>You can't do this, unless you add "you create them inside your house". Otherwise, you have to buy it from a dealer, which means you have told someone about it.
No problem. Then again, I don't know many people who can create inkjet cartridge hack chips in their houses, either.
>This looks pretty cool, but I'd like to know - just how compatible and reliable are these C3 processors?
Very, on both counts. In fact, one of the only half-respectable PCChips boards uses them. I used to sell these.:-)
>I've seen them advertised in cheapo laptops in a number of places - are they some sort of mobile solution?
They use very, very little power. Something on the order of under 24 watts.
The "active" cooling solutions for them are basically a tiny 486 CPU fan + 486 heatsink. A passive solution would probably be about the size of a regular AMD heatsink, minus the fan.
>I've also seen them mounted on a couple of all-in-one motherboard solutions. Anyone have any experience with these?
Most of them are made by PCChips. As far as PCChips goes, this was their very best product of all time, IMHO. Some don't work with WD 2.0 Gig HDDs due to BIOS bugs.
The problem is they are a PCChips product, which means no support. Period. Except for their website which appears to be served from a 2400 baud modem. Oh, that and the motherboards (not the CPUs) tend to fail craptacularly [eg: A very old PCChips mobo (possibly the M575, or M530, can't remember the model number right now) decided to randomly corrupt my HDD once] when they fail.
As far as speed goes, they run _somewhat_ slower than a similarly specced Pentium II machine. They're enough for all your business tasks, fine for DVD playback, but I would never reccomend one for gaming.
>Protecting the environment is more important than protecting corporate profits.
May I remind you that the only reason the environment is protected today is because of the efforts of both large and small corporations?
If the greens had their way and had shut down the likes of Ford, GM, etc, years ago the remaining companies would have been so small and obsure (like Lada, for instance) and would lack any R&D department at all, that the resulting remaining available vehicles would be far more damaging to the environment than a Hemi Cuda could ever have been. Has an environmental group EVER come up with a workable solution before a corporation implemented it? If so, is your example more than a decade old?
A corporation's only duty is to its shareholders. The *only* reason corporations deal with you (the purchaser) is because you have the money, and they want it for their shareholders. It's your job (again, as the purchaser) to withold that money to get what you want. If you continue to be schooled about by the government corporations will simply continue to collude to the point where you will no longer have the option of buying what you want due to rising entry costs to get into the industry.
If the greens don't want globalization, they should stop lobbying for it. Because as the entry costs to business go up, so does the collusion and merging factor.
>I found an ImageWriter II driver for the Amiga, stuck my faithful Citizen 120D [now that really was an excellent printer!] into Hex Dump mode, and rattled off a document with various text effects in it.
You're worried about supporting the environment, yet you're using printers that suck enough power to juice up 10 modern inkjets?
Why hasn't your EU government protected your environment some more by requiring all the old hardware to be recycled before it is used again, being it is so inefficient? If they can tell businesses what to produce, they certainly should be able to tell you what you can and can't own.
>Do you REALLY think something that can precicely paint 1200 dots to an inch (That's roughly _115_ million dots on a full color page), in less than 4 minutes costs the company NOTHING to produce, package, advertise, ship and GIVE to you?
>If you think so, take my advice and don't go into business.
If you think that selling things at a loss is a good idea, I suggest you don't go into business.:-)
That's.bomb strategy.
>If you decide you don't like that, go FIND a cheap, good, printer with cheap refillable ink...go ahead. What? you can't find one? Why do you think that is?
I can -- in fact, a brother laser printer costs under $199 CDN right now. Sure, its drum requires resetting after 10k pages, but they provide you with the reset sheet (just don't throw it away as advised!).
Oh, you said ink. Why would anyone want to use that nasty stuff nowadays? Yuck. Smudge, smudge, smudge.
>Any company that successfully stays in business will get your money in one of those two ways and STAY in business.
Most companies that follow the HP/Gillette strategy go out of business or fail spectacularly. HP is still in business because they can prop up their inkjet sales with their other profits in other sectors (for example, their laser printer sales). Gillette made it successful because they made it their serious strategy to make their method work. Part of that was researching what a customer would pay for a razor blade, and designing a business model centered around selling that blade for that price.
Not to mention that for Gillette to sell its razors for a loss they'd cost about $1. So even at their current "low entry" prices, they aren't exactly going out of pocket. I question if a $9.99 printer (like the HP apollo I bought) actually made a profit. I doubt it...
If HP would research what a consumer would be willing to pay for an ink jet cartridge, I think they'd find their target market is looking more in the $10-$20 range.
Notable HP/Gillette type marketing failures that come to mind are DiVX and Polaroid (only stayed alive for as long as it did on patents), and Brita (sorta -- they're getting beat down pretty bad by bottled water right now [another scam]), and most all home console video game systems. There's others, but I can't think of them, because most companies don't last long enough to become multinational with Execs this stupid.
You can do whatever drugs you want (heroin, cocaine, MJ, whatever)
as long as it's in your house and you won't tell anybody about it and you don't sell the drugs to other people
Also, on another note, you can hack satellite, or do pretty much any other (quiet) illegal (or semi-legal) thing in your own home as long as nobody elese knows about it.
But I'm willing to make exceptions for Britney Spears.
(for the sarcasm impaired: Stealing Britney Spears music would mean she wouldn't have the master tapes anymore, which would mean none of you would ever have to listen to it again. Wouldn't that be nice?)
Now, violating copyright, that's something I can get behind.
>So would you like to retract your statement or would you like me continue kicking that dumb ass of yours?
??? You post a site which verifies that intel charges more, and you expect me to retract my statement?
This place is full of more whackos than I thought.
>Please try to choose a respectable site when comparing CPU prices.
So, a site that advertises a similar price on CPUs as sharky's, that anybody in my city who deals with computers knows about, that isn't respectable?
Well, clearly your idea of respectable and mine are different.
In fact, I am sure we differ on a great many things, like, for example, what the idea of costs less is. Usually less (by definition) means a lower amount.
You really have me wondering what drugs you're smoking.
I'd add you to my foes list, but perhaps you can explain what the hell you're talking about instead.
Oh, and learn to use A HREF, most especially when you're going to call others unrespectable. That verifies that you are a dumbass.
Last, but certainly not least, AT A MINIMUM, compare the prices from the same store for crying out loud!
Since you didn't, let me post the prices of both CPUs from the two stores you mentioned:
Monarch: Athlon XP 3000+ = $324 (!!! LIMIT ONE PER CUSTOMER !!!) <--- CLEARLY Indicates price dumping, or REALLY poor stock, either way, a VERY bad sign. Intel P4 478 3.0 GHz (HT) 512K 533 FSB (Retail Box-w-fan) = $386 (Sharky's is so respectable they missed this. Really makes me want to trust them! NOT) Intel P4 478 3.00 GHz 800 FSB (Retail Box-w-fan) = $549.00 (!!! LIMIT ONE PER CUSTOMER !!!) <--- CLEARLY Indicates price dumping, or REALLY poor stock, either way, a VERY bad sign.
Okay, so Monarch (aside their crappy supply schemes) has similar pricing. Of course, you pay in the fact that they'll only sell you one. Which is really, really, really lame and disrespectable. At least the store *I* linked to would sell you as many as you wanted.
So, Newegg is the other retailer. Let's see how they match up. Hopefully their "big name" status will
Yikes! Sharky, your "reputable" source is wrong again with the prices.
I'll list the real prices instead of the lies Sharky is trying to spread.
So, an 86% difference in price means nothing, right? I mean, $440 is just pocket change!
You're very, very, VERY wrong. You want more comparisons to show how people buying intel are wasting their money?
How about the $139 all-in-one Athlon 1.3 Ghz motherboard (CPU soldered on with fan, with Video, LAN, sound, etc) I bought the other day? Can you find me the intel equivalent?
Oh wait, intel's CHIPSET almost costs that much. I forgot.
>Greenpeace is not for profit [greenpeace.org] organization
Not in Canada they aren't -- the Canadian government refused multiple times to give them not-for-profit status on the basis that Greenpeace provides no actual not-for-profit services to Canada.
Quote: Revenue Canada, the tax-collecting arm of the government, has refused to recognize the new Greenpeace Environmental Foundation as a charity, saying its activities have "no public benefit" and that lobbying to shut down industries could send people "into poverty."
Favourite quote: According to a spokesman from Revenue Canada this poses a problem since "we have no evidence that the distribution to the public of a pamphlet on, for example, the destruction of forests (along the Amazon or the B.C. coast) or on the various pollutants emanating from smokestacks has any measurable impact on the environment."
So, in Canada greenpeace is very much a corporation, and I enjoy labelling them as such. The anti-corporate corporation.:-)
As far as them having a political agenda, that's fine -- but don't wrap yourself in the ecologist's clothes when you're (mostly) not. Perhaps this is the message the Canadian government is trying to send to greenpeace.
Check out a rally next time and see how few signs _don't_ carry an anarchist message. It's a laugh in itself.
>I know they're just quotes, but I think it was Orwell who said something about blind reproduction of quotes, stastics, and figures lets others do the thinking for you. >Food for thought ^_^.
True, and I heartily reccomend people watch the entire show. But I think you'll see I'm not trying to put a spin on the show -- these quotes are very representative of the message Penn and Teller are trying to send out.
Consumer Reports tested only what the Ask Slashdot question wanted to know (ie: Dust removal).
A large byproduct of these ionizers is ozone. Which brings me to my next point: Does your wife find it easier to breathe outside just after a lightning storm?
If so, it isn't the dust removal that's helping, it's probably the ozone. You might want to ask your doctor, though, if there's a danger of overexposure to ozone from these things. I doubt there is, but it is something to consider. You also may want to consider just using an ozone generator instead, which could be more effective.
But let me repeat: You really need to talk to your doctor about this. Some scientists say ozone is dangerous, and some say ozone is not a problem. It's up to you and your doctor to decide if ozone is the best way to go.
>How do you - at a consumer'ish level - fix the ugliness of the IDE cable, and non-hotswappable capabilities?
You want the dangerous answer?
I used to do this, and never did blow my IDE interface, as some say I should have (try at your own risk).
Buy some IDE removable drive bays (one per drive) -- $20 each. Put the drives into the sleeves, and hook up a bay to your computer. Simply remove the drive sleeve and replace it with another when you want to. Obviously this drive can't have any active data on it, and it can't contain your operating system.
You'll have to check how your OS reacts. Windows 2000 & XP should lock solid for a while, and detect the new drive. With linux, I think you'd have to unload and reload the ide module (if it's modularized) if the drive doesn't have the same parameters as the old one. Yes, this sorta necessitates booting from a SCSI drive, as I think you'd have trouble removing the IDE module if there's IDE drives mounted.
Like I said, I've done it without running a motherboard (still works today, even after many swaps) but it could be very dangerous to your hardware, so no warranties, no support, tough noogies.
>This is not automatic, this is manual. You have to send the message back manual.
That can't honestly be a big deal. You're just hitting reply, once, per person (not per email) you want to send to. You don't need to retype your original email, nor do you even have to remember what it was about. It's simply held for a ransom of one reply on my machine. That's it.
If anyone were to email me and couldn't be bothered replying to the check message, I figure they must not have anything interesting or important to say anyways.
>Spammers are breaking "real" laws every second as lots the states in the US have the law against UCE as I'm sure you know.
Yeah, but I'm Canadian. Remember, these laws only apply to 5% of the world. In fact, they apply to less, as they aren't US-wide. Probably more like 1% of the world is affected by such laws. Good luck trying to prosecute someone outside of the US under any such laws!
>In other countries are laws against unfair competition which can be used to sue spammer.
I've never heard of that one before. Unfair competition? Que? Like antitrust unfair competition? How can an email be unfair competition? If you don't want public email, block your server's SMTP port from public view. If you don't do that and wonder why you're being solicited, well, my head is spinning.
>Blacklisting spamfriendly ISPs is the only way they learn it. Kill the source.
That's been tried and it didn't work (MAPS RBL). Or at least, it didn't work well enough for anyone to notice it "working" as far as I could tell. Worse yet it really started to screw over a lot of little guys who were caught in the crossfire. It's like bombing Iraq to remove their leader (whoops, did I say that?).
>But if lots of people have whitelisted addresses or even specific domains - spammer will find out.
Well, if your specific email address is being abused by spammers in this manner, you'll be getting a big enough deluge of hate mail to know that you've trouble on the horizon. Hopefully you (the one with the stolen address) will be able to deal with it.
If the spammer is faking domains, unless you've included a large isp/email serveice (AOL, Hotmail, Yahoo, etc) in your whitelisted domains, I can't see more than a _very_ few spams getting through.
>Whitelisting is perhaps an option for you but not for an enterprise which does not want to offend their customers.
I can't disagree on this. I'd suggest "general" addressess like info/sales/webmaster be protected with spamassassin (which also works very well) instead. I think specific employees could still use whitelisting without major problems, unless they're sales staff.
>If someone of my friends would implement such a stupid whitelisting system, I would tell them that I just wanted to email them without whitelisting myself.
The whitelisting is automatic. You respond to the check message, and it adds you. Otherwise you're talking to the hand, so to speak.:)
>eMail is eMail and ISP (and the people behind them) should better knock off every fucking spammer around and sue them instead that we have to implement even better filters each month.
The last thing we need, IMHO, is more laws. A better, more secure (perhaps) email system is really in order.
The only time a spammer needs to be put to a judge is if they break a real law (which many, but not all, do) like cracking systems to spam, or abusing open relays (a little bit grey there).
>So how can automated mailing systems such as airline reservation confirmations and such stuff do this confirmation?
If you're just signed up for a new service, check your recent "junk mail" and manually whitelist the account (or domain). Should be a simple as a grep away.
>What if a spammer uses widely used whitelisted addresses such as newsletter From: addresses?
??? From what I can tell from just installing it now, there's no default whitelist addresses in this program at all, apart from MAILER-DAEMON, which the author says he'll remove from future versions if it is abused.
>I do not want people have to send mail back for confirmation - it tripples the traffic for one email by the way.
Yes, for the first email. So what? Real humans aren't going to care if they have to reply once to a confirmation email (that is, if they actually have something important to say), and if a spammer's mailbox (or their ISP's mailserver) fills up, why should I feel bad?
>Would you still feel "Perfectly fine" if your mother died of S.A.R.S. and couldn't afford the cure, even though you helped find it?
Considering the other option up to and including this point is no cure at all, yes.
Better one person cured than none at all.
Of course, you didn't expect that answer -- but I'm a libertarian at heart -- I'm not likely to put my emotions above the lives of others.
Now, show me a charitable organization that's doing this, and I'll switch in a heartbeat. Till then, I'm going to download that client and try to help save some lives; even if I'm not the one making money from it.
>How do you feel about your computing cycles being used for the research and development of pharmaceuticals (or any other imaginable private sector application) and said company reaping tremendous profits from this show of goodwill?
Perfectly fine.
If nobody stepped up to the plate to do it for free up to now, what makes you think they ever would? This isn't exactly something that can be left on the backburner until it's done for free.
Small-scale philanthropy doesn't always provide results. But large-scale distributed philanthropy usually does (witness the many orgs that do a great deal of good based on the small donations of just a few).
Perhaps a quote: If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. -- Sir Isaac Newton
If bandwidth gets to be too much, why not consider BitTorrent? I'm sure if you wrote a custom tracker, you'd be able to keep piracy to a minimum and lower your bandwidth costs.
>There would certainly be loads of helf-assed cases presented and for that matter, why wouldn't spammers simply flood the queue with bogus "proofs" to bog the proceedings?
False accusations are highly illegal, that's why. Not "penis extending pills" illegal, but "Federal pound me in the ass prison" illegal.
>I thought about contacting him. However, I'm a little worried that he'll then start harrassing me once he has my e-mail address
Use a hotmail address.
>If you take a look at his user page [ebay.com] on eBay, you'll see that he's not just an innocent guy who made some inadvertent mistakes. He's selling screensavers with copyrighted images in them (commercial porn, copyrighted paintings, stills from LOTR), digitized books that are not copylefted (the Feynman lectures), etc.
He's probably got a yellow streak if he's hiding out behind ebay. Either be stern, or get a nice C & D crafted up. Considering he's only getting $4 per book, it isn't worth his effort. If he still thinks it is, compete! Sell your book (legally, of course) on ebay for $0.99. Once business on this item dries up (for him) he'll give up. And you'll probaby get to pocket $20 or $30 out of the deal.
>I have no intention of suing him anyway -- it wouldn't be worth the time, expense, and effort.
Good thinking there.
>If you look at his user page, a bunch of other transactions have been deleted, which seems to be what eBay does if you complain but aren't registered in the VeRO program.
eBay's probably going to tire of policing him at some point. Write up a form letter, maybe a quickie program to automatically search for, and automatically email and inform eBay about illicit auctions on your books. In no time at all they'll boot him if they get tired of seeing your emails.:) Or, at least I would.
Look, I'm a lot more likely to accept claims made by people with PhDs and 60 years of experience in this stuff than random slashdotters as far as how much food we have for people, BUUUT, that being said, I was only posting quotes from the show.
And as far as Zimbabwe was concerned, that's fine, if your reasons are correct, but that's NOT what greenpeace was protesting. They were protesting the fact it was GM food, not that it was a racket. And that's what makes them killers.
>Yick, by this logic, Penn, by feeling strongly about an issue that doesn't actually affect him (being not a citizen in a third world country) should, quote, shut the fuck up. I disagree, holding an opinion about something that doesn't directly affect you is what brought Norman Borlaug into his line of work and is the same thing that drives many Greenpeace activists to go out and protest things.
I wasn't too happy that he said that either. BUT Penn truly believes Greenpeace are an agent of death, and if you believe that, I can see how easily they would piss you off. There's a lot more to these guys than this, though -- if you can, I strongly suggest you also watch the last Penn and Teller episode, which reveals today's true motives of Greenpeace (anti-government and anti-capitalism) which prompted Greenpeace's founding member (Patrick Moore) to resign.
Greepeace is a corporation themselves, and they suck, in too many ways to describe. I think the biggest one is, though, that they LIE, and not just a little, a LOT and OFTEN.
I'd go to the site, but Showtime apparently thinks the internet works like 1920's telephone service. The actual episode in question is one of my favourites.
I have that episode (actually, all of them) handy. I'll present some quotes to help you out:
Charles Margulis, Greenpeace GE specialist: "We're concerned that Genetically Engineered food is a disaster waiting to happen." "Human beings have never before created lifeforms (plants) in the laboratory and released them into the environment and nobody knows what's going to happen in the long-term either in the environment or in our diets."
Penn: "Created lifeforms, disaster waiting to happen, that's Bullshit! These greenpeace dudes want us to believe that GE crops will ruin other crops and harm any person or animal that eats these foods."
Norman Borlaug: "Producing food for 6.2 billion people, adding a population of 80 million more a year is not simple. We had better develop an ever improved science and technology including the new modern technology to produce the food that is needed for today".
Norman Borlaug: "We're 6.6 billion people now. We can only feed 4 billion. I don't see 2 billion volunteers to disappear." (Regarding organic only foods)
Juliano, Raw Food Chef: "A tortilla is made in a dingy, dirty factory by some dude who hates his job, boss, life, and you. And sends that hate into the food, and you eat it and send it to the center of your core being."
Penn: "Even if this nut had some odd fruit that had grown wild somewhere, it was delivered to him on a truck, it was kept fresh through refrigeration, he washed it in his sink alongside his lettuce tortilla, where did that water come from? He cut it with a knife and cleaned it up with cloth or paper towel. There is no food or water without technology. NONE. Just SHUT THE FUCK UP AND GET A JOB!"
Charles Margulis: "There is no Government requirement that genetically engineered foods be tested in the United States. There's not a single government agency, neither the FDA, USDA, EPA; None of them require genetically engineered foods to be tested for human health effects."
Terry Lomax, professor of botany and plant pathology at Oregon State University: "There are no animal genes in plant crops"
Terry Lomax: "These genetically engineered crops are actually the most highly tested crops that we've ever had. They're regulated by the EPA, the USDA, and the FDA. The EPA regulates them if there's a pesticide involved; The USDA [on] where they're grown and how it will affect the environment, and the FDA for food safety. They go through millions of dollars of testing and many years to be able to be approved as a commercial crop."
Alex Avery, studying global food issues at the Hudson Institute: "The president of Zambia was told by Greenpeace and friends of the earth that the food was poisonous."
Norman Borlaug: "These are utopian people that live on cloud 9 and come into the third world and cause all kinds of confusion and negative impacts on the developing countries"
Penn: "Unless you and yours are starving you need TO SHUT THE FUCK UP".
BTW: Most of the work Norman Borlaug did, for which he was awarded a nobel prize, was done before 1970 (1944, to be accurate). And he's still continuing it, thank God. Oh, and this was the only time Penn got pissed off enough to tell people to shut the fuck up. And I can see why.
>So what you are saying is that individual users should be sued, because they are to blame? That seems to cause even more uproar among this crowd......
It does?
I think individuals should be sued, yes. Sue us all. The problem, of course, is that these companies would rather just sue one or two people, rather than the, give or take, 150,000,000 American pirates in the US alone.
Hey, no problem. Sorry if I got a little shouty there, but your comment reminded me of what some extremist feminist-types have said, and it tends to get me a little riled up.:)
Slashdot Mirror
>You can't do this, unless you add "you create them inside your house". Otherwise, you have to buy it from a dealer, which means you have told someone about it.
:-)
No problem. Then again, I don't know many people who can create inkjet cartridge hack chips in their houses, either.
You can always set up your own meth lab.
>This looks pretty cool, but I'd like to know - just how compatible and reliable are these C3 processors?
:-)
Very, on both counts. In fact, one of the only half-respectable PCChips boards uses them. I used to sell these.
>I've seen them advertised in cheapo laptops in a number of places - are they some sort of mobile solution?
They use very, very little power. Something on the order of under 24 watts.
The "active" cooling solutions for them are basically a tiny 486 CPU fan + 486 heatsink. A passive solution would probably be about the size of a regular AMD heatsink, minus the fan.
>I've also seen them mounted on a couple of all-in-one motherboard solutions. Anyone have any experience with these?
Most of them are made by PCChips. As far as PCChips goes, this was their very best product of all time, IMHO. Some don't work with WD 2.0 Gig HDDs due to BIOS bugs.
The problem is they are a PCChips product, which means no support. Period. Except for their website which appears to be served from a 2400 baud modem. Oh, that and the motherboards (not the CPUs) tend to fail craptacularly [eg: A very old PCChips mobo (possibly the M575, or M530, can't remember the model number right now) decided to randomly corrupt my HDD once] when they fail.
As far as speed goes, they run _somewhat_ slower than a similarly specced Pentium II machine. They're enough for all your business tasks, fine for DVD playback, but I would never reccomend one for gaming.
>Protecting the environment is more important than protecting corporate profits.
May I remind you that the only reason the environment is protected today is because of the efforts of both large and small corporations?
If the greens had their way and had shut down the likes of Ford, GM, etc, years ago the remaining companies would have been so small and obsure (like Lada, for instance) and would lack any R&D department at all, that the resulting remaining available vehicles would be far more damaging to the environment than a Hemi Cuda could ever have been. Has an environmental group EVER come up with a workable solution before a corporation implemented it? If so, is your example more than a decade old?
A corporation's only duty is to its shareholders. The *only* reason corporations deal with you (the purchaser) is because you have the money, and they want it for their shareholders. It's your job (again, as the purchaser) to withold that money to get what you want. If you continue to be schooled about by the government corporations will simply continue to collude to the point where you will no longer have the option of buying what you want due to rising entry costs to get into the industry.
If the greens don't want globalization, they should stop lobbying for it. Because as the entry costs to business go up, so does the collusion and merging factor.
>I found an ImageWriter II driver for the Amiga, stuck my faithful Citizen 120D [now that really was an excellent printer!] into Hex Dump mode, and rattled off a document with various text effects in it.
You're worried about supporting the environment, yet you're using printers that suck enough power to juice up 10 modern inkjets?
Why hasn't your EU government protected your environment some more by requiring all the old hardware to be recycled before it is used again, being it is so inefficient? If they can tell businesses what to produce, they certainly should be able to tell you what you can and can't own.
>Do you REALLY think something that can precicely paint 1200 dots to an inch (That's roughly _115_ million dots on a full color page), in less than 4 minutes costs the company NOTHING to produce, package, advertise, ship and GIVE to you?
:-)
.bomb strategy.
>If you think so, take my advice and don't go into business.
If you think that selling things at a loss is a good idea, I suggest you don't go into business.
That's
>If you decide you don't like that, go FIND a cheap, good, printer with cheap refillable ink...go ahead. What? you can't find one? Why do you think that is?
I can -- in fact, a brother laser printer costs under $199 CDN right now. Sure, its drum requires resetting after 10k pages, but they provide you with the reset sheet (just don't throw it away as advised!).
Oh, you said ink. Why would anyone want to use that nasty stuff nowadays? Yuck. Smudge, smudge, smudge.
>Any company that successfully stays in business will get your money in one of those two ways and STAY in business.
Most companies that follow the HP/Gillette strategy go out of business or fail spectacularly. HP is still in business because they can prop up their inkjet sales with their other profits in other sectors (for example, their laser printer sales). Gillette made it successful because they made it their serious strategy to make their method work. Part of that was researching what a customer would pay for a razor blade, and designing a business model centered around selling that blade for that price.
Not to mention that for Gillette to sell its razors for a loss they'd cost about $1. So even at their current "low entry" prices, they aren't exactly going out of pocket. I question if a $9.99 printer (like the HP apollo I bought) actually made a profit. I doubt it...
If HP would research what a consumer would be willing to pay for an ink jet cartridge, I think they'd find their target market is looking more in the $10-$20 range.
Notable HP/Gillette type marketing failures that come to mind are DiVX and Polaroid (only stayed alive for as long as it did on patents), and Brita (sorta -- they're getting beat down pretty bad by bottled water right now [another scam]), and most all home console video game systems. There's others, but I can't think of them, because most companies don't last long enough to become multinational with Execs this stupid.
Yup. It's just like drugs.
You can do whatever drugs you want (heroin, cocaine, MJ, whatever)
as long as it's in your house
and you won't tell anybody about it
and you don't sell the drugs to other people
Also, on another note, you can hack satellite, or do pretty much any other (quiet) illegal (or semi-legal) thing in your own home as long as nobody elese knows about it.
But I'm willing to make exceptions for Britney Spears.
(for the sarcasm impaired: Stealing Britney Spears music would mean she wouldn't have the master tapes anymore, which would mean none of you would ever have to listen to it again. Wouldn't that be nice?)
Now, violating copyright, that's something I can get behind.
>So would you like to retract your statement or would you like me continue kicking that dumb ass of yours?
??? You post a site which verifies that intel charges more, and you expect me to retract my statement?
This place is full of more whackos than I thought.
>Please try to choose a respectable site when comparing CPU prices.
So, a site that advertises a similar price on CPUs as sharky's, that anybody in my city who deals with computers knows about, that isn't respectable?
Well, clearly your idea of respectable and mine are different.
In fact, I am sure we differ on a great many things, like, for example, what the idea of costs less is. Usually less (by definition) means a lower amount.
You really have me wondering what drugs you're smoking.
I'd add you to my foes list, but perhaps you can explain what the hell you're talking about instead.
Oh, and learn to use A HREF, most especially when you're going to call others unrespectable. That verifies that you are a dumbass.
Last, but certainly not least, AT A MINIMUM, compare the prices from the same store for crying out loud!
Since you didn't, let me post the prices of both CPUs from the two stores you mentioned:
Monarch:
Athlon XP 3000+ = $324 (!!! LIMIT ONE PER CUSTOMER !!!) <--- CLEARLY Indicates price dumping, or REALLY poor stock, either way, a VERY bad sign.
Intel P4 478 3.0 GHz (HT) 512K 533 FSB (Retail Box-w-fan) = $386 (Sharky's is so respectable they missed this. Really makes me want to trust them! NOT)
Intel P4 478 3.00 GHz 800 FSB (Retail Box-w-fan) = $549.00 (!!! LIMIT ONE PER CUSTOMER !!!) <--- CLEARLY Indicates price dumping, or REALLY poor stock, either way, a VERY bad sign.
Okay, so Monarch (aside their crappy supply schemes) has similar pricing. Of course, you pay in the fact that they'll only sell you one. Which is really, really, really lame and disrespectable. At least the store *I* linked to would sell you as many as you wanted.
So, Newegg is the other retailer. Let's see how they match up. Hopefully their "big name" status will
Yikes! Sharky, your "reputable" source is wrong again with the prices.
I'll list the real prices instead of the lies Sharky is trying to spread.
Intel Pentium 4 / 3.0GHz 512k socket 478 Hyper Threading Technology 800 MHz FSB - RETAIL = $545.00 (!!! LIMIT ONE PER CUSTOMER !!!) <--- CLEARLY Indicates price dumping, or REALLY poor stock, either way, a VERY bad sign.
Intel Pentium 4 / 3.06GHz 512k 478 Pin Processor HT Technology 533 MHz FSB Retail ETA 4/20/03 = $384.00 (!!! LIMIT FIVE PER CUSTOMER !!!) <--- Seems that Newegg has serious inventory issues. Perhaps they need a stock manager?
AMD ATHLON XP 3000 "Barton" 333 FSB PROCESSOR CPU- RETAIL = $326.00 (!!! LIMIT FIVE PER CUSTOMER !!!) <--- Seems that Newegg has serious inventory issues. Perhaps they need a stock manager?
But don't let that stop your blind devotion to intel's high prices and inability to provide stock!
And, let's not forget the (for us Canadians) week of wait
>Intel chips are no longer extremely overpriced.
They aren't?
Could have fooled me.
Barton XP3000+ 512M L2 Cache, 333Mhz (2.17 Ghz ) $509.00
P4 3.06G 478 Pin 533MHz FSB (Retail box) $949.00
So, an 86% difference in price means nothing, right? I mean, $440 is just pocket change!
You're very, very, VERY wrong. You want more comparisons to show how people buying intel are wasting their money?
How about the $139 all-in-one Athlon 1.3 Ghz motherboard (CPU soldered on with fan, with Video, LAN, sound, etc) I bought the other day? Can you find me the intel equivalent?
Oh wait, intel's CHIPSET almost costs that much. I forgot.
>Greenpeace is not for profit [greenpeace.org] organization
:-)
:)
Not in Canada they aren't -- the Canadian government refused multiple times to give them not-for-profit status on the basis that Greenpeace provides no actual not-for-profit services to Canada.
Quote: Revenue Canada, the tax-collecting arm of the government, has refused to recognize the new Greenpeace Environmental Foundation as a charity, saying its activities have "no public benefit" and that lobbying to shut down industries could send people "into poverty."
Favourite quote: According to a spokesman from Revenue Canada this poses a problem since "we have no evidence that the distribution to the public of a pamphlet on, for example, the destruction of forests (along the Amazon or the B.C. coast) or on the various pollutants emanating from smokestacks has any measurable impact on the environment."
So, in Canada greenpeace is very much a corporation, and I enjoy labelling them as such. The anti-corporate corporation.
As far as them having a political agenda, that's fine -- but don't wrap yourself in the ecologist's clothes when you're (mostly) not. Perhaps this is the message the Canadian government is trying to send to greenpeace.
Check out a rally next time and see how few signs _don't_ carry an anarchist message. It's a laugh in itself.
>I know they're just quotes, but I think it was Orwell who said something about blind reproduction of quotes, stastics, and figures lets others do the thinking for you.
>Food for thought ^_^.
True, and I heartily reccomend people watch the entire show. But I think you'll see I'm not trying to put a spin on the show -- these quotes are very representative of the message Penn and Teller are trying to send out.
But hey, watch it for yourself and see!
Consumer Reports tested only what the Ask Slashdot question wanted to know (ie: Dust removal).
A large byproduct of these ionizers is ozone. Which brings me to my next point: Does your wife find it easier to breathe outside just after a lightning storm?
If so, it isn't the dust removal that's helping, it's probably the ozone. You might want to ask your doctor, though, if there's a danger of overexposure to ozone from these things. I doubt there is, but it is something to consider. You also may want to consider just using an ozone generator instead, which could be more effective.
But let me repeat: You really need to talk to your doctor about this. Some scientists say ozone is dangerous, and some say ozone is not a problem. It's up to you and your doctor to decide if ozone is the best way to go.
>How do you - at a consumer'ish level - fix the ugliness of the IDE cable, and non-hotswappable capabilities?
You want the dangerous answer?
I used to do this, and never did blow my IDE interface, as some say I should have (try at your own risk).
Buy some IDE removable drive bays (one per drive) -- $20 each. Put the drives into the sleeves, and hook up a bay to your computer. Simply remove the drive sleeve and replace it with another when you want to. Obviously this drive can't have any active data on it, and it can't contain your operating system.
You'll have to check how your OS reacts. Windows 2000 & XP should lock solid for a while, and detect the new drive. With linux, I think you'd have to unload and reload the ide module (if it's modularized) if the drive doesn't have the same parameters as the old one. Yes, this sorta necessitates booting from a SCSI drive, as I think you'd have trouble removing the IDE module if there's IDE drives mounted.
Like I said, I've done it without running a motherboard (still works today, even after many swaps) but it could be very dangerous to your hardware, so no warranties, no support, tough noogies.
>This is not automatic, this is manual. You have to send the message back manual.
That can't honestly be a big deal. You're just hitting reply, once, per person (not per email) you want to send to. You don't need to retype your original email, nor do you even have to remember what it was about. It's simply held for a ransom of one reply on my machine. That's it.
If anyone were to email me and couldn't be bothered replying to the check message, I figure they must not have anything interesting or important to say anyways.
>Spammers are breaking "real" laws every second as lots the states in the US have the law against UCE as I'm sure you know.
Yeah, but I'm Canadian. Remember, these laws only apply to 5% of the world. In fact, they apply to less, as they aren't US-wide. Probably more like 1% of the world is affected by such laws. Good luck trying to prosecute someone outside of the US under any such laws!
>In other countries are laws against unfair competition which can be used to sue spammer.
I've never heard of that one before. Unfair competition? Que? Like antitrust unfair competition? How can an email be unfair competition? If you don't want public email, block your server's SMTP port from public view. If you don't do that and wonder why you're being solicited, well, my head is spinning.
>Blacklisting spamfriendly ISPs is the only way they learn it. Kill the source.
That's been tried and it didn't work (MAPS RBL). Or at least, it didn't work well enough for anyone to notice it "working" as far as I could tell. Worse yet it really started to screw over a lot of little guys who were caught in the crossfire. It's like bombing Iraq to remove their leader (whoops, did I say that?).
>But if lots of people have whitelisted addresses or even specific domains - spammer will find out.
:)
Well, if your specific email address is being abused by spammers in this manner, you'll be getting a big enough deluge of hate mail to know that you've trouble on the horizon. Hopefully you (the one with the stolen address) will be able to deal with it.
If the spammer is faking domains, unless you've included a large isp/email serveice (AOL, Hotmail, Yahoo, etc) in your whitelisted domains, I can't see more than a _very_ few spams getting through.
>Whitelisting is perhaps an option for you but not for an enterprise which does not want to offend their customers.
I can't disagree on this. I'd suggest "general" addressess like info/sales/webmaster be protected with spamassassin (which also works very well) instead. I think specific employees could still use whitelisting without major problems, unless they're sales staff.
>If someone of my friends would implement such a stupid whitelisting system, I would tell them that I just wanted to email them without whitelisting myself.
The whitelisting is automatic. You respond to the check message, and it adds you. Otherwise you're talking to the hand, so to speak.
>eMail is eMail and ISP (and the people behind them) should better knock off every fucking spammer around and sue them instead that we have to implement even better filters each month.
The last thing we need, IMHO, is more laws. A better, more secure (perhaps) email system is really in order.
The only time a spammer needs to be put to a judge is if they break a real law (which many, but not all, do) like cracking systems to spam, or abusing open relays (a little bit grey there).
>So how can automated mailing systems such as airline reservation confirmations and such stuff do this confirmation?
If you're just signed up for a new service, check your recent "junk mail" and manually whitelist the account (or domain). Should be a simple as a grep away.
>What if a spammer uses widely used whitelisted addresses such as newsletter From: addresses?
??? From what I can tell from just installing it now, there's no default whitelist addresses in this program at all, apart from MAILER-DAEMON, which the author says he'll remove from future versions if it is abused.
>I do not want people have to send mail back for confirmation - it tripples the traffic for one email by the way.
Yes, for the first email. So what? Real humans aren't going to care if they have to reply once to a confirmation email (that is, if they actually have something important to say), and if a spammer's mailbox (or their ISP's mailserver) fills up, why should I feel bad?
This is the tool I've been waiting for forever! I would find out about it the day after I get qmail + spamassassin set up, but hey, that's life.
Sure, I'd have coded it, but then it'd be done in VB and would crash hourly.
Many thanks to the author!
>Would you still feel "Perfectly fine" if your mother died of S.A.R.S. and couldn't afford the cure, even though you helped find it?
Considering the other option up to and including this point is no cure at all, yes.
Better one person cured than none at all.
Of course, you didn't expect that answer -- but I'm a libertarian at heart -- I'm not likely to put my emotions above the lives of others.
Now, show me a charitable organization that's doing this, and I'll switch in a heartbeat. Till then, I'm going to download that client and try to help save some lives; even if I'm not the one making money from it.
>How do you feel about your computing cycles being used for the research and development of pharmaceuticals (or any other imaginable private sector application) and said company reaping tremendous profits from this show of goodwill?
Perfectly fine.
If nobody stepped up to the plate to do it for free up to now, what makes you think they ever would? This isn't exactly something that can be left on the backburner until it's done for free.
Small-scale philanthropy doesn't always provide results. But large-scale distributed philanthropy usually does (witness the many orgs that do a great deal of good based on the small donations of just a few).
Perhaps a quote: If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. -- Sir Isaac Newton
If bandwidth gets to be too much, why not consider BitTorrent? I'm sure if you wrote a custom tracker, you'd be able to keep piracy to a minimum and lower your bandwidth costs.
Just a thought.
>There would certainly be loads of helf-assed cases presented and for that matter, why wouldn't spammers simply flood the queue with bogus "proofs" to bog the proceedings?
False accusations are highly illegal, that's why. Not "penis extending pills" illegal, but "Federal pound me in the ass prison" illegal.
Then again, IANAL.
>I thought about contacting him. However, I'm a little worried that he'll then start harrassing me once he has my e-mail address
:) Or, at least I would.
Use a hotmail address.
>If you take a look at his user page [ebay.com] on eBay, you'll see that he's not just an innocent guy who made some inadvertent mistakes. He's selling screensavers with copyrighted images in them (commercial porn, copyrighted paintings, stills from LOTR), digitized books that are not copylefted (the Feynman lectures), etc.
He's probably got a yellow streak if he's hiding out behind ebay. Either be stern, or get a nice C & D crafted up. Considering he's only getting $4 per book, it isn't worth his effort. If he still thinks it is, compete! Sell your book (legally, of course) on ebay for $0.99. Once business on this item dries up (for him) he'll give up. And you'll probaby get to pocket $20 or $30 out of the deal.
>I have no intention of suing him anyway -- it wouldn't be worth the time, expense, and effort.
Good thinking there.
>If you look at his user page, a bunch of other transactions have been deleted, which seems to be what eBay does if you complain but aren't registered in the VeRO program.
eBay's probably going to tire of policing him at some point. Write up a form letter, maybe a quickie program to automatically search for, and automatically email and inform eBay about illicit auctions on your books. In no time at all they'll boot him if they get tired of seeing your emails.
The squeaky wheel gets the grease!
Just my 2 cents.
Look, I'm a lot more likely to accept claims made by people with PhDs and 60 years of experience in this stuff than random slashdotters as far as how much food we have for people, BUUUT, that being said, I was only posting quotes from the show.
And as far as Zimbabwe was concerned, that's fine, if your reasons are correct, but that's NOT what greenpeace was protesting. They were protesting the fact it was GM food, not that it was a racket. And that's what makes them killers.
>Yick, by this logic, Penn, by feeling strongly about an issue that doesn't actually affect him (being not a citizen in a third world country) should, quote, shut the fuck up. I disagree, holding an opinion about something that doesn't directly affect you is what brought Norman Borlaug into his line of work and is the same thing that drives many Greenpeace activists to go out and protest things.
I wasn't too happy that he said that either. BUT Penn truly believes Greenpeace are an agent of death, and if you believe that, I can see how easily they would piss you off. There's a lot more to these guys than this, though -- if you can, I strongly suggest you also watch the last Penn and Teller episode, which reveals today's true motives of Greenpeace (anti-government and anti-capitalism) which prompted Greenpeace's founding member (Patrick Moore) to resign.
Greepeace is a corporation themselves, and they suck, in too many ways to describe. I think the biggest one is, though, that they LIE, and not just a little, a LOT and OFTEN.
>But, thanks for trying.
Hey, they're just quotes!
I'd go to the site, but Showtime apparently thinks the internet works like 1920's telephone service. The actual episode in question is one of my favourites.
I have that episode (actually, all of them) handy. I'll present some quotes to help you out:
Charles Margulis, Greenpeace GE specialist: "We're concerned that Genetically Engineered food is a disaster waiting to happen."
"Human beings have never before created lifeforms (plants) in the laboratory and released them into the environment and nobody knows what's going to happen in the long-term either in the environment or in our diets."
Penn: "Created lifeforms, disaster waiting to happen, that's Bullshit! These greenpeace dudes want us to believe that GE crops will ruin other crops and harm any person or animal that eats these foods."
Norman Borlaug: "Producing food for 6.2 billion people, adding a population of 80 million more a year is not simple. We had better develop an ever improved science and technology including the new modern technology to produce the food that is needed for today".
Norman Borlaug: "We're 6.6 billion people now. We can only feed 4 billion. I don't see 2 billion volunteers to disappear." (Regarding organic only foods)
Juliano, Raw Food Chef: "A tortilla is made in a dingy, dirty factory by some dude who hates his job, boss, life, and you. And sends that hate into the food, and you eat it and send it to the center of your core being."
Penn: "Even if this nut had some odd fruit that had grown wild somewhere, it was delivered to him on a truck, it was kept fresh through refrigeration, he washed it in his sink alongside his lettuce tortilla, where did that water come from? He cut it with a knife and cleaned it up with cloth or paper towel. There is no food or water without technology. NONE. Just SHUT THE FUCK UP AND GET A JOB!"
Charles Margulis: "There is no Government requirement that genetically engineered foods be tested in the United States. There's not a single government agency, neither the FDA, USDA, EPA; None of them require genetically engineered foods to be tested for human health effects."
Terry Lomax, professor of botany and plant pathology at Oregon State University: "There are no animal genes in plant crops"
Terry Lomax: "These genetically engineered crops are actually the most highly tested crops that we've ever had. They're regulated by the EPA, the USDA, and the FDA. The EPA regulates them if there's a pesticide involved; The USDA [on] where they're grown and how it will affect the environment, and the FDA for food safety. They go through millions of dollars of testing and many years to be able to be approved as a commercial crop."
Alex Avery, studying global food issues at the Hudson Institute: "The president of Zambia was told by Greenpeace and friends of the earth that the food was poisonous."
Norman Borlaug: "These are utopian people that live on cloud 9 and come into the third world and cause all kinds of confusion and negative impacts on the developing countries"
Penn: "Unless you and yours are starving you need TO SHUT THE FUCK UP".
BTW: Most of the work Norman Borlaug did, for which he was awarded a nobel prize, was done before 1970 (1944, to be accurate). And he's still continuing it, thank God. Oh, and this was the only time Penn got pissed off enough to tell people to shut the fuck up. And I can see why.
Why not donate to help starving people worldwide?
Of course, Vegans kill more animals than any meat eater ever would.
Link.
Peta's unsolicited response.
Sponsor a Vegan!
Vegan types.
Eat a rhino today!
>So what you are saying is that individual users should be sued, because they are to blame? That seems to cause even more uproar among this crowd......
It does?
I think individuals should be sued, yes. Sue us all. The problem, of course, is that these companies would rather just sue one or two people, rather than the, give or take, 150,000,000 American pirates in the US alone.
Hey, no problem. Sorry if I got a little shouty there, but your comment reminded me of what some extremist feminist-types have said, and it tends to get me a little riled up. :)