As far as I know there is only one product in america specifically exempted under the product liability legislation (if your(sic) dieing(sic) to know the answer is hand guns).
Can you tell me why rifles and other long barreled firearms might have liablility issues?
You know what? I agree with you. In fact, I rather like Macs (particularly since I'm a BSD fan!;-)
My original post was a total non-sequiter. I didn't expect any responses.
Though you do have to admit that "insanely great" is one of Steve Jobs' favorite terms, and to find the editor of a Mac publication using it is a little on the strange side.
Mac people are crazy
on
iWarez
·
· Score: 5, Funny
What is up with those people?
Dennis Lloyd, publisher of iPod fan site iPodlounge, also said this is the first time he'd heard of an iPod put to such use.
"I can see how easy it would be to do," he said. "It's a shame someone has stooped this low to bring bad press to the insanely great iPod."
The main thing that I saw was that FBSD 4.x would run X4.x, but it didn't install it if you selected the "canned" X workstation distribution. What you have to do is complete install and then install from packages.
Oh, and if you make any ports that require X, it will build X3.x for you, but I don't think that will wipe out your existing X installation.
They addressed the whole multi-user issue *very* well with the new version. I had the same issues, but Cerulean did a wonderful job with it. Try to use an ICQ with more than one user and you're in for a nightmare!
Hold on there. Simmer down. I didn't say that you did. I was simply pointing out that that the kind of thinking *you* just displayed means that more than likely keep Linux a niche OS.
I'm all for UNIX. I *like* UNIX. UNIX is the only game in town for servers. However the topic was Linux as a desktop OS. If nobody wants constructive feedback on how to accomplish this, then you can end the rebellion now and cower back into your cubicle, m'kay?
No, I'm pretty sure it was. Of course now the installation is gone, so I can't check it. The drive was only ATA-33, but with so much RAM in the box, I don't think it would be that big of an issue. It was slow launching apps, that's true, but the slowness that I saw was for applications that were already running, which, unless you're out of memory and paging, shouldn't be affected by I/O speed.
I did see one post above that mentioned performing a "nice" on a few key processes and a few other tricks. I've got a few machines to play with, so I may try it again, but not on my primary box until I get decent performance.
At the risk of sounding like a whiny little bitch, I'll also say that the point of this article was that Linux hadn't made inroads into the Desktop area. Folks, your grandma won't know how to re-nice various processes!
I have to admit that I agree that there is something fundamentally wrong with the X/KDE or X/GNOME combinations.
Recently, I decided to ditch Windows and everything about it. My favorite choice of alternative OS is FreeBSD (been using it for years in server environments). I performed two FBSD installs and kept having enough minor, yet irrritating problems with the applications (and with KDE in general) that I came to the conclusion "It must be because these apps expect to be run on a Linux distro.". At that point, I went and got the closest thing to a "standard" distribution that is available, RH7.2. (No flames please, we all know it to be true!)
Well, guess what. I had the same problems. I was willing to live with a few minor annoyances, but the real kicker was that the machine was slow as molassas. Didn't matter if I were running KDE or GNOME. Didn't matter if I had 1 application concurrent or 50. Didn't matter that I had the latest versions of X/KDE/GNOME and video drivers. The machine was just flat *slow*. That, more than anything, caused me to come running back to Windows like an abused spouse back to his/her abuser! This same machine is now happily running WinXP/OfficeXP and performs very snappy.
FYI, here is the machine that I was running on:
ASUS P5A
K6-2 550MHz
256MB
13GB IBM Deskstar
3Dfx Voodoo 3 2000 AGP
Yes, I know it's not a "state-of-the-art" machine, but I'll reiterate that it runs XP just fine.
I'm sorry folks. I really *want* to have an alternative, but I think I'll be looking at a Mac when I get a new machine.
I'm not posting this to attract flames. If someone can tell me where I went wrong, I'll cheerfully accept input! As I said, I *want* an alternative to Windows.
The poster used Win2K for his example. I've had experience with both, and there is simply no comparison between WinME and Win2K. I wouldn't trust ME to surf the web, let alone try anything productive. Windows 2000 OTOH, has been rock solid for me from day one. Any problems that I have had have been driver related, and in most cases it simply locked the GUI. I could telnet into the box and restart the machine, start safe mode, and remove the offending driver.
If you're still using ME, and you have to have an MS OS around, I recommend Win2K or XP. They're both excellent.
I'm pretty sure this isn't true. I screwed the pooch on my installation (Note to self: Don't manually select the ACPI HAL if Windows didn't do it for you already), and ended up having to reinstall on top of the existing system. I used the exact same parameters when I reinstalled. When the machine finally came off life support and booted on it's own, I had access to everything but the encrypted files.
BTW, I don't think it's just a flag. When you use anything that can read NTFS 5.0 *besides* Win2K (the DOS NTFS drivers, etc.), the data is just junk. Even text files. I'm pretty sure. You can try it yourself if you want. You would think that they would just not honor a flag if that's all it took.
Don't you think it's ironic that you are using your right of political dissent (well, free speech) to claim that it's being taken away.
Come on folks. There has to be a pragmatic solution to this. I'm not saying that the laws that the Congress is passing are the right thing to do, but I think it's just a *wee* bit of an exaggeration to say that they're trying to stop political dissent.
For once, I think the/. crew should really start trying to offer *solutions* instead of rants.
Yeah, our politics overseas is a real killer. Maybe it is you who should be examining your government and media for propoganda. You obviously haven't gotten the full story. Painting all Americans with the same broad brush is the kind of thinking that causes these maniacs to pilot aircraft into large populated areas.
The Palestinians were making good headway in this country to try to drum up support and assistance. Assuming that Bin Laden had a hand in this, you have now lost any hope of making yourselves credible victims of an oppressive Israeli government. Think on this.
We have tried and tried to help you people make peace, and this is the thanks we get?
Next time, it won't be some piss-ant Israeli helicopters that you and your friends can run off. It will be a fucking carrier battle group with 20,000 sailors, soldiers and marines that are out to pound you into the fucking dirt.
It's the end of the world as you know it (and we feel fine...)
Questions:
1. What do you do for a living?
2. How long have you been doing it?
3. When did you graduate?
You know, anyone else on this forum who graduated with a B.S. probably had just as much exposure to Geology as you did. Get off your high horse. You have no more authority to speak on this subject than anyone else here.
It's even more depressing considering that this is the exact same reason people have trouble accepting the concept of global warming: we can't prove with 100% accuracy that it exists, so we should assume it doesn't. This is stupid.
Most of the information that I have digested on the subject for the last 10 years leads me to think that the scientific community is pretty well split on this issue. (See the links in post #340). I don't think it's a matter of "proving with 100% accuracy". It's more of a matter of proving with at least 50% accuracy.
Amusingly enough, that very subject has been debated recently here (Georgia). An author is attempting to have publish a (parody) book named "The Wind Done Gone!", and Margaret Mitchell's estate went apeshit.
It seems that I read somewhere that Microsoft has instructed it's programmers to not go anywhere near a piece of GPL'd code for risk of being accused of "embracing and extending".
They'd be pretty stupid to do such a thing (from their point of view anyway) since if they were caught, they'd have to release that portion of the Windows source code at a minimum.
BTW, if Microsoft is so anal about not letting their programmers use GPL, it seems to me that their legal team must view it as pretty iron-clad. This may be why we haven't seen it (the GPL) challenged in court yet.
You're right, of course. But wouldn't it be difficult to retrofit all these cellphones and towers to do this?
Or are you guessing what it might be like in a real implementation of the techniques?
Plus, if I understand it correctly, there isn't a specific carrier that you can measure against. It seems like there's just this kind of blanket of static with an aberration that can only be picked out mathematically...
My point with "A" is that the system relies on people making cellphone calls in order to put the energy into the air (I guess the newer phones that are always connected to the net might change this...). If people aren't using their phones, there is no signal to detect.
I just don't see how the military could use this...
But, you're right about the trucks. Didn't think of that!
I think the second article hit the nail on the head WRT the limitations of stealth. If the object isn't "detectable" with one band of EM, just move the sensors to another band! You can't fool them all....
Slashdot Mirror
Patrick? Is that you? Shouldn't you be out finding a job right now?
Can you tell me why rifles and other long barreled firearms might have liablility issues?
You know what? I agree with you. In fact, I rather like Macs (particularly since I'm a BSD fan! ;-)
My original post was a total non-sequiter. I didn't expect any responses.
Though you do have to admit that "insanely great" is one of Steve Jobs' favorite terms, and to find the editor of a Mac publication using it is a little on the strange side.
Insanely great? Goddamn. They're all Stevebots.
The main thing that I saw was that FBSD 4.x would run X4.x, but it didn't install it if you selected the "canned" X workstation distribution. What you have to do is complete install and then install from packages.
Oh, and if you make any ports that require X, it will build X3.x for you, but I don't think that will wipe out your existing X installation.
They addressed the whole multi-user issue *very* well with the new version. I had the same issues, but Cerulean did a wonderful job with it. Try to use an ICQ with more than one user and you're in for a nightmare!
Real "gentile"? What? They're anti-semetic?
Hold on there. Simmer down. I didn't say that you did. I was simply pointing out that that the kind of thinking *you* just displayed means that more than likely keep Linux a niche OS.
I'm all for UNIX. I *like* UNIX. UNIX is the only game in town for servers. However the topic was Linux as a desktop OS. If nobody wants constructive feedback on how to accomplish this, then you can end the rebellion now and cower back into your cubicle, m'kay?
No, I'm pretty sure it was. Of course now the installation is gone, so I can't check it. The drive was only ATA-33, but with so much RAM in the box, I don't think it would be that big of an issue. It was slow launching apps, that's true, but the slowness that I saw was for applications that were already running, which, unless you're out of memory and paging, shouldn't be affected by I/O speed.
I did see one post above that mentioned performing a "nice" on a few key processes and a few other tricks. I've got a few machines to play with, so I may try it again, but not on my primary box until I get decent performance.
At the risk of sounding like a whiny little bitch, I'll also say that the point of this article was that Linux hadn't made inroads into the Desktop area. Folks, your grandma won't know how to re-nice various processes!
Thanks for the input!
I have to admit that I agree that there is something fundamentally wrong with the X/KDE or X/GNOME combinations.
Recently, I decided to ditch Windows and everything about it. My favorite choice of alternative OS is FreeBSD (been using it for years in server environments). I performed two FBSD installs and kept having enough minor, yet irrritating problems with the applications (and with KDE in general) that I came to the conclusion "It must be because these apps expect to be run on a Linux distro.". At that point, I went and got the closest thing to a "standard" distribution that is available, RH7.2. (No flames please, we all know it to be true!)
Well, guess what. I had the same problems. I was willing to live with a few minor annoyances, but the real kicker was that the machine was slow as molassas. Didn't matter if I were running KDE or GNOME. Didn't matter if I had 1 application concurrent or 50. Didn't matter that I had the latest versions of X/KDE/GNOME and video drivers. The machine was just flat *slow*. That, more than anything, caused me to come running back to Windows like an abused spouse back to his/her abuser! This same machine is now happily running WinXP/OfficeXP and performs very snappy.
FYI, here is the machine that I was running on:
ASUS P5A
K6-2 550MHz
256MB
13GB IBM Deskstar
3Dfx Voodoo 3 2000 AGP
Yes, I know it's not a "state-of-the-art" machine, but I'll reiterate that it runs XP just fine.
I'm sorry folks. I really *want* to have an alternative, but I think I'll be looking at a Mac when I get a new machine.
I'm not posting this to attract flames. If someone can tell me where I went wrong, I'll cheerfully accept input! As I said, I *want* an alternative to Windows.
The poster used Win2K for his example. I've had experience with both, and there is simply no comparison between WinME and Win2K. I wouldn't trust ME to surf the web, let alone try anything productive. Windows 2000 OTOH, has been rock solid for me from day one. Any problems that I have had have been driver related, and in most cases it simply locked the GUI. I could telnet into the box and restart the machine, start safe mode, and remove the offending driver.
If you're still using ME, and you have to have an MS OS around, I recommend Win2K or XP. They're both excellent.
I just checked it. Click on the Monster.com link on their showcase page.....
It's very annoying.
I think your comment made it to the wrong topic. Maybe the Bush plan for an "unhackable" network was what you were looking for?
LOL! Dude, I would mod you up if I could. Now I feel like a normal parent! My 2 year old is starting to get the same way.....
I'm pretty sure this isn't true. I screwed the pooch on my installation (Note to self: Don't manually select the ACPI HAL if Windows didn't do it for you already), and ended up having to reinstall on top of the existing system. I used the exact same parameters when I reinstalled. When the machine finally came off life support and booted on it's own, I had access to everything but the encrypted files.
BTW, I don't think it's just a flag. When you use anything that can read NTFS 5.0 *besides* Win2K (the DOS NTFS drivers, etc.), the data is just junk. Even text files. I'm pretty sure. You can try it yourself if you want. You would think that they would just not honor a flag if that's all it took.
Come on folks. There has to be a pragmatic solution to this. I'm not saying that the laws that the Congress is passing are the right thing to do, but I think it's just a *wee* bit of an exaggeration to say that they're trying to stop political dissent.
For once, I think the
I love these kind of posts. Here's some reference material for you:
/ fact/07dec00.htm
http://kosovo.info.usaid.gov/
http://www.usaid.gov/
http://www.usaid.gov/press/releases/970220.htm
http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/sasia/afghan
http://www.interaction.org/
http://usembassy.state.gov/pretoria/wwwham4f.html
Yeah, our politics overseas is a real killer. Maybe it is you who should be examining your government and media for propoganda. You obviously haven't gotten the full story. Painting all Americans with the same broad brush is the kind of thinking that causes these maniacs to pilot aircraft into large populated areas.
I would also like to add this:
The Palestinians were making good headway in this country to try to drum up support and assistance. Assuming that Bin Laden had a hand in this, you have now lost any hope of making yourselves credible victims of an oppressive Israeli government. Think on this.
We have tried and tried to help you people make peace, and this is the thanks we get?
Next time, it won't be some piss-ant Israeli helicopters that you and your friends can run off. It will be a fucking carrier battle group with 20,000 sailors, soldiers and marines that are out to pound you into the fucking dirt.
It's the end of the world as you know it (and we feel fine...)
1. What do you do for a living?
2. How long have you been doing it?
3. When did you graduate?
You know, anyone else on this forum who graduated with a B.S. probably had just as much exposure to Geology as you did. Get off your high horse. You have no more authority to speak on this subject than anyone else here.
Most of the information that I have digested on the subject for the last 10 years leads me to think that the scientific community is pretty well split on this issue. (See the links in post #340). I don't think it's a matter of "proving with 100% accuracy". It's more of a matter of proving with at least 50% accuracy.
http://www.siliconvalley.com/docs/opinion/dgillmor /dg042501.htm g wtw.05.04/
and here:
http://www.cnn.com/2001/LAW/05/columns/fl.hilden.
The upshot of all this is that Margaret Mitchell's estate has successfully managed to have the book pulled from bookstores.
Anyway, slightly offtopic, and maybe you were aware of this (could be how you got your example), but I thought it might be an item of interest.
peace...
They'd be pretty stupid to do such a thing (from their point of view anyway) since if they were caught, they'd have to release that portion of the Windows source code at a minimum.
BTW, if Microsoft is so anal about not letting their programmers use GPL, it seems to me that their legal team must view it as pretty iron-clad. This may be why we haven't seen it (the GPL) challenged in court yet.
peace....
Or are you guessing what it might be like in a real implementation of the techniques?
Plus, if I understand it correctly, there isn't a specific carrier that you can measure against. It seems like there's just this kind of blanket of static with an aberration that can only be picked out mathematically...
My point with "A" is that the system relies on people making cellphone calls in order to put the energy into the air (I guess the newer phones that are always connected to the net might change this...). If people aren't using their phones, there is no signal to detect.
I just don't see how the military could use this...
But, you're right about the trucks. Didn't think of that!
I think the second article hit the nail on the head WRT the limitations of stealth. If the object isn't "detectable" with one band of EM, just move the sensors to another band! You can't fool them all....
Again, thanks! If I could mod you up, I would.