Stabilant works well, assuming the part is good and the connector is in half-decent shape.
Basically, I mostly use it on edge connectors of PCBs (for computer cards). I've found this combination gives the best results:
- Use a pink rubber eraser and "erase" any of the worst gunk from the connector. If it's really bad, use an abrasive pen eraser.
- Clean the eraser from the contact with 100% isopropyl alcohol.
- Dry off the alcohol (or let it evaporate) and apply stabilant somewhat liberally with a q-tip.
- Leave the stabilant on the card and insert it, and leave it.
Works like a charm for a lot of things. If I can get some for home I'm going to try it on those worn-out pots in my nice old H/K 430 receiver.;-)
It's really expensive though. Something like $1 per ml so it had better be worth your time using it!
>You're way off base. Rental videos *still* cost in the area of $150.
Show me where I said they got cheaper for rental companies...;-)
The movie companies simply reworked their agreements, but the macrovision was there originally so people wouldn't copy the rental videos -- when the only price is the rental price (as it was back in the day) then you've got to protect your stuff. Either that or get a clue and start selling at a price people will pay. Sure, it was clear rental companies would pay $150 for a copy, as they'd been doing it for a while, but considering the pathetic number of videos selling for $150 to joe sixpack, video prices for them were lowered to a point the market would bear, which is exactly the solution for RIAA members today.
>It didn't kill off any existing, PAYING users, or even "advertise" the fact that pirates were getting cut off.
It really seems like you're assuming people who watch DirecTV don't read newspapers (I hope I'm wrong).
Here's an article which has links to (now defunct) Associated Press (ie: Every decent newspaper in North America) and MSNBC articles. Sounds to me like it was a bit of an unintentional advertisement of the fact that the DirecTV system was easy to pirate...
>It inconvenienced the pirates in a big way - That was the point, wasn't it? Sure, it may not have been effective long-term, but it certainly put out a lot of moochers, right? And quite a few of those people probably went and screamed at their sources, who had to fork over a good bit of cash for new H-cards (since the old ones were now looped) and figure out work-arounds.
Uhhuh, so, let's say the dealer says "Fuck you" to users that bitch and moan about broken cards. What's the user to do? Phone the police? Put in a report to the BBB? Why not just make the cops job easier and just put the cuffs on before you go in.
Dealers make money when DirecTV ECMs. The bigger the ECM, the more the fix is worth. The more rare the fix, the higher the value of the fix. Add those together and you get one hell of an artificial rise in hacking prices. And if one doesn't want to fork your cash over to DirecTV for those porns that one watches in private, then what's your choice?
And because the higher price is artificially inflated, the extra cost (which can be as high as 10x original price) is pure profit.
>I fail to see where you're going with this. You seem to claim that copy-protection hurts nobody but the regular consumers, which is a claim I'd normally agree with. However, the examples you're citing certainly don't lend much weight to your point.
Here's where I'm going: Dealers make money when their pirating users get ECMed. In the case of Black Sunday, more money than I could make in a year.
If there were no ECMs, and we assume most pirating end-users are too stupid to load the hacks onto their cards, then the dealers sell their stuff once, and that's it. How are they going to make their money? There's no reason for the users to pay the dealer anything if their stuff is working 100%
Anyways, HU cards have a self-destruct bit in them that turns off the ASIC permanently (impossible to repair -- it's a physical fuse, and you can't "skip" over a bad ASIC). Why don't they destroy hacked cards, esepcially considering most the of HUs have been swapped out? Unlike Black Sunday, this isn't difficult. It's just a simple command.
I'd say it's because they learned just a very little from Black Sunday. But not enough, unfortuantely.
To put it simple, increasing your copyright control simply pushes the piracy from the hands of people at the bottom of the chain up to the top of the chain. And the higher it gets, the harder it is to control. And I doubt that's anything like what companies that implement copyright control mechanisms had in mind.
CGA already did composite out, so believing VGA to composite could be done cheaply isn't very hard. In fact, with some tweaking of the card's clock rates (to something _less_) you can get pretty close to TV-Out without massively expensive electronics (even for then).
Next, how much is an external back-pack CD-ROM of now? About $200. A regular CD-ROM? $30. Difference in price? Over 6 times.
Dividing $1200 by 6 we get... $200. Now, I know that CD-ROMs were never that cheap then, but they certainly weren't all that overpriced!
Yes, it was Macrovision, and was added to help ensure the movie companies could keep their monopolistic grip on the video rental companies. Back then the price of buying a movie was in the $150 - $200 range. Without macrovision, since nobody in their right mind would pay that price for a movie, they were being pirated left right and center.
So, add macrovision in, and the cost of pirating the movies goes up the price of a Time Base Corrector. No more casual piracy (not that it was all that casual as VCRs cost $500 at that point).
So, what's the result? Pirate movies become more valuable, prices go up, and once the pirates have covered the cost of the Time Base Corrector (perhaps $5,000 back then? I don't know) they're raking it in.
Eventually movie companies realised that the tighter their grip, the more piracy, and the more money pirates would make. Huh? I'm sure you're saying. Pirates don't follow the rules (obviously), so why the hell should they care how much it angers the MPAA when their stuff is pirated? It's like the Black Sunday ECM DirecTV sent down a couple of years ago somewhat earlier to this time... It only served to make sure professional pirates got another boatload of loot getting people back up and running. I know for certain it never stemmed the tide of piracy. If anything, the advertising that the DirecTV signal was infact piratable drove users _away_ from paying for it!
So, they got a clue (the MPAA, certainly NOT DirecTV), figured out what it really costs to dupe a movie, and simply lowered prices to a point where they made money, and made piracy a waste of money.
Of course, just like DMCA of today will likely hang over the head of Americans as a reminder of the bad old days, Macrovision is still with us as nothing more than an anachronism that costs about $20 to defeat. Not that it's really worth even that much to bother.
Any of that sound like a certain other group of people?
It's 2GB, but yes, it is true, HURD is the pinnacle of what happens when you just let people do what the hell they like without any management whatsoever. All you programmers might hate your managers, but honestly, without them, you'd end up with HURD-like projects -- a decade late, and still half a decade to go.
>I can tell you that no filtering rapidly becomes a debauched flophouse of goatse.cx and warez.
Why is that?
My bets are it's because the teachers are being idiots and aren't treating pornography on the internet in the classroom the same way they'd treat a student reading Hustler in class. And the problem is that when there's a filter, the teachers are declawed: Anything they say against it will be met with "Well, why didn't these filters you're supposed to have protect my kids against it?".
>BUT, I know perfectly well that the amount of energy that *I* consume has little or no impact on climate change. So why should *I* pay extra bucks if no-one else will?
The answer is simple: If you happen to be the minority, then it's hard to get your way. Giving in to special interests is what ruins a contry.
It's harsh, but unless you get the majority of people to care about the environment, then it isn't something that the government has any business doing anything about. And if the majority of people care about it, then the problem will cure itself (companies not treating the environment will go out of business naturally because they won't be able to move product).
>It's the old maxim, of "yes, but if we all did that...", but it doesn't work unless if there is a collective effort to stop "doing that", in this case polluting.
But if that collective effort doesn't have the support of the people, then it has no business existing. If I remember my US politics right, "A government for the people, by the people". And if the collective effort does have the support of the people, then the people will make the problem go away.
The only things the government has a business regulating are the types of things that normal market forces can't fix, that threaten the very freedom of society, like the prevention of murder, robbery, etc...
>Experience shows that apart from single-issue consumer boycotts, the "consumer herd" will always go for the product that is the most immediately desirable/affordable, even if they "know" that they "shouldn't be buying this, really".
Sure it shows that. But that's only if you twist the results and take everything presented as a given. For example, if you were to take it as a given that everyone considered the environment a top priority, such as yourself, and that they aren't just feigning interest to get rid of annoying hippies, then you'd be right.
In my opinion, the people, as a whole, don't put the environment on their #1 priority. So, if it isn't all that important to them, then the government should reflect that. If you think that's wrong, it your job to convince others to support you, it _isn't_ your job to force your minority agenda down throats of others. Otherwise, you're no better than companies which do the same.
Sorry if I seem a little overbearing there -- I do support people who want to keep the environment clean, however, it isn't my top priority either, and there's many other issues I would like to see fixed first.
>Between $300 for a really nice 19" CRT and $1,000 for a really nice big LCD monitor, that extra $700, if you have it, will really make you happy in the long run.
Or save $400 by moving nothing at all. Just buy two CRTs. Plus you get to sell one after college.
>So why can't I get a 15", 1400x1050 LCD monitor for 600 dollars or so?
Your laptop has no ADC. Most every consumer LCD display has a VGA input option, and the higher definition you go on the ADC, the harder to build and more expensive it becomes.
Just my guess... Plus, I have a 14.5" (or so) laptop LCD screen that runs at 1600x1200 and people always complain that they can't see anything on it. So, there's also no demand for a better DPI. From my experience (which includes working with a lot of older people) there's actually a _LOT_ of demand for an 800x600 24" screen. Honestly, that's no joke.
Why the hell does nobody make desks like this anymore? Is it because they want your desk to be destroyed in 10 years so you have to buy a new one?
Me, I have a 1968 steel desk, and, know what? If I replaced the melamine and repainted it, it would be just like new!
(BTW: Easy way to solve the space problem. Pull the desk out 1.5 feet (or so) away from the wall. Notice that the stand for the monitor leaves the back 18 inches of the monitor unsupported -- there's no need for that to be hanging over a desk!).
Doing this I would only save about 5 inches of space between me and the monitor with an LCD, not to mention that with the desk further out I can get back there and rewire whenever I feel like it!
There is not a single LCD that can come even close to a CRT in picture quality, resolution, and, most especially, contrast and black levels, if you compare them dollar to dollar.
Unless your space costs $300/sq ft, or your electricity costs something ungodly, or you must have the very best of everything at any cost, I don't see why you would want an LCD.
Well, that's assuming you're going to put it on a desktop system.
But it doesn't surprise me that Sony is going to make another boneheaded move. Tell me again why it is that MD is all but dead in North America?
'Course, during Sprint's rounds they'd have compiled a list of all the hacked modems, and which customers have them, for their network.
So, call them all up and tell them the procedure to reset their modem, let them know they should buy their dose of AntiVirus (or use some magical OS that can't be infected, or get a CS degree...) and there you go. Problem solved.
>If they logged into one of my devices I would do all I could to dig up a law they could be prosecuted under and I'd make sure all the proper Federal agencies got wind of it.
Mmmmm, fresh barratry. Hope you don't actually get an honest (haha) lawyer ensnared into this one.
>Believe it or not, "polling" modems by checking their passwords is hacking
And testing the doorknob on every store on your street is multiple sets of felony B & E, right?
This is why the police wait for the burglar to actually _enter_ the house before charging them (well, actually, if they don't like they guy, they'll wait 'till he exits with an armload of swag), just like they wait for a hacker to _do_ something before charging them with a crime.
If you don't want anyone testing your lock, don't have one in a place they can test it.
>This is all old hat but governments tend to be too scared of being accused of being "anti-business" (or "anti-american";-) ) to actually implement such measures.
Actually, IMHO, governments are too scared of being accused of non-impartiality in these matters.
So, lets see, you tax environmental pollution because people don't like it. How about noise pollution? I know people who had to live next to a factory after the city re-zoned the land. How about smell pollution? Again, I know people who had to live next to a pig farm after the farmer's request to turn his dead hay farm (or whatever it was) into a pig farm.
And what about class pollution? There are some who aren't interested in living near kids (think retirement communities). Should we tax the young whenever they work in a high-tech business near a retirement home?
Heck, what about luddite pollution? There are those who find luddites despiseable, and would never want to live in a luddite community. Yet, especially in California, they keep sprouting up. Should these luddites not be forced to pay a tax as well?
On a more serious note, do we force truckers to pay a tax for the roads their trucks destroy? Do companies and cities that use salt to keep their roads from being snowed over pay a tax to support people with their rust-ridden vehicles?
There's so many taxes you need to implement to do this impartially, you may as well become socialist if that's the intent. The clear way to keep a country Environmentally friendly (or Sound, smell, whatever friendly) is to let people have the freedom to avoid spending money at companies that don't support certain basic values that the people do. That is, if you want to remain capitalist. Not that socialism is a particularly bad thing (there's much worse), it's just that I don't vote for them.;-)
You are clearly mixing up Fixed Assets, Liquid Assets, and Current Assets. Not to mention the differing types of liabilities...
Talk to a first year Accounting student and they'll clearly show you how these factor in. Great things like amortization allow people with mostly fixed assets, such as pretty much everything you mentioned with a $ sign, to pretty much avoid paying taxes.
So, when their accounting is done properly, if they make $15,000 it's the same as you making $35,000. If they have it done properly, that it.
>Linux uses several concepts from the System V design, not the least of which is the Linux init system which is a direct take off of the System V method.
Thank God that my slackware will be left unscathed then!
> However, I could give a shit if a tire company knows that i have their tires on my car.
Neither could I, but the technology to read these tags isn't only something the tire manufacturers have access to, is it?
So, let's see how I could get that precious SSN, credit card numbers, and other goodies from your tire ID:
I set up a covert tire reading station beside the road. I make it look like one of those cable boxes you see at the end of many people's properties. I get your tire ID.
Now, of course, (insert gas company here) has your tire ID for easier billing. I get on the phone with an agent who is less than awake, and con him into giving me your info (phone number, street address, name, DOB). If you don't think that's possible, ask Kevin Mitnick.
Now I have enough to ask for a history of your car, for crashes and liens. I just tell them I'm interested in buying it. No problem. On there, I get your VIN tag and license plate number. Now, with all that official info, all I need is someone a little crooked at the DMV, and bingo! I've got an SSN and License. From there I can get anything I want about you, credit reports, credit card numbers, heck, I bet I could get the deeds to your house screwed up if I was nasty enough!
Sure, I could have walked up to your car and written the plate number and VIN down, but it wouldn't take long for my suspicious activity to be reported, whereas a tire ID tag reader will never be noticed, and even if it was, I doubt there'd be complaints.
Hope that helps explain it to you.
>Put down your copy of 1984 for just a minute and come back to the reality that no one cares unless you are doing something illegal.
Let me bring you back to reality. It ain't just the government you need to worry about. But I suppose you'll consider that a load of bunk. Well, go ahead. It's your life. Live it as you will.
> I totally dismiss your argument that just because there are some people in the country who purposely damage their health, that makes it OK for anyone to
Fine. I won't argue with you then. Actually... if you're just dismissing what I'm saying, I'm adding you to my foes list. No point in listening to someone who won't listen to me, is there? Or do you just dismiss that as irrelevant as well?
Goodbye. Forever, actually, since I have foes at -5, and don't get messaged for posts under 0.
>Maybe smoking should be illegal, but the fact is there are a lot of people out there addicted to it, and giving up smoking is extremely difficult, whereas putting on a seatbelt is a hell of a lot easier.
Bullshit. Old habits die hard and occasionally my dad has forgotten to put on his seatbelt, even now, and he's an ex smoker (who's never looked back).
Now go away. Honestly, you have a fucking weak argument if your best support for it is to dismiss the ideas of others out of hand.
Slashdot Mirror
Stabilant works well, assuming the part is good and the connector is in half-decent shape.
;-)
Basically, I mostly use it on edge connectors of PCBs (for computer cards). I've found this combination gives the best results:
- Use a pink rubber eraser and "erase" any of the worst gunk from the connector. If it's really bad, use an abrasive pen eraser.
- Clean the eraser from the contact with 100% isopropyl alcohol.
- Dry off the alcohol (or let it evaporate) and apply stabilant somewhat liberally with a q-tip.
- Leave the stabilant on the card and insert it, and leave it.
Works like a charm for a lot of things. If I can get some for home I'm going to try it on those worn-out pots in my nice old H/K 430 receiver.
It's really expensive though. Something like $1 per ml so it had better be worth your time using it!
>You're way off base. Rental videos *still* cost in the area of $150.
;-)
Show me where I said they got cheaper for rental companies...
The movie companies simply reworked their agreements, but the macrovision was there originally so people wouldn't copy the rental videos -- when the only price is the rental price (as it was back in the day) then you've got to protect your stuff. Either that or get a clue and start selling at a price people will pay. Sure, it was clear rental companies would pay $150 for a copy, as they'd been doing it for a while, but considering the pathetic number of videos selling for $150 to joe sixpack, video prices for them were lowered to a point the market would bear, which is exactly the solution for RIAA members today.
>It didn't kill off any existing, PAYING users, or even "advertise" the fact that pirates were getting cut off.
It really seems like you're assuming people who watch DirecTV don't read newspapers (I hope I'm wrong).
Here's an article which has links to (now defunct) Associated Press (ie: Every decent newspaper in North America) and MSNBC articles. Sounds to me like it was a bit of an unintentional advertisement of the fact that the DirecTV system was easy to pirate...
>It inconvenienced the pirates in a big way - That was the point, wasn't it? Sure, it may not have been effective long-term, but it certainly put out a lot of moochers, right? And quite a few of those people probably went and screamed at their sources, who had to fork over a good bit of cash for new H-cards (since the old ones were now looped) and figure out work-arounds.
Uhhuh, so, let's say the dealer says "Fuck you" to users that bitch and moan about broken cards. What's the user to do? Phone the police? Put in a report to the BBB? Why not just make the cops job easier and just put the cuffs on before you go in.
Dealers make money when DirecTV ECMs. The bigger the ECM, the more the fix is worth. The more rare the fix, the higher the value of the fix. Add those together and you get one hell of an artificial rise in hacking prices. And if one doesn't want to fork your cash over to DirecTV for those porns that one watches in private, then what's your choice?
And because the higher price is artificially inflated, the extra cost (which can be as high as 10x original price) is pure profit.
>I fail to see where you're going with this. You seem to claim that copy-protection hurts nobody but the regular consumers, which is a claim I'd normally agree with. However, the examples you're citing certainly don't lend much weight to your point.
Here's where I'm going: Dealers make money when their pirating users get ECMed. In the case of Black Sunday, more money than I could make in a year.
If there were no ECMs, and we assume most pirating end-users are too stupid to load the hacks onto their cards, then the dealers sell their stuff once, and that's it. How are they going to make their money? There's no reason for the users to pay the dealer anything if their stuff is working 100%
Anyways, HU cards have a self-destruct bit in them that turns off the ASIC permanently (impossible to repair -- it's a physical fuse, and you can't "skip" over a bad ASIC). Why don't they destroy hacked cards, esepcially considering most the of HUs have been swapped out? Unlike Black Sunday, this isn't difficult. It's just a simple command.
I'd say it's because they learned just a very little from Black Sunday. But not enough, unfortuantely.
To put it simple, increasing your copyright control simply pushes the piracy from the hands of people at the bottom of the chain up to the top of the chain. And the higher it gets, the harder it is to control. And I doubt that's anything like what companies that implement copyright control mechanisms had in mind.
Let's see...
CGA already did composite out, so believing VGA to composite could be done cheaply isn't very hard. In fact, with some tweaking of the card's clock rates (to something _less_) you can get pretty close to TV-Out without massively expensive electronics (even for then).
Next, how much is an external back-pack CD-ROM of now? About $200. A regular CD-ROM? $30. Difference in price? Over 6 times.
Dividing $1200 by 6 we get... $200. Now, I know that CD-ROMs were never that cheap then, but they certainly weren't all that overpriced!
Think again.
:-) Agreed. But what can you expect from a company that makes only one thing?
Not to mention charges as much for it as liquid gold...
Yes, it was Macrovision, and was added to help ensure the movie companies could keep their monopolistic grip on the video rental companies. Back then the price of buying a movie was in the $150 - $200 range. Without macrovision, since nobody in their right mind would pay that price for a movie, they were being pirated left right and center.
So, add macrovision in, and the cost of pirating the movies goes up the price of a Time Base Corrector. No more casual piracy (not that it was all that casual as VCRs cost $500 at that point).
So, what's the result? Pirate movies become more valuable, prices go up, and once the pirates have covered the cost of the Time Base Corrector (perhaps $5,000 back then? I don't know) they're raking it in.
Eventually movie companies realised that the tighter their grip, the more piracy, and the more money pirates would make. Huh? I'm sure you're saying. Pirates don't follow the rules (obviously), so why the hell should they care how much it angers the MPAA when their stuff is pirated? It's like the Black Sunday ECM DirecTV sent down a couple of years ago somewhat earlier to this time... It only served to make sure professional pirates got another boatload of loot getting people back up and running. I know for certain it never stemmed the tide of piracy. If anything, the advertising that the DirecTV signal was infact piratable drove users _away_ from paying for it!
So, they got a clue (the MPAA, certainly NOT DirecTV), figured out what it really costs to dupe a movie, and simply lowered prices to a point where they made money, and made piracy a waste of money.
Of course, just like DMCA of today will likely hang over the head of Americans as a reminder of the bad old days, Macrovision is still with us as nothing more than an anachronism that costs about $20 to defeat. Not that it's really worth even that much to bother.
Any of that sound like a certain other group of people?
And, if that doesn't take care of it, this almost always will. I reccomend type 22A.
It's 2GB, but yes, it is true, HURD is the pinnacle of what happens when you just let people do what the hell they like without any management whatsoever. All you programmers might hate your managers, but honestly, without them, you'd end up with HURD-like projects -- a decade late, and still half a decade to go.
>I can tell you that no filtering rapidly becomes a debauched flophouse of goatse.cx and warez.
Why is that?
My bets are it's because the teachers are being idiots and aren't treating pornography on the internet in the classroom the same way they'd treat a student reading Hustler in class. And the problem is that when there's a filter, the teachers are declawed: Anything they say against it will be met with "Well, why didn't these filters you're supposed to have protect my kids against it?".
Just my opinion...
>BUT, I know perfectly well that the amount of energy that *I* consume has little or no impact on climate change. So why should *I* pay extra bucks if no-one else will?
The answer is simple: If you happen to be the minority, then it's hard to get your way. Giving in to special interests is what ruins a contry.
It's harsh, but unless you get the majority of people to care about the environment, then it isn't something that the government has any business doing anything about. And if the majority of people care about it, then the problem will cure itself (companies not treating the environment will go out of business naturally because they won't be able to move product).
>It's the old maxim, of "yes, but if we all did that...", but it doesn't work unless if there is a collective effort to stop "doing that", in this case polluting.
But if that collective effort doesn't have the support of the people, then it has no business existing. If I remember my US politics right, "A government for the people, by the people". And if the collective effort does have the support of the people, then the people will make the problem go away.
The only things the government has a business regulating are the types of things that normal market forces can't fix, that threaten the very freedom of society, like the prevention of murder, robbery, etc...
>Experience shows that apart from single-issue consumer boycotts, the "consumer herd" will always go for the product that is the most immediately desirable/affordable, even if they "know" that they "shouldn't be buying this, really".
Sure it shows that. But that's only if you twist the results and take everything presented as a given. For example, if you were to take it as a given that everyone considered the environment a top priority, such as yourself, and that they aren't just feigning interest to get rid of annoying hippies, then you'd be right.
In my opinion, the people, as a whole, don't put the environment on their #1 priority. So, if it isn't all that important to them, then the government should reflect that. If you think that's wrong, it your job to convince others to support you, it _isn't_ your job to force your minority agenda down throats of others. Otherwise, you're no better than companies which do the same.
Sorry if I seem a little overbearing there -- I do support people who want to keep the environment clean, however, it isn't my top priority either, and there's many other issues I would like to see fixed first.
>I don't want an ADC, I want DVI input.
I know you do. You're the other person. Here's the first.
The rest of the world (for whatever reason) likes VGA and is sticking to their guns (a pun).
>Between $300 for a really nice 19" CRT and $1,000 for a really nice big LCD monitor, that extra $700, if you have it, will really make you happy in the long run.
Or save $400 by moving nothing at all. Just buy two CRTs. Plus you get to sell one after college.
>So why can't I get a 15", 1400x1050 LCD monitor for 600 dollars or so?
Your laptop has no ADC. Most every consumer LCD display has a VGA input option, and the higher definition you go on the ADC, the harder to build and more expensive it becomes.
Just my guess... Plus, I have a 14.5" (or so) laptop LCD screen that runs at 1600x1200 and people always complain that they can't see anything on it. So, there's also no demand for a better DPI. From my experience (which includes working with a lot of older people) there's actually a _LOT_ of demand for an 800x600 24" screen. Honestly, that's no joke.
Buy a real desk next time.
Why the hell does nobody make desks like this anymore? Is it because they want your desk to be destroyed in 10 years so you have to buy a new one?
Me, I have a 1968 steel desk, and, know what? If I replaced the melamine and repainted it, it would be just like new!
(BTW: Easy way to solve the space problem. Pull the desk out 1.5 feet (or so) away from the wall. Notice that the stand for the monitor leaves the back 18 inches of the monitor unsupported -- there's no need for that to be hanging over a desk!).
Doing this I would only save about 5 inches of space between me and the monitor with an LCD, not to mention that with the desk further out I can get back there and rewire whenever I feel like it!
Hehe, so right.
At least there's truth in advertising, though!
Maybe it's just me, but I've never met a four letter manufacturer I've liked yet: Sony, Yorx, Bose, Nike.
>Reduced eye strain.
Yeah, CRTs are much easier to read. Especially in high ambient light. Good point. I never thought of it!
There is not a single LCD that can come even close to a CRT in picture quality, resolution, and, most especially, contrast and black levels, if you compare them dollar to dollar.
Unless your space costs $300/sq ft, or your electricity costs something ungodly, or you must have the very best of everything at any cost, I don't see why you would want an LCD.
Well, that's assuming you're going to put it on a desktop system.
But it doesn't surprise me that Sony is going to make another boneheaded move. Tell me again why it is that MD is all but dead in North America?
'Course, during Sprint's rounds they'd have compiled a list of all the hacked modems, and which customers have them, for their network.
So, call them all up and tell them the procedure to reset their modem, let them know they should buy their dose of AntiVirus (or use some magical OS that can't be infected, or get a CS degree...) and there you go. Problem solved.
>I did NOT give them permission to access my network.
Hey everybody! WE FOUND AL GORE!
>If they logged into one of my devices I would do all I could to dig up a law they could be prosecuted under and I'd make sure all the proper Federal agencies got wind of it.
Mmmmm, fresh barratry. Hope you don't actually get an honest (haha) lawyer ensnared into this one.
>Believe it or not, "polling" modems by checking their passwords is hacking
And testing the doorknob on every store on your street is multiple sets of felony B & E, right?
This is why the police wait for the burglar to actually _enter_ the house before charging them (well, actually, if they don't like they guy, they'll wait 'till he exits with an armload of swag), just like they wait for a hacker to _do_ something before charging them with a crime.
If you don't want anyone testing your lock, don't have one in a place they can test it.
>This is all old hat but governments tend to be too scared of being accused of being "anti-business" (or "anti-american" ;-) ) to actually implement such measures.
;-)
Actually, IMHO, governments are too scared of being accused of non-impartiality in these matters.
So, lets see, you tax environmental pollution because people don't like it. How about noise pollution? I know people who had to live next to a factory after the city re-zoned the land. How about smell pollution? Again, I know people who had to live next to a pig farm after the farmer's request to turn his dead hay farm (or whatever it was) into a pig farm.
And what about class pollution? There are some who aren't interested in living near kids (think retirement communities). Should we tax the young whenever they work in a high-tech business near a retirement home?
Heck, what about luddite pollution? There are those who find luddites despiseable, and would never want to live in a luddite community. Yet, especially in California, they keep sprouting up. Should these luddites not be forced to pay a tax as well?
On a more serious note, do we force truckers to pay a tax for the roads their trucks destroy? Do companies and cities that use salt to keep their roads from being snowed over pay a tax to support people with their rust-ridden vehicles?
There's so many taxes you need to implement to do this impartially, you may as well become socialist if that's the intent. The clear way to keep a country Environmentally friendly (or Sound, smell, whatever friendly) is to let people have the freedom to avoid spending money at companies that don't support certain basic values that the people do. That is, if you want to remain capitalist. Not that socialism is a particularly bad thing (there's much worse), it's just that I don't vote for them.
You are clearly mixing up Fixed Assets, Liquid Assets, and Current Assets. Not to mention the differing types of liabilities...
Talk to a first year Accounting student and they'll clearly show you how these factor in. Great things like amortization allow people with mostly fixed assets, such as pretty much everything you mentioned with a $ sign, to pretty much avoid paying taxes.
So, when their accounting is done properly, if they make $15,000 it's the same as you making $35,000. If they have it done properly, that it.
>Linux uses several concepts from the System V design, not the least of which is the Linux init system which is a direct take off of the System V method.
Thank God that my slackware will be left unscathed then!
> However, I could give a shit if a tire company knows that i have their tires on my car.
Neither could I, but the technology to read these tags isn't only something the tire manufacturers have access to, is it?
So, let's see how I could get that precious SSN, credit card numbers, and other goodies from your tire ID:
I set up a covert tire reading station beside the road. I make it look like one of those cable boxes you see at the end of many people's properties. I get your tire ID.
Now, of course, (insert gas company here) has your tire ID for easier billing. I get on the phone with an agent who is less than awake, and con him into giving me your info (phone number, street address, name, DOB). If you don't think that's possible, ask Kevin Mitnick.
Now I have enough to ask for a history of your car, for crashes and liens. I just tell them I'm interested in buying it. No problem. On there, I get your VIN tag and license plate number. Now, with all that official info, all I need is someone a little crooked at the DMV, and bingo! I've got an SSN and License. From there I can get anything I want about you, credit reports, credit card numbers, heck, I bet I could get the deeds to your house screwed up if I was nasty enough!
Sure, I could have walked up to your car and written the plate number and VIN down, but it wouldn't take long for my suspicious activity to be reported, whereas a tire ID tag reader will never be noticed, and even if it was, I doubt there'd be complaints.
Hope that helps explain it to you.
>Put down your copy of 1984 for just a minute and come back to the reality that no one cares unless you are doing something illegal.
Let me bring you back to reality. It ain't just the government you need to worry about. But I suppose you'll consider that a load of bunk. Well, go ahead. It's your life. Live it as you will.
Kia is the crappiest from that list, eh?
;-)
You obviously haven't enjoyed quality Soviet Russia Lada brand engineering, have you?
Now there's the pinnacle in disposable cars!
> I totally dismiss your argument that just because there are some people in the country who purposely damage their health, that makes it OK for anyone to
Fine. I won't argue with you then. Actually... if you're just dismissing what I'm saying, I'm adding you to my foes list. No point in listening to someone who won't listen to me, is there? Or do you just dismiss that as irrelevant as well?
Goodbye. Forever, actually, since I have foes at -5, and don't get messaged for posts under 0.
>Maybe smoking should be illegal, but the fact is there are a lot of people out there addicted to it, and giving up smoking is extremely difficult, whereas putting on a seatbelt is a hell of a lot easier.
Bullshit. Old habits die hard and occasionally my dad has forgotten to put on his seatbelt, even now, and he's an ex smoker (who's never looked back).
Now go away. Honestly, you have a fucking weak argument if your best support for it is to dismiss the ideas of others out of hand.