that issues with fannie and freddie have been addressed in other legislation. Shays (R) then states "I realized that fannie and freddie wouldn't even come under it. They weren't under the 34 act. They weren't under the 33 act. They play by their own rules and I am tempted to ask how many people in this room are on the payroll of fannie."
2005: Alan Greenspan states "Enabling these institutions to increase in size - and they will once the crisis in their judgment passes - we are placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk." and "If we fail to see new GSE regulation we increase the possibility of insolvency and crisis. Frank (R) states on the House floor "you are not going to see a collapse that you see when people talk about a bubble."
2006: John McCain (R) sponsors legislation pushing for regulation, stating on the Senate floor "for years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs fannie and freddie, and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. The GSE's need to be reformed without delay." That Bill was voted on by the senate banking committee, a party-line vote with 100% of the Democrats voting against it.
The question you should be asking yourself is how you ended up so ignorant about the largest financial melt-down in 80 years.
Therefore, it's a giveaway of tax money to large corporations--a Republican specialty. However, do you hear Democrats calling them out on it loud and clear? No? Why not? Everyone needs to start asking questions like that.
The largest giveaway to large corporations in the history of the world was signed into United States law with a Democrat House, a Democrat Senate, and a Democrat President. Only a single Republican, in both House and Senate combined, had voted for the bill.
It was called the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, a name that appeals to emotion.
The Republicans do call out corporate give-aways, but the heart-string yanking Democrats have bamboozled everyone into believing that the Republicans are the #1 offenders, and oh.. they are rich racists too. More than one Republican tried to stop the government-funded housing bubble years before it exploded.. they (such as McCain and Paul) were called racists right there on the floors of both House and Senate by Democrats (such as Frank and Waters) when they tried.
If the obscene buying of Democrat votes as the Health Care bill ballooned into thousands of pages didn't convince you, nothing fucking will.
I expect, though, that you're too busy hating on Republicans because the Democrats appeal to your emotions while screwing you to recognize that the the Democrats are usually worse.
IOW, "Who cares about 40-50 million XP users?" And it's only US. Or in web development context "Why should I care about 40-50 mil potential (US) customers, when I can have shiny and pretty HTML5 page?"
Does not compute. You just declared that 100% of American XP users are running IE6, 7, or 8, in spite of the fact that you are posting on a slashdot story about Chrome overtaking IE.
I mean WTF??! Do you always stop thinking when your religion comes up? Dork.
The grandparent claims that, as a farmer growing crops, that he can use the internet to find out if he is being cheated on fertilizer prices... when in fact if he wants to be cheated on fertilizer prices the place to go is the internet, where they are selling retail to gardeners, not wholesale to farmers.
You can transform this to any industry. If you are a factory making tablets, you do not go online to find the best deal on the components you need to manufacture them. If your factory rolls cigars you do not go online to find the best deal on tobacco. If you are pressing CD's to sell your lame learn-computers-easy DVD video set, you do not go online to find the best rates for that service.
You contact companies that do or offer these things, AND THEN YOU NEGOTIATE A CONTRACT.
You could make the case that you can beat local retail prices for retail shit by shopping online, but then you are talking about a whole different thing arent you? Yes you are. You are talking about something completely different, because you are an ignorant douche that doesnt even know that its different.
Whats the point of fiber to the home if they dont have a computer? Ah, they have a right to a (working) computer, then. Whats the support cost for that?
When you can use the Internet to find out that the middleman is cheating you on [SIC] fertiliser prices...and paying you below the market rate for your crops.
If you are in the industry, then you shop around for good prices. People that arent shopping around are idiots. Its called doing business, where you do not rely on what 5 characters of a fucking web page (or magazine, or newspaper) tells you. You make calls and get quotes, and then you sign contracts.
You are suggesting that the internet is essential because stupid people then dont have to suffer the consequences of being stupid, because amazingly someone is going to make it easy for them for free... please.. spare us the utopian dream.. its not reality.
There still are ample media available for you to live an informed life without using the Internet.
People with internet have invariably canceled their newspaper subscriptions. Once you drop the local newspaper, you've lost local news. The internet seriously does not provide the same sort of information availability for local coverage.
So we now have large demographics that have no clue whats going on locally. I travel through the neighboring town and occasionally I see lawn-signs up saying "vote no!" You think my friends who live in that town have a clue what thats about? No, they don't. Not even a hint of an idea about it, which is probably why they dont bother to vote.
I set up Google News to give me stories that mention my town, and that turns out to be nearly worthless. You simply wont find anything about that application for a liquor license, about the proposed repaving of west main street, about rezoning hill street and parker avenue, or about the shelter needing funds and volunteers desperately. Thats just whats going on this week.
A generation worried about everywhere else.... out of sight, so out of mind. Whats going on in Far Away Place is now more important than whats going on in their own communities. They think the federal government is the solution to every problem because thats all they fucking know about.. they can go on worrying about crap on the other side of the planet that doesnt even affect them and that they also have no power to effect and when things turn sour locally they wonder why nobody (ie, the federal government) did anything about it.
No sir. The problem with the whole idea is that its based on the false premise that people have a right to the overly generalized "internet."
People dont have a right to access 4chan all day long, right? Or watch NetFlix all day? Listen to Pandora all day? YouPorn? Farmville? If there are things you can do on the internet that you believe are essential, why are you trying to declare the entire thing essential, instead of making sure essential things arent only available on the internet?
This isnt to say that people shouldnt be allowed to access 4chan all day long, or allowed to watch netflix all day long, but to guarantee access to these things as some sort of right is simply fucking ludicrous.
Slashdot Mirror
980Xs are expensive because Dell fucks up cooling? REALLY?!?!
Do you know the warranty request rates when they are in Dell machines? No? Thanks.
Inside a computer case, with other stuff creating heat as well and only so many places for the heat to go.
There is only one place for the heat to go.. in that tiny little space called THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE OUTSIDE THE CASE.
Plenty of people have 300W video cards.. those go inside the case... with other stuff creating heat... somehow the facts have eluded you. Talk about things that you dont know about much?
Plenty of people have 300W video cards. Those go inside computer cases... with other stuff creating heat...
Please stop advertising your ignorance.
200W is really hard (and expensive) to cool.
When you dont know what you are talking about, dont talk! Seriously...
There is a reason that gaming machines have 600W and higher power supplies.. and its not because the machine isnt drawing way the fuck over 200W, or has "hard" and "expensive" cooling solutions..
Fuck man.. video cards pull as much as 300W these days... amazingly you think that Intel cant offer a cooler for a $1000 CPU?? Intels problem is that regardless of what heat sink and fan they throw on, the OEM's stick it in a shitty case with poor ventilation. Period. Thats the fucking problem.. dont imagine problems that don't exist.. people are clocking the latest CPU's at 4.5ghz on the stock coolers.. but not in shitty dell cases.
Do you know what Corporate Welfare is?
Corporate Welfare is what the Democrats did the first 2 years of Obama's presidency, several trillion dollars worth in fact, when they also held majorities in both House and Senate.
I bet it feels really good being "part" of the party that "cares."
You are just repeating what the Democrats say, without a fucking clue what you are talking about.
..yeah.. thats it.. Intel wouldnt want to advertise and sell faster CPU's... because of a number that consumers dont understand or care about...
Are you not from earth or some shit?
Thats his default karma.
Trolling it a bitch.
While "low end" chips may be conservatively binned to reduce manufacturing costs, thats really not the whole story at all.
When the highest end chips can be clocked from 3.8 to 4.5ghz and higher using the stock cpu cooler, doesnt it make you wonder why Intel/AMD do not sell any 4.5ghz versions of these chips? Its because the OEM's fuck up case cooling every single time.
If Intel sold a 4.5ghz i7, Dell would still put it into a case with horrible venting and only a single fan that has been poorly placed, and then Intel would be footing the bill for loads of warranty replacements. The reason the i7 980X's cost so much isnt just because Intel was taking advantage of performance enthusiasts irrationality.. its because the Dell's of the world fuck up cooling every single time. The sandy bridge i7's perform nearly as well but run a lot cooler so can survive the harsh conditions the OEM is going to hamstring them into, and THAT is the main reason why they are so much cheaper than the 980X's.
The patents involved in Microsoft vs Motorola have been known since October of... get this.... 2010
But lets not let facts get in the way of your FUD. I just invalidated every single ignorant thought that you decided to dump on us.
So... they are a successful ad company because they have manged to convince millions of people to use their search engine/browser/whatever by having the best available free search engine/browser/whatever. This makes them a monopoly?
It makes it an anti-trust violation. Its called tying one product or service to another and its only OK to do that when you do not have a dominant leverage, and it does not matter at all why it is that you have that dominant leverage.
Does Google have the leverage necessary in one market to pick the winners and losers in another? Yes, right?
Has Google used its leverage in one market to pick winners and losers in another? Thats the question.. not the shit you are going on about.. is Google paying you?
But there were obvious issues as early as 2000, when the mortgage debt consolidation started to go into overdrive, and banks were basically gambling with our money... gambling on us losing.
Yeh, thats why I began with 2001, blind-boy.
The Republicans tried to do something about it the whole way while the Democrats prevented anything from being done about it the whole way.
You keep touting McCain. The LONE Republican that stood against the deregulation.
The only major related deregulation that the Republicans had any control over was the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, but this bill passed the House with a vote of 377 in favor and only 4 again. In other words, the Democrats influenced by a presidential working groups public support (thats Clinton, Democrat) were gleefully in favor of this bill and almost unanimously voted in favor of it.
Why are you trying to claim that the Republicans are to blame for deregulation when the Democrats were nearly unanimously in favor of the deregulation that you are blaming on the Republicans?
My guess is that you really didnt know that the Democrats were gung-ho in favor if it because while they were nearly unanimously voting for the deregulation, they were already (always and forever) blaming it on the Republicans (just like they blamed the obscene vote buying for the health care bill on the Republicans, while they were in closed sessions buying democrat votes with thousands of pages of corruption!)
The fact remains that the Republicans repeatedly tried to regulate fannie and freddie from 2001 on and the Democrats repeatedly blocked them from doing so... of course thats not what the Democrats are telling you.. they are amazingly blaming their nearly unanimous support for the deregulation on the Republicans and getting away with it because of clueless fucks that only want to listen to what they say, rather than look at what they actually do.
The question you still should be asking yourself is how you ended up so ignorant about the largest financial melt-down in 80 years.
Well I can tell you that while it of course isn't gonna compete with my 6 core with an HD4850 it is a pretty damned nice mobile unit IMHO and frankly I'd say it beats Atom+ION as far as battery life + performance goes.
I think "stomps all over it" is the correct performance comparison. For gaming the E-350 even bests core i5 solutions in GPU-bound games (which is almost always the case with IGP's) like Modern Warfare 2.
In CPU-performance, there isnt an Atom that performs better (most are much worse) and the E-350 uses less power.
People say how AMD isnt competitive in the high end, and they are right.. AMD doesnt even have high end parts! But on the same token, Intel has absolutely nothing that can compete with AMD's E-350 anywhere near its price point, nor do they have anything on the horizon that might touch it.
Add to this that AMD now has the E-450, with only a very small increment in clock speed but adds "Turbo Core" onto the GPU getting as much as 22% more FPS in games, a huge improvement.
I am strongly considering building an E-450 desktop system for my guest room, because it can be done for under $150.
Wow, you have a way with history.
Yes. Accuracy.
The subprime lending bubble (2008 recession) was not the brainchild of Democrats, but rather was directly caused by systematic deregulation and removal of banking financial oversight by each Republican administration starting with President Reagan.
Thats what the Democrats told you.
2001: Bush Administration asks congress to look into heavier regulations, stating that they are a "potential problem, financial trouble could cause strong financial repercussions in financial markets"
2003: Bush Administration pushed hard for a new federal agency to regulate and supervise fannie and freddie, stating "We need a strong regulatory agency to oversee the prudential operations of the GSE's, and the safety and soundness of their financial activities." The Democrats, in committee led by Frank (D), responds "Fannie and freddie are not in a crisis" and further says that the federal government should be encouraging even more lending by the GSE's, and "The more people, in my judgment, exaggerate a threat of safety and soundness, the more people conjure up the possibility of serious financial losses to the Treasury, which I do not see. I think we see entities that are fundamentally sound financially" -- the Democrats blocked the legislation.
2004: Royce (R) calls for "a new regulatory structure for fannie, freddie, and the federal home loan banks." Clay (D) responds by calling the proposal a "political lynching" (referring to the fannie scandal) and that issues with fannie and freddie have been addressed in other legislation. Shays (R) then states "I realized that fannie and freddie wouldn't even come under it. They weren't under the 34 act. They weren't under the 33 act. They play by their own rules and I am tempted to ask how many people in this room are on the payroll of fannie."
2005: Alan Greenspan states "Enabling these institutions to increase in size - and they will once the crisis in their judgment passes - we are placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk." and "If we fail to see new GSE regulation we increase the possibility of insolvency and crisis. Frank (R) states on the House floor "you are not going to see a collapse that you see when people talk about a bubble."
2006: John McCain (R) sponsors legislation pushing for regulation, stating on the Senate floor "for years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs fannie and freddie, and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. The GSE's need to be reformed without delay." That Bill was voted on by the senate banking committee, a party-line vote with 100% of the Democrats voting against it.
The question you should be asking yourself is how you ended up so ignorant about the largest financial melt-down in 80 years.
Therefore, it's a giveaway of tax money to large corporations--a Republican specialty. However, do you hear Democrats calling them out on it loud and clear? No? Why not? Everyone needs to start asking questions like that.
The largest giveaway to large corporations in the history of the world was signed into United States law with a Democrat House, a Democrat Senate, and a Democrat President. Only a single Republican, in both House and Senate combined, had voted for the bill.
It was called the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, a name that appeals to emotion.
The Republicans do call out corporate give-aways, but the heart-string yanking Democrats have bamboozled everyone into believing that the Republicans are the #1 offenders, and oh.. they are rich racists too. More than one Republican tried to stop the government-funded housing bubble years before it exploded.. they (such as McCain and Paul) were called racists right there on the floors of both House and Senate by Democrats (such as Frank and Waters) when they tried.
If the obscene buying of Democrat votes as the Health Care bill ballooned into thousands of pages didn't convince you, nothing fucking will.
I expect, though, that you're too busy hating on Republicans because the Democrats appeal to your emotions while screwing you to recognize that the the Democrats are usually worse.
Fixed that for all of us.
IOW, "Who cares about 40-50 million XP users?" And it's only US. Or in web development context "Why should I care about 40-50 mil potential (US) customers, when I can have shiny and pretty HTML5 page?"
Does not compute. You just declared that 100% of American XP users are running IE6, 7, or 8, in spite of the fact that you are posting on a slashdot story about Chrome overtaking IE.
I mean WTF??! Do you always stop thinking when your religion comes up? Dork.
What I dont understand with water cooling system is whats wrong with simply taking advantage of convection, rather than having pumps.
Is there something about water viscosity being too hard to overcome or something?
People dont have a right to access 4chan all day long, right?
Yes, I think they do.
OK I need your address so I can forward all my bills to you. I promise to live frugally while 4chan'ing every day all day long.
Because I don't think I have the right to decide what people look at.
You honestly think the taxpayers should foot the entire bill for your YouPorn habit, because you have a RIGHT to YouPorn?
The grandparent claims that, as a farmer growing crops, that he can use the internet to find out if he is being cheated on fertilizer prices... when in fact if he wants to be cheated on fertilizer prices the place to go is the internet, where they are selling retail to gardeners, not wholesale to farmers.
You can transform this to any industry. If you are a factory making tablets, you do not go online to find the best deal on the components you need to manufacture them. If your factory rolls cigars you do not go online to find the best deal on tobacco. If you are pressing CD's to sell your lame learn-computers-easy DVD video set, you do not go online to find the best rates for that service.
You contact companies that do or offer these things, AND THEN YOU NEGOTIATE A CONTRACT.
You could make the case that you can beat local retail prices for retail shit by shopping online, but then you are talking about a whole different thing arent you? Yes you are. You are talking about something completely different, because you are an ignorant douche that doesnt even know that its different.
Whats the point of fiber to the home if they dont have a computer? Ah, they have a right to a (working) computer, then. Whats the support cost for that?
When you can use the Internet to find out that the middleman is cheating you on [SIC] fertiliser prices...and paying you below the market rate for your crops.
If you are in the industry, then you shop around for good prices. People that arent shopping around are idiots. Its called doing business, where you do not rely on what 5 characters of a fucking web page (or magazine, or newspaper) tells you. You make calls and get quotes, and then you sign contracts.
You are suggesting that the internet is essential because stupid people then dont have to suffer the consequences of being stupid, because amazingly someone is going to make it easy for them for free... please.. spare us the utopian dream.. its not reality.
There still are ample media available for you to live an informed life without using the Internet.
People with internet have invariably canceled their newspaper subscriptions. Once you drop the local newspaper, you've lost local news. The internet seriously does not provide the same sort of information availability for local coverage.
So we now have large demographics that have no clue whats going on locally. I travel through the neighboring town and occasionally I see lawn-signs up saying "vote no!" You think my friends who live in that town have a clue what thats about? No, they don't. Not even a hint of an idea about it, which is probably why they dont bother to vote.
I set up Google News to give me stories that mention my town, and that turns out to be nearly worthless. You simply wont find anything about that application for a liquor license, about the proposed repaving of west main street, about rezoning hill street and parker avenue, or about the shelter needing funds and volunteers desperately. Thats just whats going on this week.
A generation worried about everywhere else.... out of sight, so out of mind. Whats going on in Far Away Place is now more important than whats going on in their own communities. They think the federal government is the solution to every problem because thats all they fucking know about.. they can go on worrying about crap on the other side of the planet that doesnt even affect them and that they also have no power to effect and when things turn sour locally they wonder why nobody (ie, the federal government) did anything about it.
Everyone should have access to the internet.
No sir. The problem with the whole idea is that its based on the false premise that people have a right to the overly generalized "internet."
People dont have a right to access 4chan all day long, right? Or watch NetFlix all day? Listen to Pandora all day? YouPorn? Farmville? If there are things you can do on the internet that you believe are essential, why are you trying to declare the entire thing essential, instead of making sure essential things arent only available on the internet?
This isnt to say that people shouldnt be allowed to access 4chan all day long, or allowed to watch netflix all day long, but to guarantee access to these things as some sort of right is simply fucking ludicrous.
I guess you were born after KISS Saved Santa. I blame our history teachers.
Indeed. Skyrim only claims about 500MB of memory on my system (running it windowed as I post this)