You celebrate that the government doesn't have the right to put a radio collar on you, yet you jump at the oppurtunity to put one on your own child!
A parent has an obligation to be informed of their childs where-abouts, and safety. Governments do not raise children, parents do. Parents care about the well-being, which is exactly why he said he would use it as a notifier if something went wrong.
This is a good thing.
If your parents don't trust you at 16, I would say it has something to do with you, not them.
With the growing trend of neon, clear windows, and other mods, it is seriously going into that trend.
As a disclaimer, the term "rice car" is not in any way meant to be derogatory towards asians. It is a phrase coined from imports (typically of Japanes e manufacture) that are modified in an attempt to go fast, or at least look that way. The owner of Rice Cop is in fact asian, if you take offense to the term, it's not my problem and you should be less sensitive.
I was at an arcade in Santa Cruz where the had the drumming games, and once kinda spiffy one where you had to match things by waving your hands around these globes. I think it was supposed to emulate goth dancing:P
This is actually the DJ mixing game... sadly enough I thought the same exact thing when I saw it first. I then saw a 14 year old (or 30, not sure) asian kid go up and realized it was a DJ mixing thing.
Desktop PC with minimum RAM (128Mb these days), minimum spec mboard and CPU (1GHz AMD is about the minimum you can still buy), no floppy, no HD, no CD, keyboard and mouse, built in 10/100 ethernet, video and audio and PXE support in the BIOS: $160.
(Note, this includes a 17" monitor as well)
Can you go ahead and send me some of the crack you are smoking? As for your $600 server, I wouldn't trust anything running 5 clients on a $600 server. I wouldn't trust anything I do on a multi-user $600 server.
Welcome to the difference between enterprise systems and your parents basement.
Martial arts are all well and good in most situations, but real fights aren't as neat as you're trained for. In an enclosed space especially the larger combatant will try and close on you, and from there it's just wrestling.
It's about being prepared though. When I talk about the 5% of the population that is properly trained, size really doesn't matter. I've been in about 3 dozen "real fights" in my life, some with people that have weighed over 100lbs more than I. It's not about chest-beating, though. It's about me feeling confident in my skills for defending myself with or against weapons. Training in Kung Fu, TKD, Jiu-Jitsu, and Aikido pretty much makes someone able to take out all kinds of opponents.
Which is the wisest choice and I don't say: "Well walk into a crack house." But I just think that the "I first shoot because thats the only right thing to do." mentality that gets me, but then it seems a populare theme these days, (to bring it back on topic), isn't it?
I don't think it's the only right thing to do. I do however think it's the right choice for me. Many people don't think so, but it's the way I feel. I hope I never have to shoot anybody breaking into my house; it's not as if I have a desire to kill someone. But I do have a desire to protect my loved ones, and that outweighs anything.
Most other home invasions tend to be on the side of property damage and I think escalating it would be the wrong thing to do, but that's me and obviously we don't see eye to eye.
You are right, you haven't had a family member murdered by someone just interested in "property damage." I'm not going to risk losing a family member to give them the benefit of the doubt.
Carry your gun but I think it just gives you a wrong sense of security. If someone is out to get you chances are they will.
I don't carry a gun either. Just a small pocket knife. Doesn't mean I don't own anything else, just that I don't carry it with me. I make sure to put myself in situations that don't warrant me testing my abilities.
That's why I said largely guarantee, not completely guarantee. I could also trip and fall and break a hip. I've done that (minus breaking a hip) in a match before, it gets rather embarassing even if it's a "sure victory"
They might be better trained. Or they might simply be bigger; as much as we all like to think skill is everything, in a physical melee the bigger/more massive guy usually wins. It's just a simple fact.
This really isn't true, and it's because less than 5-10% of the population is truly trained to the point where it becomes instinct. The only time I've lost a fight or match against someone bigger than me was when they nearly doubled my weight and I received 3 broken ribs in one punch from the guy.
Alright, now that's just macho posturing. A professional, or even an amateur boxer would rip apart most soldiers pretty easily. Ditto for a professional martial artist, such as an instructor. If you're actually claiming you'd be able to take on almost anyone, then I think you're more at risk because of your overconfidence.
Well, you can rest easy that it isn't my over-confidence because before I got sick (read my journal for details, if you care) I was invited to a "kick-you-in-the-nuts" class for TKD blackbelts as an instructor. I don't get paid, because I prefer programming.
If we assume you hit they might not just fall over dead.
If I get a chest shot, which I would aim for, likely. Otherwise they would be stunned to put a few more slugs in them. Generally people don't stand up too well after being shot in the chest, even if it is a non-fatal wound.
And you in her situation would have been able to defend yourself? Or your wife? Or your kids?
Yes, without too much detail, if someone attacks me with a knife I have a very large chance of defending myself.
If the robber has to expect that he gets shot at, don't you think he uses the same logic and shoots first?
The robber coming into the home has different things to account for. Where am I, who I am, what type of gun I have, etc. For instance, if I'm sitting there with a Desert Eagle.50, I can shoot through the wall and hit him. If I have a.380 or a 9mm, it is a different story.
My neighborhood isn't that bad, not that I have to worry about this. But you never know, sometimes junkies walk to nice neighborhoods.
I personally am thankful that I know how to shoot guns, and defend myself. It does make me sleep better at night. I don't act out of irrational fear, but I will act out of fear. I'm scared of losing the people I care about, so I protect them in the best way I can. If someone dies because of it, tough shit.
Minimising risk works, yes, I agree and that is a good tactic. Escalating the situation out of fear what might happen is stupid though.
I don't view it as an escalation though, I view it as defense.
The question is how you act. By playing along you can walk away, by drawing a gun you automatically force the other person to protect themselves as well.
This is true, but if someone breaks into my home they wont see me draw a gun. They will just get shot. I will not intimidate, hesitate, or fire a warning shot. As soon as they are within view, they get shot. I know my house much better than they would, and know how to shoot a gun; likely better than them as well.
As for my aunt, she walked through her front door and the guy didn't want to go to jail so he stabbed her to death. He still got caught, and served 7 years. That's bullshit.
As for my cynicism and lack of value of life, it's backwards. You see, I just value other peoples lives more than someone who is breaking into my home. For instance, my family over their life. I protect my family, and my way of life above all. Especially some junky trying to break into my home.
I am hearing your arguments over and over again, yet in the end I doubt that in a real life situation it will play out the way you expect it to.
Nothing ever does, but I've been in some pretty tight situations and it has worked out well for me to act proactively.
Most people who try to rob you just want to do that, they are mostly not interrested in harming you, so why risk it?
If someone mugs me on the street, I'll give them the money I have. It's not worth it. If they break into my home, I don't know what they want. My aunt was murdered in her home by a burglar. His 5 year old son was waiting outside for him. My personal experience dictates it's not worth the risk to not act. By my actions, they will end up dead. I do not play around when safety is concerned, and I'm not about to cripple someone and leave them to sue me.
And thus escalating the situation and most likely getting hurt.
I do not fear getting jumped because I have taken necessary precautions to largely guarantee my safety in the event. I know how to shoot a gun very well, I am also trained in hand to hand combat. I have faith in my abilities to escape a situation unharmed with anybody trained less than special forces in military. At which point, I have much worse problems than someone breaking into my house.
If you would just play along (maybe trigger a silent alarm) chances are a lot higher that you get away unharmed.
At best, wait 7 minutes for cops to arrive. I'll take my chances defending myself.
So, do you kill strangers in another part of town just in case they might eventually break into your house someday?
No, only when they break into my house. I do not know if they are going to hurt me or my family. The fear that they would do something along those lines would prompt me to act first, with a.380.
Completely incorrect analogy. He's not coming to our house, we're going to his. Considering how ringed in he's been by us for the past 11 years, he poses little threat.
I wasn't making an analogy. I was responding to what you said. You do not act out of fear. If someone breaks into your home, you do not know if they are there to harm you or just steal your stuff. Personally, if someone breaks into my home, the fear that they would hurt me or my family would prompt me to act first.
I was just asking for clarification of your response.
Unlike you I don't conduct my actions out of fear.
So, if someone breaks into your house do you let them shoot you first before you defend yourself?
Re:But Do They Run Linux?
on
LCD Overtaking CRT
·
· Score: 2, Informative
The issue is if your video card is supported, not if your monitor is supported. LCD monitors are certainly supported DVI or not. Of course, there may be some video cards for which the DVI output does not work; however, that is certainly not the fault of the monitor.
Be weary of the Intel i845. Integrated chip, has horrible problems. Better support in 2.6 when it gets released, but for now you can get the DVI running. No sound or anything.
If you do get a system with an i845 in it, go immediately to Intels site and search their knowledge base. Or use google and do the same.
Nobody would cry a tear if saddam died. We're just a little better at having a little empathy for all those people in Bagdhad that have done nothing wrong.
Don't get me wrong. It's tragic what is happening to the people. I wish it were different, but it's not. Sometimes shit happens. No one said life is fair. You just hope the world is a little better off after your actions.
That's all I hope; that the world gets a little better.
Huh? Sorry, I thought it was the U.S. that attacked Iraq, not the other way around. (I'm not making any argument amount the morality of the U.S. attacking Iraq in 1991, just trying to keep the actual sequence of events straight.) Shooting back when you're being attacked doesn't count.
Iraq attacked Kuwait. US came in to stop invasion under UN charter. Iraq attacked US soldiers.
And the punishment is apparently death, for saddam, his sons, and any unfortunate civilians who are nearby. Destruction of whole cities, perhaps. Think about this punishment, especially in light of sworn testimony before Congress by the CIA: "saddam is not likely to attack anyone, and has no substantial links to al-qaeda or 9/11."
Yes, but it is also said that Saddam is likely to sell WMD to people who are likely to attack the US.
The punishment is death, and this was declared in the Gulf War cease fire.
And the US is promptly started off with an attempt to assassinate him.
They told him that would happen at the end of the Gulf War. If you and I sign a contract, and it says if you don't do XYZ I will collect $1M from you, and you don't do it, am I wrong for collecting the $1M?
So what you're saying is that if you break your word you should be killed?
No, I'm saying (and I did say) if you break your word, you will be punished. The UN said full well, "Saddam keep your word or we will forcibly remove you from power." Saddam didn't keep his word, neither did the UN. At least the US kept their part of the bargain.
And please, in the future, respond to what I say not what works better for a sensationalist comment.
You are misinformed. The reason why we are going to war, and that diplomatic channels failed, is that by UN charter the US was obligated to maintain pressure on the disarmament of Iraq. Due to Saddam Husseins failure to do this, for the last 12 years, he is meeting the consequences that have been publicly known will come for 12 years now.
The US is acting on what should have happened immediately after the gulf war, and Saddam failed to comply with the cease fire orders.
This war is not about terrorists. This war is not about oil. This war is about Saddam continuing a 12 year old war, by failing to destroy the things he promised he would.
There is no diplomatic solution with an entity that refuses to hold his word or be diplomatic. It's like telling a child that they must behave or else, without ever punishing them.
I'm not in favor of any war. I do not like war. I am in favor of people keeping their word, or being punished accordingly. Saddam knew full well what would happen if he went back on his word, the only tradgedy is the people who have to die in order for him to be punished.
Slashdot Mirror
You celebrate that the government doesn't have the right to put a radio collar on you, yet you jump at the oppurtunity to put one on your own child!
A parent has an obligation to be informed of their childs where-abouts, and safety. Governments do not raise children, parents do. Parents care about the well-being, which is exactly why he said he would use it as a notifier if something went wrong.
This is a good thing.
If your parents don't trust you at 16, I would say it has something to do with you, not them.
AMD will make a fortune if they include a flashy "64-bit eXXXtreme!" sticker with every processor sold.
NOS! It's not just for cars anymore!
With the growing trend of neon, clear windows, and other mods, it is seriously going into that trend.
As a disclaimer, the term "rice car" is not in any way meant to be derogatory towards asians. It is a phrase coined from imports (typically of Japanes e manufacture) that are modified in an attempt to go fast, or at least look that way. The owner of Rice Cop is in fact asian, if you take offense to the term, it's not my problem and you should be less sensitive.
I was at an arcade in Santa Cruz where the had the drumming games, and once kinda spiffy one where you had to match things by waving your hands around these globes. I think it was supposed to emulate goth dancing :P
This is actually the DJ mixing game... sadly enough I thought the same exact thing when I saw it first. I then saw a 14 year old (or 30, not sure) asian kid go up and realized it was a DJ mixing thing.
Desktop PC with minimum RAM (128Mb these days), minimum spec mboard and CPU (1GHz AMD is about the minimum you can still buy), no floppy, no HD, no CD, keyboard and mouse, built in 10/100 ethernet, video and audio and PXE support in the BIOS: $160.
(Note, this includes a 17" monitor as well)
Can you go ahead and send me some of the crack you are smoking? As for your $600 server, I wouldn't trust anything running 5 clients on a $600 server. I wouldn't trust anything I do on a multi-user $600 server.
Welcome to the difference between enterprise systems and your parents basement.
Martial arts are all well and good in most situations, but real fights aren't as neat as you're trained for. In an enclosed space especially the larger combatant will try and close on you, and from there it's just wrestling.
It's about being prepared though. When I talk about the 5% of the population that is properly trained, size really doesn't matter. I've been in about 3 dozen "real fights" in my life, some with people that have weighed over 100lbs more than I. It's not about chest-beating, though. It's about me feeling confident in my skills for defending myself with or against weapons. Training in Kung Fu, TKD, Jiu-Jitsu, and Aikido pretty much makes someone able to take out all kinds of opponents.
Which is the wisest choice and I don't say: "Well walk into a crack house." But I just think that the "I first shoot because thats the only right thing to do." mentality that gets me, but then it seems a populare theme these days, (to bring it back on topic), isn't it?
I don't think it's the only right thing to do. I do however think it's the right choice for me. Many people don't think so, but it's the way I feel. I hope I never have to shoot anybody breaking into my house; it's not as if I have a desire to kill someone. But I do have a desire to protect my loved ones, and that outweighs anything.
Most other home invasions tend to be on the side of property damage and I think escalating it would be the wrong thing to do, but that's me and obviously we don't see eye to eye.
You are right, you haven't had a family member murdered by someone just interested in "property damage." I'm not going to risk losing a family member to give them the benefit of the doubt.
Carry your gun but I think it just gives you a wrong sense of security. If someone is out to get you chances are they will.
I don't carry a gun either. Just a small pocket knife. Doesn't mean I don't own anything else, just that I don't carry it with me. I make sure to put myself in situations that don't warrant me testing my abilities.
Nothing can guarantee your safety.
That's why I said largely guarantee, not completely guarantee. I could also trip and fall and break a hip. I've done that (minus breaking a hip) in a match before, it gets rather embarassing even if it's a "sure victory"
They might be better trained. Or they might simply be bigger; as much as we all like to think skill is everything, in a physical melee the bigger/more massive guy usually wins. It's just a simple fact.
This really isn't true, and it's because less than 5-10% of the population is truly trained to the point where it becomes instinct. The only time I've lost a fight or match against someone bigger than me was when they nearly doubled my weight and I received 3 broken ribs in one punch from the guy.
Alright, now that's just macho posturing. A professional, or even an amateur boxer would rip apart most soldiers pretty easily. Ditto for a professional martial artist, such as an instructor. If you're actually claiming you'd be able to take on almost anyone, then I think you're more at risk because of your overconfidence.
Well, you can rest easy that it isn't my over-confidence because before I got sick (read my journal for details, if you care) I was invited to a "kick-you-in-the-nuts" class for TKD blackbelts as an instructor. I don't get paid, because I prefer programming.
If we assume you hit they might not just fall over dead.
.50, I can shoot through the wall and hit him. If I have a .380 or a 9mm, it is a different story.
If I get a chest shot, which I would aim for, likely. Otherwise they would be stunned to put a few more slugs in them. Generally people don't stand up too well after being shot in the chest, even if it is a non-fatal wound.
And you in her situation would have been able to defend yourself? Or your wife? Or your kids?
Yes, without too much detail, if someone attacks me with a knife I have a very large chance of defending myself.
If the robber has to expect that he gets shot at, don't you think he uses the same logic and shoots first?
The robber coming into the home has different things to account for. Where am I, who I am, what type of gun I have, etc. For instance, if I'm sitting there with a Desert Eagle
My neighborhood isn't that bad, not that I have to worry about this. But you never know, sometimes junkies walk to nice neighborhoods.
I personally am thankful that I know how to shoot guns, and defend myself. It does make me sleep better at night. I don't act out of irrational fear, but I will act out of fear. I'm scared of losing the people I care about, so I protect them in the best way I can. If someone dies because of it, tough shit.
Minimising risk works, yes, I agree and that is a good tactic. Escalating the situation out of fear what might happen is stupid though.
I don't view it as an escalation though, I view it as defense.
The question is how you act. By playing along you can walk away, by drawing a gun you automatically force the other person to protect themselves as well.
This is true, but if someone breaks into my home they wont see me draw a gun. They will just get shot. I will not intimidate, hesitate, or fire a warning shot. As soon as they are within view, they get shot. I know my house much better than they would, and know how to shoot a gun; likely better than them as well.
As for my aunt, she walked through her front door and the guy didn't want to go to jail so he stabbed her to death. He still got caught, and served 7 years. That's bullshit.
As for my cynicism and lack of value of life, it's backwards. You see, I just value other peoples lives more than someone who is breaking into my home. For instance, my family over their life. I protect my family, and my way of life above all. Especially some junky trying to break into my home.
76% of americans also think Saddam was directly responsible for 9/11. Don't be proud of the failure of free press and democracy.
No they don't, only 51%. Considering that 11% of Americans can't locate the U.S. on a map, that isn't too bad.
The U.S. is not a democracy, it is a republic.
I am hearing your arguments over and over again, yet in the end I doubt that in a real life situation it will play out the way you expect it to.
Nothing ever does, but I've been in some pretty tight situations and it has worked out well for me to act proactively.
Most people who try to rob you just want to do that, they are mostly not interrested in harming you, so why risk it?
If someone mugs me on the street, I'll give them the money I have. It's not worth it. If they break into my home, I don't know what they want. My aunt was murdered in her home by a burglar. His 5 year old son was waiting outside for him. My personal experience dictates it's not worth the risk to not act. By my actions, they will end up dead. I do not play around when safety is concerned, and I'm not about to cripple someone and leave them to sue me.
And thus escalating the situation and most likely getting hurt.
I do not fear getting jumped because I have taken necessary precautions to largely guarantee my safety in the event. I know how to shoot a gun very well, I am also trained in hand to hand combat. I have faith in my abilities to escape a situation unharmed with anybody trained less than special forces in military. At which point, I have much worse problems than someone breaking into my house.
If you would just play along (maybe trigger a silent alarm) chances are a lot higher that you get away unharmed.
At best, wait 7 minutes for cops to arrive. I'll take my chances defending myself.
So, do you kill strangers in another part of town just in case they might eventually break into your house someday?
.380.
No, only when they break into my house. I do not know if they are going to hurt me or my family. The fear that they would do something along those lines would prompt me to act first, with a
Completely incorrect analogy. He's not coming to our house, we're going to his. Considering how ringed in he's been by us for the past 11 years, he poses little threat.
I wasn't making an analogy. I was responding to what you said. You do not act out of fear. If someone breaks into your home, you do not know if they are there to harm you or just steal your stuff. Personally, if someone breaks into my home, the fear that they would hurt me or my family would prompt me to act first.
I was just asking for clarification of your response.
Unlike you I don't conduct my actions out of fear.
So, if someone breaks into your house do you let them shoot you first before you defend yourself?
The issue is if your video card is supported, not if your monitor is supported. LCD monitors are certainly supported DVI or not. Of course, there may be some video cards for which the DVI output does not work; however, that is certainly not the fault of the monitor.
Be weary of the Intel i845. Integrated chip, has horrible problems. Better support in 2.6 when it gets released, but for now you can get the DVI running. No sound or anything.
If you do get a system with an i845 in it, go immediately to Intels site and search their knowledge base. Or use google and do the same.
Nobody would cry a tear if saddam died. We're just a little better at having a little empathy for all those people in Bagdhad that have done nothing wrong.
Don't get me wrong. It's tragic what is happening to the people. I wish it were different, but it's not. Sometimes shit happens. No one said life is fair. You just hope the world is a little better off after your actions.
That's all I hope; that the world gets a little better.
Huh? Sorry, I thought it was the U.S. that attacked Iraq, not the other way around. (I'm not making any argument amount the morality of the U.S. attacking Iraq in 1991, just trying to keep the actual sequence of events straight.) Shooting back when you're being attacked doesn't count.
Iraq attacked Kuwait. US came in to stop invasion under UN charter. Iraq attacked US soldiers.
And the punishment is apparently death, for saddam, his sons, and any unfortunate civilians who are nearby. Destruction of whole cities, perhaps. Think about this punishment, especially in light of sworn testimony before Congress by the CIA: "saddam is not likely to attack anyone, and has no substantial links to al-qaeda or 9/11."
Yes, but it is also said that Saddam is likely to sell WMD to people who are likely to attack the US.
The punishment is death, and this was declared in the Gulf War cease fire.
And the US is promptly started off with an attempt to assassinate him.
They told him that would happen at the end of the Gulf War. If you and I sign a contract, and it says if you don't do XYZ I will collect $1M from you, and you don't do it, am I wrong for collecting the $1M?
He did? When? Who is your wife an analog for? Kuwait/Saudi? If so, you should get a divorce because your worst enemies know she swallows.
He (Iraqi Army) attacked American soldiers that were there under UN charter.
I love Japan, but if the same people who ordered the strike on Pearl Harbor was still in power, I wouldn't trust them either.
So what you're saying is that if you break your word you should be killed?
No, I'm saying (and I did say) if you break your word, you will be punished. The UN said full well, "Saddam keep your word or we will forcibly remove you from power." Saddam didn't keep his word, neither did the UN. At least the US kept their part of the bargain.
And please, in the future, respond to what I say not what works better for a sensationalist comment.
You are misinformed. The reason why we are going to war, and that diplomatic channels failed, is that by UN charter the US was obligated to maintain pressure on the disarmament of Iraq. Due to Saddam Husseins failure to do this, for the last 12 years, he is meeting the consequences that have been publicly known will come for 12 years now.
The US is acting on what should have happened immediately after the gulf war, and Saddam failed to comply with the cease fire orders.
This war is not about terrorists. This war is not about oil. This war is about Saddam continuing a 12 year old war, by failing to destroy the things he promised he would.
There is no diplomatic solution with an entity that refuses to hold his word or be diplomatic. It's like telling a child that they must behave or else, without ever punishing them.
I'm not in favor of any war. I do not like war. I am in favor of people keeping their word, or being punished accordingly. Saddam knew full well what would happen if he went back on his word, the only tradgedy is the people who have to die in order for him to be punished.
I agree. I am bitterly disappointed with how this whole situation (diplomatic) has been handled.
Me too, Saddam should have stepped down or been forced out 11 years ago.