>You can legally buy an OEM version of WinXP with even just a new hard drive.
No, you cannot, sorry.
You'll want to read the links I provided in my other post.
Directly from the mouths of the people who created the software, it says:
"This form of license misuse occurs when OEM version software has been unbundled from its designated computer system and distributed as a separate, "standalone" product".
A hard drive is not a computer system, AFAIK. You _might_ get away with selling it along with a motherboard, CPU, and hard drive, since with those minimal parts you have a functioning system. But anything less is just not a computer system -- or at least not a computer system that any system builder would testify as being such in court. Well, I wouldn't, anyways.
Or maybe I have it confused here. I mean, technically, you can legally buy OEM windows without any hardware. It just wouldn't be legal to use it on anything, making it kind of pointless.
BTW: You actually don't get any support either way with M$ OEM products. The all say somewhere in the manual "For support of this product, please contact your computer manufactuer". Nice, eh?
And, last but not least, you can't transfer your OEM license to another machine. Whatever computer it goes on, it stays on. Which can really suck when it goes on a cheap computer.
BTW: Here's Microsoft's own MSRP for Windows XP. Its actually more than $499 CDN (but maybe I'm overestimating the dollar exchange...).
# OEM standalone product. This form of license misuse occurs when OEM version software has been unbundled from its designated computer system and distributed as a separate, "standalone" product. As stated in Question No. 23, Microsoft's agreement with computer manufacturers prohibits them from distributing Microsoft products in this fashion, i.e., without accompanying PC hardware. Microsoft products on the retail shelf should never include a line on the front cover of the User's Guide that states, "For Distribution Only With New PC Hardware."
And, the last word comes from M$, in this handy document:
What is the difference between OEM product and Full-Packaged Product (FPP)? ANSWER. OEM products are intended to be preinstalled on hardware before the end user purchases the product. They are shrink wrapped and do not come in a box like the retail products do. Full-Packaged Product (FPP) is boxed with CD(s), manuals, and the EULA and is sold in retail stores in individual boxes. The End User License Agreements (commonly referred to as EULAs) for OEM and FPP products are slightly different. One main difference is that an OEM operating system license (such as the license for Windows) cannot be transferred from its original PC to another PC. However, the FPP version of Windows may be transferred to another PC as long as the EULA, manual and media (such as the backup CD) accompany the transfer to the other PC. Also, when a customer purchases an OEM product, the OEM license requires the OEM to provide support for the product.
So, to sum it up, when you get an OEM windows, you get no support, you have to buy a new computer, and you cannot use the software on any other computer. Which means selling OEM licenses separate from the computer isn't a viable way to license your computer from Microsoft, since they still consider you to have broken the law.
>when was the last time you made a free copy of your bottle of water or cup of coffee?
When I used the public water fountain to fill my water bottle. And when I made the free coffee by using the water from the company water fountain and my co-workers coffee mix.:-)
>Where do you get those prices? These are newegg.com prices.
Well, you could check the link. Futureshop is the same as your Best Buy in the US.
Either way, you quote OEM prices, in US dollars.
$139 US is about $220 Canadian. I can buy an entire machine here for about $400, so were talking over 50% of the cost of a new machine. Not cool.
Plus, with the OEM license, you tie the OS to that box only. I am quoting the price for a license with the freedom to move to any machine you like, any time you like.
Also, selling OEM versions to end users without computers is illegal, or it at least renders them unsupported and unlicenseable by Microsoft, and I don't want to buy a new computer when I have a decent one already... Bummer, eh?:-)
>On the price of a new PC Windows XP adds about $100.
That's home edition. Its so castrated, I, a home user, am entirely angered after purchasing it.
I decided to set up a samba domain server to make my life of logging in between my laptop and my XP desktop easier. I like to keep settings between logins, and I like to keep my bookmarks between sessions. I also like a little privacy.
Lack of Domain support in XP Home Edition makes this impossible. Removing this feature is like selling a door that cannot have a deadbolt added to it. No thanks.
>When I was finally able to rip my skin from the piezo, a very clear thumbprint was burned into the thin metal.
The worst part is that your contracting muscles probably squeezed the piezo crystal, and by touching both sides you completed a painfully high voltage, and momentarialy high current jolt of power.
If you really want to torture someone, shock them with a piezo based barbeque lighter. It could kill them though, so don't do it on second thought. Charged flash capacitors are another thing not to throw at good catchers, as well.:-)
Oh, and don't be as stupid as me and work barefoot on concrete floors while you wire up the phones with an all metal pocket knife.
A continuous DC current through a wire will cause electroplating or corrosion.
AC will not.
Bell found this out the hard way (so I'm told) and uses -48V DC as the on-hook line voltage as a result, since at a positive voltage their lines were being destroyed at a tremendous rate.
I wonder exactly how much damage would be done to the cable at in the million volts DC range?
Anyways, it beats the hell out of me what that article is talking about. I don't pay by the word.:-)
>A crime victim using a firearm in self-defense is over 2/3 less likely to be harmed than one using another weapon.
A december 1999 study by the justice policy institute shows that America's prisons are overflowing with criminals. There are now more criminals behind bars in the USA than there are in most of the EU (if not all). Out of every 4 people you pass on the street, one of them has been to prison. Out of every 3 black people you pass on the street, one will be in jail shortly.
You talk of a country that needs to defend itself with firearms. People outside of your country see a justice system that is out of control, and we know that arming your entire country will not solve the problem. If it hasn't curbed the problem yet, why should be believe you?
What you need is a justice system that works for you. If you feel vigilante justice by the barrel of a gun is perfect for your country, why not take a look at how well that is working for other countries. Ask a friend from a third world country who would have punished him for a a serious crime.
You'll notice it isn't the police, or the justice system.
Its the people.
Vigilante justice by the barrel of a gun is the system that works for third world countries. I can guarantee you that the USA will never join the top 5 best countries to live in as long as people believe that justice should be metered out on the spot with a firearm in the potential victims hands.
>because if I or someone I know commits suicide, it is because said person made a conscious, considered decision to do so, and I respect that decision
Bullshit. Have you ever talked to someone that was saved from their suicide death? Have you ever asked them if they were in a proper state of mind to make that decision?
I think the answer is a resounding no.
>and indeed, I've found people in Texas, one of the more heavily armed of the states, to be far more trusting of their neighbors than residents of California, which has among the strongest gun control
Are people more trusting, or are they infact worried that a show of distrust and, as follows, disrespect might be met with hot lead?
What you speak of is infact the opposite of what your founding fathers wanted for this country. They wanted a peaceful country, where guns were to be used as a defence against invasion by an unlawful government. People in your country have twisted their meaning from a defence against the King of England invading, to a defence against a robber on the street.
For shame that people in your own country haven't read the true meaning written into the very lifeblood of your own country.
Allow me to quote the constitutional right being twisted by the very members of your own country:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
1. An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers. 2. A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency. 3. The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.
First off, the founding fathers of your country wanted you to keep guns available to you in the event an emergency happened. Clearly, a militia, which would be a citizens army, does not respond to individual crimes.
Second off, a militia is clearly not a single entity.
So why do you all have guns and want to use them to defend your individual selves? Do none of you read the foundations that made your country which everyone appears to hold so dearly?
>Those who would gain a little safety by giving up their rights -- and so depriving their children and grandchildren of those same rights -- I cannot forgive them, and much less can I become one.
As I have proved above, Benjamin Franklin didn't want it to be this way. Sorry, no dice. Benjamin Franklin was clearly speaking about 1st Amendment rights, and should be turning over in his grave like a roast on a spit right now.
A lie which I have previously demonstrated to be a falsehood. And I provided links to my sources as well.
>Hence, using the US and Israel as data points
The US has no known nation actively attacking it. Show me where the American gaza strip is. If you think its in New York, tell me if its happened since.
Didn't think so.
Canada is the closest cousin to the US as far as law, attitude, wars, and culture goes, and it is the most valid comparison one can make. If you think the US is anything like Israel, why don't you go over there and announce you're a Palestinian?
At least in the US if you announce you are black or jewish (the people who seem to be on the most recently hated list for the US) you won't get killed (except by a handgun wielding maniac). And if you do, your government will do everything in its power to protect you, unlike Israel.
A Red Herring, if I do say to myself.
>Likewise, screaming and running away from a rapist is far more dangerous than using a firearm in defense.
Using a firearm in self defence is more likely to result in your death rather than your rape. The majority of American firearm owners are untrained and would more likely miss or graze the attacker than kill them. And if they aren't dead, guess who will be?
Oh, and last but not least, my numbers are coming from an unbiased source. A book with the title "Epidemic of Violence or Pandemic of Propaganda" sounds more like propaganda itself than an unbiased source. Did the writer of this book compile these numbers himself, or did he provide sources of government checked and verified information? Or at least sources of third party, uninvolved information?
Likely not.
The only first world country with such a lax set of gun control laws is also the country that you are most likely to end up in jail in. And it isn't even in the top 5 best countries to live in to boot. Yet your gun controlling cousins are. Explain to me the problem so serious that even your guns can't solve it.
The attitude that guns make America a safe, good place to live in isn't shared by the other 95% of the world, sorry. In fact, a now (sadly) outdated quote repeated on the Simpsons stating that a gun is more likely to kill a family member than a robber goes to show there's a lot of people living in your own country that disagree with you.
But, know what? I don't care all that much. I feel safe in my low crime country. I have walked in our largest cities without arms in the middle of the night, and the only people attacking me are people with their paper begging cups.
But, after a trip to Atlanta, the murder capital of the USA (at the time I was so informed by the news -- if it wasn't #1, I sure as hell wouldn't want to go where #1 is), I suppose I would feel like I have to carry a gun. And, as usual, control through violence sparks more violence, and so the cycle goes. Some cities on spin cycle, and some are on rinse.
I'll keep my city on rinse, thank you very much. And I'll keep my freedoms and essential liberties by being able to go where I want, and do what I want, and think what I want, as long as I don't kill anyone. And, if I really have a need to fire a handgun (and God only knows why) I'll be a police officer or a soldier. So, in effect, you lose no rights, except for the right to be a loose cannon. The majority of the world echoes back that this is a good thing, not a bad thing.
And if you're an American passerby reading this thread, I'm quite sorry for dragging your country through the mud. There's many, many, many great reasons to be an American, probably more than there are to be a Canadian, but a lack of crime through arming the populace simply isn't one of them.
At my college, working for computer services, we would get up to 4,000 pages a day out of trusty laserjet 5s (which are still a little to plasticky for my liking) and I would remove a jam once a month (approximately). However, on the laserjet 5000s we would usually pump through about 1,000 - 2,000 pages a day and we'd be clearing jams once or twice a month, most of which were stuck inside the printer underneath the drum area (I wish I could be more specific, but I'm not the best printer repair guy:)
A poorly built printer, the HP 5000, IMHO. And it costs a hell of a lot to boot.
First off, just because you can handle it doesn't mean anyone should. If this was so I'd be allowed to drive at 200 km/h since I've never hit another vehicle even though I've just been through the (statistically) most dangerous driving period of a person's life. Not to mention I passed a test far more difficult than my parents ever had to do.
Second, statistics show America is amazingly unsafe with firearms.
Here's an excerpt, focusing on my home country that does have strong firearm legislation vs. the USA, the only first world country I know of with such lax firearm control. Stats will be listed per 100,000 as Canada/America
Suicide rate with a firearm: 3.6/7.1 Suicide rate without a firearm: 12.9/12 Homicide rate with a firearm: 0.67/6.4 Homicide rate without a firearm: 2.2/9.3
Now, here's the kicker. While the stats clearly prove that Canadians are about 10x more likely to use a firearm improperly, and therefore we obviously don't have as good a gun use education system as yours, our country is still safer without weapons. Unless you are suicidal, Canada is the safest country on this side of this hemisphere for you to live in, and I account a lot of that to gun control.
On one last note, you will notice that the without guns stats are very similar for Canada and the US. This should tell one that without guns the offences commited with firearms would disappear, not change to another type of offence.
Hope this helps clear things up, and don't forget to leave your murder weapons behind before you visit this pristine country (and note that we were able to defend it from America despite our gun control legislation still being in effect at that time!).
Goes to prove I have a social life. I actually talk with people.
You, AC, are just like the freaks that sit in the corner of a party and do nothing. No one knows who the hell you are, everyone wonders who the hell invited you, and the minute you're presented with a point you get all defensive and rude.
Go back to popping your pimples. Maybe if you use enough of those extra-strength oxy pads that fat lady you've been salivating over might return the favour.
And, before you say it, comebacks that involve any of what I've said and the words "That's you, not me" are the ultimate sign of a lamer.
>So, in other words, you hate foosball because you're antisocial.
No, I hate foosball because I have too much social life and I enjoy an escape now and then.
Kind of like work. Usually too much, and its enjoyable to take a break from it. A break without people SCREAMING at me. If I wanted that I'd get me an endangered screaming caterpillar and 5 or 6 "friends" from the looney bin.
Well, according to google, its fussball in Germany, and english has mangled what would be pronounced strangely in our language to foosball.
And I hate that game. I like taking a break from other people. At least with Arcade machines, Pinball Tables, and, to a certain degree, pool tables, you don't need a partner.
It's taken what was once a "civilized" arcade with cool bleeps and the occasional rack break to a place where drunken hooligans holler and scream in stupidity.
"WOOT! WOOT! WOOOOOOOOT! I said WOOOOOT! dammit! I am going to win if I don't lose another two times!"
Yeah, well I would have won if you didn't shout like a FREAKIN' MORON.
Sorry, I'm just a little bitter now that they've replaced my college's Crusin' World (on which I dominated the high score board) with a crappy SuperGT (or whatever SEGA calls it) and another two foosball tables. Not to mention that the Neo Geo with Bust-A-Move busted too soon for me to hit the high scores.
>Finally, let me mention: shepd's comments earlier in the thread gave a strong impression that his or her opinion was that gun ownership should always be illegal for the common man -- with no clear exclusions such as that necessary for (for instance) the shotgun used to guard against water moccasins in my friend's creek. If this interpretation was incorrect, I did indeed overreact -- but I'm fairly sure that such is not the case.
Well, owning a gun designed for a purpose other than killing people, that's kept safe, unloaded, and locked up, is fine (and is fine where I live, and most other countries with anti-gun legislation). A nice big shotgun that's far too big, unaccessible, and unloaded to be useful for a heat of the moment type outburst is A-OK with me.
The problem is that picking up a 9mm from the glovebox and firing some rounds at the guy that cut you off (in the general sense, not personal) is far too easy. Not to mention you'd have to be drunk off your ass to use a 9mm to shoot snakes.:)
If it took the guy a minute or two to fumble with the gun to get it ready, not only would the problem have left (hopefully), but he's had an opportunity to re-evaluate his rage. If, at that point, he continues, then there's no problem calling him a cold blooded murderer, rather than a rage-crazed killer.
Anyways, as far as I mean by harm's way, the bank analogy is pretty close to what I meant. I'd just like to add that most officers (at least where I am) are required to show extreme restraint and prejudice with their weapons. Unless there's imminent danger of death, there's no business using a weapon. The problem is, an untrained person, such as myself, could come to that conclusion too soon and could far too easily hurt or kill before its necessary. It's always best to come to a conclusion that keeps the most people safe (even if one of those people is the criminal -- you can't convict a dead man -- but I might be wrong).
Avoiding the fact that guns are too modern to be the basis of all manufacturing, and that the wheel is generally respected to be the first major invention of people, I would like to mention this:
Bill Gates has never hurt himself despite how much of his software is pirated. In fact, statistics have it that his software is pirated more than any other. In fact, I have seen no serious evidence of a stable person killing themselves because they found out their software was pirated.
Doing an act that is known to cause stress extreme enough to cause people to die, or kill themselves, is immoral. I just don't see any evidence that piracy causes such extreme stresses, although they may be the catalyst to set off an already extremely unstable person (fortunately, our laws often look at the mental state of someone who kills themselves before charging someone with indirect manslaughter).
>Your comments are like those of people who say spanking children is wrong.
Yeah! Lets solve violence with more of it! That'll fix everything.
Why don't you talk to peole who were spanked properly (by that I mean having welts for a while, not just a little tap on the bum) and see if they really are better for it.
I think you'll find not.
>Weapons and the physical damage they bring are frequently the ONLY check against destruction.
What? Frequently? The only?
Wow. That's a pretty warped world to live in.
My checks against physical destruction are not to enter war zones, and to drive safe cars. And, know what? My chances of death are so insanely low at that point I really don't feel like blowing anything up.
>By your viewpoint, prostitution isn't wrong becuase IT doesn't do physical harm.
To a certain degree, it isn't.
>How about the destruction of families and the mental anguish it brings?
Well, to begin with, willing prostitution, as in that which isn't done to buy drugs to support an addiction, or isn't done under direction of a pimp, or other such abnormal factors, shouldn't bring mental anguish to the prostitute. If it is, it isn't the job for them, and I'd tell them to leave it, just as I'd tell someone who can't handle blood not to be a doctor.
Secondly, if you're a married person and choose to use a prostitute, you get what's coming to you.
Thirdly, while a lot of religions look upon using a prostitute as seriously wrong, society as a whole is beginning to accept it as simply a dirty act due to the possibility of things like STDs that isn't in a huge way immoral.
With that in consideration, prostitution is something that should be very closely regulated, just like anything whose primary purpose is seriously dangerous in many ways. Prostitution can spread deadly diseases and cause spouses/girl/boyfriends to go crazy.
Guns, just like other dangerous things, should be closely regulated. Police and soldiers are the only people (that I can think of) who have any business with a handgun. Regular people, in most countries, can own BIG shotguns because their primary purpose is to kill non-human life, and, in general, this isn't considered wholly immoral.
Therefore, prostitution, just like guns, tobacco, liquor, and firearms, needs to be closely monitored and regulated.
>Guess the families of those girls who were tricked into prostitution
In my country, people who are still considered girls are not allowed to work potentially harmful jobs. Are they in Switzerland?
>You are an arrogant fool, the worst type there is.
You're nutty. And a dangerous nut, at that. That's probably a worse thing than being a fool, since once leads you to jail, and one just leads you to ridicule.
>By your definition, would police officers not be immoral?
No. AFAIK, good police officers have no fixation on weapons and only carry them because their job is intended to put them in situations where they may be forced to use them.
Ordinary people have no business putting themselves in the middle of a shootout, and I have little sympathy to those who do so willingly and are hurt themselves, unless they are protectors of the peace.
>In the commission of their sworn duty (to defend the country from enemies, foreign and domestic) they kill and injure enemy combatants, under order from their superiors, which go all the way up to the president, who is elected by the american people. By your definition, would not every american citizen thereby share in that "immorality"?
Just because someone who is part of your people does something immoral doesn't make you yourself wrong. Otherwise I'd be able to call all Americans slave owners and indian killers.
Two, the majority (by number of, rather than people dead) of modern (as in during the lifetime of an average American) American wars have been unnecessary according to a surprising number of experts. But that's a totally separate issue.
Lastly, killing in defence of your own life is a totally different, and completely emotional decision, and at that point the thinking of the average human can't be expected to be rational, and therefore, by our own standards, is to a certain degree, excusable (that's why there's an insanity defence in most every first world country).
>In the commission of their sworn duty (to defend the country from enemies, foreign and domestic) they kill and injure enemy combatants, under order from their superiors, which go all the way up to the president, who is elected by the american people. By your definition, would not every american citizen thereby share in that "immorality"?
Well, considering what I've said above (that normal citizens have no business endangering their own lives in this manner, and that normal citizens can be excused for acting on emotion) we don't give guns to people in these situations because you are so likely to act on emotion.
Most people who have shot someone, even in self defence, have serious emotional problems after. Witness the huge amount of police officers that need special emotional care after being involved in a shooting. A sane society has no business promoting that, and putting tools of death in the hands of people who don't need them inflames the situation.
I'm running windows XP and tried to disable Internet Explorer from loading, but not my system won't start. The only thing I could do to stop internet explorer was to let it load and delete iexplorer.exe so people couldn't use the shortcut icons. Can you help me? Or did you notice the irony yet?
Yeah, well I have over 10x more comments than you and I say that there's more than enough reasons why the entire mac platform sucks. I'll start with one I experienced on the College's eMacs -- Why is it possible to start, by default, a terminal with a keyboard emulation so screwed up its useless? At least with MessyDOS or Linux I can expect that I can type stty or xmodmap without getting greek.
Illegal doesn't equate to immoral. However, you seem to have those confused in your mind. It is immoral to do physical harm to others. Many of us consider guns (most especially handguns) to be nothing more than a device intended to cause physical harm to others. This is immoral. A device like a modchip is not intended to do physical harm to others. When I use a modchip, does Bill Gates bleed? Nope. If you can't see the difference between a device that causes physical harm to someone, and a device that causes absolutely no physical harm to someone, you have a morality problem, and are part of the problem, not the solution. You aren't one of those people who go around telling people that "Guns don't kill people. Death kills people." Are you? Because if you do, you're the nutcase.
This strategy never stopped people hacking the PS2 (why does slashdot cover's M$s XBOX more than the PS2?) In fact, installers like the occasional change. It helps them move old hacked console stock (well, at least in the case of the PS2, where a hacked console usually remains a hacked console). Next, it increases the price of the new modchips to unbelieveable levels (another source of income) and, lastly, increases the price of older, cheaper to hack consoles.
Yay! M$ helps pirates make more money again! Woohoo! What do you think will happen next? They'll price their games outside the reach of the expert buyer just like they did with Win XP Professional and M$ office Professional to ensure more piracy? This is almost as intelligent as when Homer J. Simpson decided not to buy the $0.50 washer from the plumber.
Slashdot Mirror
>FutureShop is 100% owned by BestBuy.
:-)
I was wondering how long that would take to finish... Thanks for letting me know.
>I'm not worried about it hitting over 60fps in a game console though because my TV is NTSC which limits it to that.
:-)
Actually, NTSC runs at 29.97 frames per second...
Yeah, I know, I'm being picky. But I've had more than my fair share of lip sync problems in computer recorded videos.
>You can legally buy an OEM version of WinXP with even just a new hard drive.
No, you cannot, sorry.
You'll want to read the links I provided in my other post.
Directly from the mouths of the people who created the software, it says:
"This form of license misuse occurs when OEM version software has been unbundled from its designated computer system and distributed as a separate, "standalone" product".
A hard drive is not a computer system, AFAIK. You _might_ get away with selling it along with a motherboard, CPU, and hard drive, since with those minimal parts you have a functioning system. But anything less is just not a computer system -- or at least not a computer system that any system builder would testify as being such in court. Well, I wouldn't, anyways.
Or maybe I have it confused here. I mean, technically, you can legally buy OEM windows without any hardware. It just wouldn't be legal to use it on anything, making it kind of pointless.
HTH.
>The OEM version of XP is unlicensible and comes with no service IF you move it to another machine??
;-)
Yup.
Here's M$s take on it.
BTW: You actually don't get any support either way with M$ OEM products. The all say somewhere in the manual "For support of this product, please contact your computer manufactuer". Nice, eh?
And, last but not least, you can't transfer your OEM license to another machine. Whatever computer it goes on, it stays on. Which can really suck when it goes on a cheap computer.
BTW: Here's Microsoft's own MSRP for Windows XP. Its actually more than $499 CDN (but maybe I'm overestimating the dollar exchange...).
A quote from M$s EULA FAQ:
# OEM standalone product. This form of license misuse occurs when OEM version software has been unbundled from its designated computer system and distributed as a separate, "standalone" product. As stated in Question No. 23, Microsoft's agreement with computer manufacturers prohibits them from distributing Microsoft products in this fashion, i.e., without accompanying PC hardware. Microsoft products on the retail shelf should never include a line on the front cover of the User's Guide that states, "For Distribution Only With New PC Hardware."
And, the last word comes from M$, in this handy document:
What is the difference between OEM product and Full-Packaged Product (FPP)?
ANSWER. OEM products are intended to be preinstalled on hardware before the end user purchases the product. They are shrink wrapped and do not come in a box like the retail products do. Full-Packaged Product (FPP) is boxed with CD(s), manuals, and the EULA and is sold in retail stores in individual boxes. The End User License Agreements (commonly referred to as EULAs) for OEM and FPP products are slightly different. One main difference is that an OEM operating system license (such as the license for Windows) cannot be transferred from its original PC to another PC. However, the FPP version of Windows may be transferred to another PC as long as the EULA, manual and media (such as the backup CD) accompany the transfer to the other PC. Also, when a customer purchases an OEM product, the OEM license requires the OEM to provide support for the product.
So, to sum it up, when you get an OEM windows, you get no support, you have to buy a new computer, and you cannot use the software on any other computer. Which means selling OEM licenses separate from the computer isn't a viable way to license your computer from Microsoft, since they still consider you to have broken the law.
Isn't M$ licensing lots of fun.
>when was the last time you made a free copy of your bottle of water or cup of coffee?
:-)
When I used the public water fountain to fill my water bottle. And when I made the free coffee by using the water from the company water fountain and my co-workers coffee mix.
>Where do you get those prices? These are newegg.com prices.
:-)
Well, you could check the link. Futureshop is the same as your Best Buy in the US.
Either way, you quote OEM prices, in US dollars.
$139 US is about $220 Canadian. I can buy an entire machine here for about $400, so were talking over 50% of the cost of a new machine. Not cool.
Plus, with the OEM license, you tie the OS to that box only. I am quoting the price for a license with the freedom to move to any machine you like, any time you like.
Also, selling OEM versions to end users without computers is illegal, or it at least renders them unsupported and unlicenseable by Microsoft, and I don't want to buy a new computer when I have a decent one already... Bummer, eh?
>On the price of a new PC Windows XP adds about $100.
That's home edition. Its so castrated, I, a home user, am entirely angered after purchasing it.
I decided to set up a samba domain server to make my life of logging in between my laptop and my XP desktop easier. I like to keep settings between logins, and I like to keep my bookmarks between sessions. I also like a little privacy.
Lack of Domain support in XP Home Edition makes this impossible. Removing this feature is like selling a door that cannot have a deadbolt added to it. No thanks.
And, over here, in most shops (such as future shop) Windows XP Professional is $500. Blech!
>When I was finally able to rip my skin from the piezo, a very clear thumbprint was burned into the thin metal.
:-)
The worst part is that your contracting muscles probably squeezed the piezo crystal, and by touching both sides you completed a painfully high voltage, and momentarialy high current jolt of power.
If you really want to torture someone, shock them with a piezo based barbeque lighter. It could kill them though, so don't do it on second thought. Charged flash capacitors are another thing not to throw at good catchers, as well.
Oh, and don't be as stupid as me and work barefoot on concrete floors while you wire up the phones with an all metal pocket knife.
Well, how about this reason:
:-)
A continuous DC current through a wire will cause electroplating or corrosion.
AC will not.
Bell found this out the hard way (so I'm told) and uses -48V DC as the on-hook line voltage as a result, since at a positive voltage their lines were being destroyed at a tremendous rate.
I wonder exactly how much damage would be done to the cable at in the million volts DC range?
Anyways, it beats the hell out of me what that article is talking about. I don't pay by the word.
>A crime victim using a firearm in self-defense is over 2/3 less likely to be harmed than one using another weapon.
A december 1999 study by the justice policy institute shows that America's prisons are overflowing with criminals. There are now more criminals behind bars in the USA than there are in most of the EU (if not all). Out of every 4 people you pass on the street, one of them has been to prison. Out of every 3 black people you pass on the street, one will be in jail shortly.
You talk of a country that needs to defend itself with firearms. People outside of your country see a justice system that is out of control, and we know that arming your entire country will not solve the problem. If it hasn't curbed the problem yet, why should be believe you?
What you need is a justice system that works for you. If you feel vigilante justice by the barrel of a gun is perfect for your country, why not take a look at how well that is working for other countries. Ask a friend from a third world country who would have punished him for a a serious crime.
You'll notice it isn't the police, or the justice system.
Its the people.
Vigilante justice by the barrel of a gun is the system that works for third world countries. I can guarantee you that the USA will never join the top 5 best countries to live in as long as people believe that justice should be metered out on the spot with a firearm in the potential victims hands.
>because if I or someone I know commits suicide, it is because said person made a conscious, considered decision to do so, and I respect that decision
Bullshit. Have you ever talked to someone that was saved from their suicide death? Have you ever asked them if they were in a proper state of mind to make that decision?
I think the answer is a resounding no.
>and indeed, I've found people in Texas, one of the more heavily armed of the states, to be far more trusting of their neighbors than residents of California, which has among the strongest gun control
Are people more trusting, or are they infact worried that a show of distrust and, as follows, disrespect might be met with hot lead?
What you speak of is infact the opposite of what your founding fathers wanted for this country. They wanted a peaceful country, where guns were to be used as a defence against invasion by an unlawful government. People in your country have twisted their meaning from a defence against the King of England invading, to a defence against a robber on the street.
For shame that people in your own country haven't read the true meaning written into the very lifeblood of your own country.
Allow me to quote the constitutional right being twisted by the very members of your own country:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
You, a single entity, are not a militia.
This is a militia (thanks, dictionary.com):
1. An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
2. A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
3. The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.
First off, the founding fathers of your country wanted you to keep guns available to you in the event an emergency happened. Clearly, a militia, which would be a citizens army, does not respond to individual crimes.
Second off, a militia is clearly not a single entity.
So why do you all have guns and want to use them to defend your individual selves? Do none of you read the foundations that made your country which everyone appears to hold so dearly?
>Those who would gain a little safety by giving up their rights -- and so depriving their children and grandchildren of those same rights -- I cannot forgive them, and much less can I become one.
As I have proved above, Benjamin Franklin didn't want it to be this way. Sorry, no dice. Benjamin Franklin was clearly speaking about 1st Amendment rights, and should be turning over in his grave like a roast on a spit right now.
>Further, allowing concealed handguns demonstrably reduces crime.
A lie which I have previously demonstrated to be a falsehood. And I provided links to my sources as well.
>Hence, using the US and Israel as data points
The US has no known nation actively attacking it. Show me where the American gaza strip is. If you think its in New York, tell me if its happened since.
Didn't think so.
Canada is the closest cousin to the US as far as law, attitude, wars, and culture goes, and it is the most valid comparison one can make. If you think the US is anything like Israel, why don't you go over there and announce you're a Palestinian?
At least in the US if you announce you are black or jewish (the people who seem to be on the most recently hated list for the US) you won't get killed (except by a handgun wielding maniac). And if you do, your government will do everything in its power to protect you, unlike Israel.
A Red Herring, if I do say to myself.
>Likewise, screaming and running away from a rapist is far more dangerous than using a firearm in defense.
Using a firearm in self defence is more likely to result in your death rather than your rape. The majority of American firearm owners are untrained and would more likely miss or graze the attacker than kill them. And if they aren't dead, guess who will be?
Oh, and last but not least, my numbers are coming from an unbiased source. A book with the title "Epidemic of Violence or Pandemic of Propaganda" sounds more like propaganda itself than an unbiased source. Did the writer of this book compile these numbers himself, or did he provide sources of government checked and verified information? Or at least sources of third party, uninvolved information?
Likely not.
The only first world country with such a lax set of gun control laws is also the country that you are most likely to end up in jail in. And it isn't even in the top 5 best countries to live in to boot. Yet your gun controlling cousins are. Explain to me the problem so serious that even your guns can't solve it.
The attitude that guns make America a safe, good place to live in isn't shared by the other 95% of the world, sorry. In fact, a now (sadly) outdated quote repeated on the Simpsons stating that a gun is more likely to kill a family member than a robber goes to show there's a lot of people living in your own country that disagree with you.
But, know what? I don't care all that much. I feel safe in my low crime country. I have walked in our largest cities without arms in the middle of the night, and the only people attacking me are people with their paper begging cups.
But, after a trip to Atlanta, the murder capital of the USA (at the time I was so informed by the news -- if it wasn't #1, I sure as hell wouldn't want to go where #1 is), I suppose I would feel like I have to carry a gun. And, as usual, control through violence sparks more violence, and so the cycle goes. Some cities on spin cycle, and some are on rinse.
I'll keep my city on rinse, thank you very much. And I'll keep my freedoms and essential liberties by being able to go where I want, and do what I want, and think what I want, as long as I don't kill anyone. And, if I really have a need to fire a handgun (and God only knows why) I'll be a police officer or a soldier. So, in effect, you lose no rights, except for the right to be a loose cannon. The majority of the world echoes back that this is a good thing, not a bad thing.
And if you're an American passerby reading this thread, I'm quite sorry for dragging your country through the mud. There's many, many, many great reasons to be an American, probably more than there are to be a Canadian, but a lack of crime through arming the populace simply isn't one of them.
ROTFL!!!
Someone who remains nameless insulting others for having no social life.
Aw shit, that's so funny I think I just split my sides.
When people ask you your name do you tell them "I don't have one. I'm just too cool for that."?
God, you're such a freaking lamer.
This expensive piece of plastic.
:)
At my college, working for computer services, we would get up to 4,000 pages a day out of trusty laserjet 5s (which are still a little to plasticky for my liking) and I would remove a jam once a month (approximately). However, on the laserjet 5000s we would usually pump through about 1,000 - 2,000 pages a day and we'd be clearing jams once or twice a month, most of which were stuck inside the printer underneath the drum area (I wish I could be more specific, but I'm not the best printer repair guy
A poorly built printer, the HP 5000, IMHO. And it costs a hell of a lot to boot.
First off, just because you can handle it doesn't mean anyone should. If this was so I'd be allowed to drive at 200 km/h since I've never hit another vehicle even though I've just been through the (statistically) most dangerous driving period of a person's life. Not to mention I passed a test far more difficult than my parents ever had to do.
Second, statistics show America is amazingly unsafe with firearms.
Here's an excerpt, focusing on my home country that does have strong firearm legislation vs. the USA, the only first world country I know of with such lax firearm control. Stats will be listed per 100,000 as Canada/America
Suicide rate with a firearm: 3.6/7.1
Suicide rate without a firearm: 12.9/12
Homicide rate with a firearm: 0.67/6.4
Homicide rate without a firearm: 2.2/9.3
Now, here's the kicker. While the stats clearly prove that Canadians are about 10x more likely to use a firearm improperly, and therefore we obviously don't have as good a gun use education system as yours, our country is still safer without weapons. Unless you are suicidal, Canada is the safest country on this side of this hemisphere for you to live in, and I account a lot of that to gun control.
On one last note, you will notice that the without guns stats are very similar for Canada and the US. This should tell one that without guns the offences commited with firearms would disappear, not change to another type of offence.
Hope this helps clear things up, and don't forget to leave your murder weapons behind before you visit this pristine country (and note that we were able to defend it from America despite our gun control legislation still being in effect at that time!).
>In the end, you'll still die, rot and decompose like the rest of us. Sucks to be mortal. So what if you're social? That's no legacy.
Man, that's deep; but how can an AC leave a legacy?
>And then the sig about 1000 slashdot comments
Goes to prove I have a social life. I actually talk with people.
You, AC, are just like the freaks that sit in the corner of a party and do nothing. No one knows who the hell you are, everyone wonders who the hell invited you, and the minute you're presented with a point you get all defensive and rude.
Go back to popping your pimples. Maybe if you use enough of those extra-strength oxy pads that fat lady you've been salivating over might return the favour.
And, before you say it, comebacks that involve any of what I've said and the words "That's you, not me" are the ultimate sign of a lamer.
>So, in other words, you hate foosball because you're antisocial.
No, I hate foosball because I have too much social life and I enjoy an escape now and then.
Kind of like work. Usually too much, and its enjoyable to take a break from it. A break without people SCREAMING at me. If I wanted that I'd get me an endangered screaming caterpillar and 5 or 6 "friends" from the looney bin.
Well, according to google, its fussball in Germany, and english has mangled what would be pronounced strangely in our language to foosball.
And I hate that game. I like taking a break from other people. At least with Arcade machines, Pinball Tables, and, to a certain degree, pool tables, you don't need a partner.
It's taken what was once a "civilized" arcade with cool bleeps and the occasional rack break to a place where drunken hooligans holler and scream in stupidity.
"WOOT! WOOT! WOOOOOOOOT! I said WOOOOOT! dammit! I am going to win if I don't lose another two times!"
Yeah, well I would have won if you didn't shout like a FREAKIN' MORON.
Sorry, I'm just a little bitter now that they've replaced my college's Crusin' World (on which I dominated the high score board) with a crappy SuperGT (or whatever SEGA calls it) and another two foosball tables. Not to mention that the Neo Geo with Bust-A-Move busted too soon for me to hit the high scores.
>because i other things to do.
Maybe you could take either of these fine courses? >:-D
(Sorry, I couldn't help myself!)
>Finally, let me mention: shepd's comments earlier in the thread gave a strong impression that his or her opinion was that gun ownership should always be illegal for the common man -- with no clear exclusions such as that necessary for (for instance) the shotgun used to guard against water moccasins in my friend's creek. If this interpretation was incorrect, I did indeed overreact -- but I'm fairly sure that such is not the case.
:)
Well, owning a gun designed for a purpose other than killing people, that's kept safe, unloaded, and locked up, is fine (and is fine where I live, and most other countries with anti-gun legislation). A nice big shotgun that's far too big, unaccessible, and unloaded to be useful for a heat of the moment type outburst is A-OK with me.
The problem is that picking up a 9mm from the glovebox and firing some rounds at the guy that cut you off (in the general sense, not personal) is far too easy. Not to mention you'd have to be drunk off your ass to use a 9mm to shoot snakes.
If it took the guy a minute or two to fumble with the gun to get it ready, not only would the problem have left (hopefully), but he's had an opportunity to re-evaluate his rage. If, at that point, he continues, then there's no problem calling him a cold blooded murderer, rather than a rage-crazed killer.
Anyways, as far as I mean by harm's way, the bank analogy is pretty close to what I meant. I'd just like to add that most officers (at least where I am) are required to show extreme restraint and prejudice with their weapons. Unless there's imminent danger of death, there's no business using a weapon. The problem is, an untrained person, such as myself, could come to that conclusion too soon and could far too easily hurt or kill before its necessary. It's always best to come to a conclusion that keeps the most people safe (even if one of those people is the criminal -- you can't convict a dead man -- but I might be wrong).
Just my 2 cents on gun laws.
Avoiding the fact that guns are too modern to be the basis of all manufacturing, and that the wheel is generally respected to be the first major invention of people, I would like to mention this:
Bill Gates has never hurt himself despite how much of his software is pirated. In fact, statistics have it that his software is pirated more than any other. In fact, I have seen no serious evidence of a stable person killing themselves because they found out their software was pirated.
Doing an act that is known to cause stress extreme enough to cause people to die, or kill themselves, is immoral. I just don't see any evidence that piracy causes such extreme stresses, although they may be the catalyst to set off an already extremely unstable person (fortunately, our laws often look at the mental state of someone who kills themselves before charging someone with indirect manslaughter).
>Your comments are like those of people who say spanking children is wrong.
Yeah! Lets solve violence with more of it! That'll fix everything.
Why don't you talk to peole who were spanked properly (by that I mean having welts for a while, not just a little tap on the bum) and see if they really are better for it.
I think you'll find not.
>Weapons and the physical damage they bring are frequently the ONLY check against destruction.
What? Frequently? The only?
Wow. That's a pretty warped world to live in.
My checks against physical destruction are not to enter war zones, and to drive safe cars. And, know what? My chances of death are so insanely low at that point I really don't feel like blowing anything up.
>By your viewpoint, prostitution isn't wrong becuase IT doesn't do physical harm.
To a certain degree, it isn't.
>How about the destruction of families and the mental anguish it brings?
Well, to begin with, willing prostitution, as in that which isn't done to buy drugs to support an addiction, or isn't done under direction of a pimp, or other such abnormal factors, shouldn't bring mental anguish to the prostitute. If it is, it isn't the job for them, and I'd tell them to leave it, just as I'd tell someone who can't handle blood not to be a doctor.
Secondly, if you're a married person and choose to use a prostitute, you get what's coming to you.
Thirdly, while a lot of religions look upon using a prostitute as seriously wrong, society as a whole is beginning to accept it as simply a dirty act due to the possibility of things like STDs that isn't in a huge way immoral.
With that in consideration, prostitution is something that should be very closely regulated, just like anything whose primary purpose is seriously dangerous in many ways. Prostitution can spread deadly diseases and cause spouses/girl/boyfriends to go crazy.
Guns, just like other dangerous things, should be closely regulated. Police and soldiers are the only people (that I can think of) who have any business with a handgun. Regular people, in most countries, can own BIG shotguns because their primary purpose is to kill non-human life, and, in general, this isn't considered wholly immoral.
Therefore, prostitution, just like guns, tobacco, liquor, and firearms, needs to be closely monitored and regulated.
>Guess the families of those girls who were tricked into prostitution
In my country, people who are still considered girls are not allowed to work potentially harmful jobs. Are they in Switzerland?
>You are an arrogant fool, the worst type there is.
You're nutty. And a dangerous nut, at that. That's probably a worse thing than being a fool, since once leads you to jail, and one just leads you to ridicule.
>By your definition, would police officers not be immoral?
No. AFAIK, good police officers have no fixation on weapons and only carry them because their job is intended to put them in situations where they may be forced to use them.
Ordinary people have no business putting themselves in the middle of a shootout, and I have little sympathy to those who do so willingly and are hurt themselves, unless they are protectors of the peace.
>In the commission of their sworn duty (to defend the country from enemies, foreign and domestic) they kill and injure enemy combatants, under order from their superiors, which go all the way up to the president, who is elected by the american people. By your definition, would not every american citizen thereby share in that "immorality"?
Just because someone who is part of your people does something immoral doesn't make you yourself wrong. Otherwise I'd be able to call all Americans slave owners and indian killers.
Two, the majority (by number of, rather than people dead) of modern (as in during the lifetime of an average American) American wars have been unnecessary according to a surprising number of experts. But that's a totally separate issue.
Lastly, killing in defence of your own life is a totally different, and completely emotional decision, and at that point the thinking of the average human can't be expected to be rational, and therefore, by our own standards, is to a certain degree, excusable (that's why there's an insanity defence in most every first world country).
>In the commission of their sworn duty (to defend the country from enemies, foreign and domestic) they kill and injure enemy combatants, under order from their superiors, which go all the way up to the president, who is elected by the american people. By your definition, would not every american citizen thereby share in that "immorality"?
Well, considering what I've said above (that normal citizens have no business endangering their own lives in this manner, and that normal citizens can be excused for acting on emotion) we don't give guns to people in these situations because you are so likely to act on emotion.
Most people who have shot someone, even in self defence, have serious emotional problems after. Witness the huge amount of police officers that need special emotional care after being involved in a shooting. A sane society has no business promoting that, and putting tools of death in the hands of people who don't need them inflames the situation.
I'm running windows XP and tried to disable Internet Explorer from loading, but not my system won't start. The only thing I could do to stop internet explorer was to let it load and delete iexplorer.exe so people couldn't use the shortcut icons.
Can you help me? Or did you notice the irony yet?
Yeah, well I have over 10x more comments than you and I say that there's more than enough reasons why the entire mac platform sucks.
I'll start with one I experienced on the College's eMacs -- Why is it possible to start, by default, a terminal with a keyboard emulation so screwed up its useless?
At least with MessyDOS or Linux I can expect that I can type stty or xmodmap without getting greek.
Illegal doesn't equate to immoral. However, you seem to have those confused in your mind.
It is immoral to do physical harm to others. Many of us consider guns (most especially handguns) to be nothing more than a device intended to cause physical harm to others. This is immoral.
A device like a modchip is not intended to do physical harm to others. When I use a modchip, does Bill Gates bleed? Nope.
If you can't see the difference between a device that causes physical harm to someone, and a device that causes absolutely no physical harm to someone, you have a morality problem, and are part of the problem, not the solution.
You aren't one of those people who go around telling people that "Guns don't kill people. Death kills people." Are you? Because if you do, you're the nutcase.
This strategy never stopped people hacking the PS2 (why does slashdot cover's M$s XBOX more than the PS2?)
In fact, installers like the occasional change. It helps them move old hacked console stock (well, at least in the case of the PS2, where a hacked console usually remains a hacked console). Next, it increases the price of the new modchips to unbelieveable levels (another source of income) and, lastly, increases the price of older, cheaper to hack consoles.
Yay! M$ helps pirates make more money again! Woohoo! What do you think will happen next? They'll price their games outside the reach of the expert buyer just like they did with Win XP Professional and M$ office Professional to ensure more piracy?
This is almost as intelligent as when Homer J. Simpson decided not to buy the $0.50 washer from the plumber.