Enough with the goddamn soapbox already. It's someone having fun with an annoying toy. Everyone's too uptight and easily offended these days.
If you wanna hug a tree and save the whales, fine. Go hug a tree and save a whale and quit bitching about a toy being destroyed
Good way to stay impartial and not single out one canidate! Your unbiased views never cease to amaze me. I like how you never try to sway a converstaion one way or the other.
Now we'll have some people sitting there staring at their beautiful new active matrix LCD going, "How do I click the mouse?" and "Why did my screen turn blue with pretty white text?"
Not everyone is computer savvy, I don't think it's a good idea to require someone to own a laptop if they don't know how to use it.
They've been noticing more instances of brain cancer in the area where a cell phone's antena is next to the head, often times in the general shape of the antena.
"IMHO, most of the problem lies not with the 2nd amendment, but with the profiteering bottom-feeders who continue to manufacture huge quantities of inexpensive and very dangerous weaponry, and who, when confronted with the staggering human cost of their unabashed greed, respond with feeble "we were only filling a market void," as though profits, when high enough, can justify all the deaths."
So bascially you're saying that affordable sidearms are the cause of violent crimes. The idea of outlawing guns unless they're expensive is reprehensible. A woman who eats inexpensive food and drives an inexpensive car doesn't lose her right to protect her family because she
can only afford an inexpensive gun.
Please don't blame the gun compaines or guns themselves for crimes. Blame the criminals. If it wasn't a with a gun, a criminal would find some other creative way to kill someone. Where there's a will, there's a way.
These people even go so far as to state that the last line of the 2nd Amendment, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." means that gun owners should be free of any regulation or gun control at all.
I am 100% in favor of crime control. I am not in favor of the government disarming the public. You keep touting how firearms take lives. The primary purpose of a firearm is to save lives. If someone breaks into my home I will use whatever force is necessary to make sure they are no longer a danger to my family. Criminals will always have access to guns, when you remove the ability of an honest citizen to protect themselves you make life a lot easier for a criminal.
I would definitely think twice before breaking into someone's house if I knew there was a distinct posibility that there would be a loaded firearm pointed at me once I was inside. Why do you think home invasions are so high in Canada and Australia? I personally know someone in Canada that has been the victim of a home invasion three times in an upscale neighborhood! Criminals have no fear of an unarmed populous.
They clearly fail to realise that they have mis-interpreted the meaning of the 2nd Amendment, using it in such a way as to satisfy their child like need to own a lethal firearm.
I take my responsibility to protect myself and my loved ones from dangerous criminals that would put them at risk very seriously. The most effective way to do that is to arm myself with the best weapon suited for this job. By owning a firearm I am prepared to save the lives of honest citizens and loved ones. I may never need to, and I hope I will never have to, but I am prepared.
What's with this "lethal firearm" crap? Of course a firearm is lethal. The lethality of my firearm is directly proportional to it's ability to protect and save the lives of honest people. Lethality is the quality of a gun that makes it useful as a crime-stopping, life-saving, defensive tool. Caliber and capacity restrictions reduce lethality and my ability to save myself or a loved one from becoming the victim of a violent crime. Reducing lethality costs lives. Why should police need more capacity than me, when we both face the same criminals?
Guns are dangerous. They're supposed to be dangerous. They wouldn't be any good if they weren't dangerous. Anything that makes them less
dangerous by reducing lethality puts honest people at unacceptable risk.
They choose to ignore the overwhelming statistics that show that gun related accidents, including those that resulted in death, are exponentially higher in the United States of America, than in countries with sensible gun control policies.
Of course the United States has higher ammounts of reported accidents then a country that has made it almost impossible for an honest citizen to own firearm. That's basic arithmetic. I am all in favor of laws that encourage gun safety training and responsible firearms ownership, as opposed to repressive laws that criminalize honest gun ownership and infringe on civil rights. We need more gun saftey, not fewer guns.
The United States does not need any more anti-gun laws. Everything criminal about guns and more is already illegal.
Some people would like nothing more than to have the general populous disarmed and the only people in possession of firearms to be government agents. There is a word for this type of agenda. Communisim.
You're absolutely right. I'd rather have someone like Bush as president that will take control and do what's right than someone like Gore that will lie any time he feels it will gain him acceptance.
Gore said he created the internet. Lie.
When he visited union workers while campaigning he said his mother used to sing him 'the union song' at bedtime. He was 27 when the union song was written. That also was a lie.
In the first debate he told a tear jerking story of a poor girl that had to stand during her class at school. Later the teacher said that was for one day because the room was full of new equipment they had bought. Gore's claim was once again a lie.
Gore said during the first debate in response to Bush telling how he provided aide to the flood victims in Texas that he also visited the flood victims. While it was true he was in Texas, he never went to see the victims. This claim was also proven to be a lie.
Now, both candidates have proven they don't understand the internet. So what? Given their views on the other issues and Gore's childish tendancy to lie whenever he feels it will give him brownie points, Bush is the only logical choice for me.
Well, if there's nothing legal to do we can always take it into our own hands and by everyone visiting their site we can bring the now infamous SlasDoS down upon them. >:)
This sounds a lot like the digital cable radio that some cable companies offer. I personally don't like it, the lack of D.J.'s make it dull and the lack of good music makes it duller.:P
I predict that some group will prosecute a handfull of people and try to use the publicity to scare "pirates" into stop using services like Napster or Gnutella.
Remember when the BSA (Business Software Alliance) camped out in an IRC warez channel and had about 20 kids raided? I think that some people are going to be taken to court and made examples of. (Not like it's going to stop anyone, peer-to-peer file sharing has become too mainstream to stop now. These people need to realize that and find a way to make it work for them instead of fighting it tooth and nail.)
>In the US, in 1985, records cost $10. Now in the >US in 2000, CD's cost $15. Inflation in the past >15 years has been about 50%. Which makes the >cost exactly on target.
Correct. Albums were overpriced back then, and they still are today. It costs the record companies what, at most $2 to create a CD? Their proffit margin is rediculous.
>Nobody has a problem paying $10 for a movie >(which is temporary pleasure), but whine about >paying $15 for a CD (a lifetime of listening >pleasure).
Funny you should mention that. I do have a problem with theater's rediculous prices. You know what I do? Instead of going to the theater, I dowload the movie in.ASF or.MPG format a couple days after its release.
Back when VHS first came out the MPAA was complaining that it would lead to movie piracy. Back then a single movie on VHS was upwards of $100, what did people do? One person would buy a tape, then hook their VCR into their friend's VCR and run off a few copies. Slowly VHS prices started coming down. Now that a VHS movie is $14.99 it's not worth people's time to make copies. The same goes for albums, when the prices become reasonable people (say... $4.99?) it won't be worth your time to download and burn a full album.
It's too late for MicroSoft to stop it. If they pull one link to the PDF down 20 more will spring up. It's like what happened with IRCNews.com and the GeorgeK mirrors. Once it gets out in the open they can't squash it.
This is just another example of Microsoft trying to get their foot in the door. Linux is cutting into their market share and they're not too happy about it. This is like Microsoft bundling IE with windows. They're trying to keep a hold on their windows users even after they've moved on to Linux. If I want to run Windows in VMWare, then I'll install VMWare and then install windows. I don't want to have an OS forced upon me.
I do have to say, digital service is sometimes a pain. You get a short "lag" for whatever reason, and on a cloudy day you tend to get an echo of yourself. However, it's hard to even get an analog phone anymore. They're being faded out very quickly and are already a thing of the past. I have a Nokia 6120 (a $300 fone I got for free:D) and I absolutly love it. Go with Nokia, doesn't matter what model you choose.
Slashdot Mirror
Enough with the goddamn soapbox already. It's someone having fun with an annoying toy. Everyone's too uptight and easily offended these days.
If you wanna hug a tree and save the whales, fine. Go hug a tree and save a whale and quit bitching about a toy being destroyed
_______
The hard transfer limit for this user has been reached
The wonderous power of Slashdot!
That's a beautiful sight.
_______
Good way to stay impartial and not single out one canidate! Your unbiased views never cease to amaze me. I like how you never try to sway a converstaion one way or the other.
_______
Now we'll have some people sitting there staring at their beautiful new active matrix LCD going, "How do I click the mouse?" and "Why did my screen turn blue with pretty white text?" Not everyone is computer savvy, I don't think it's a good idea to require someone to own a laptop if they don't know how to use it.
_______
Microsoft will buy the world. If that doesn't end the world as we know it I don't know what would.
_______
They've been noticing more instances of brain cancer in the area where a cell phone's antena is next to the head, often times in the general shape of the antena.
_______
So bascially you're saying that affordable sidearms are the cause of violent crimes. The idea of outlawing guns unless they're expensive is reprehensible. A woman who eats inexpensive food and drives an inexpensive car doesn't lose her right to protect her family because she can only afford an inexpensive gun.
Please don't blame the gun compaines or guns themselves for crimes. Blame the criminals. If it wasn't a with a gun, a criminal would find some other creative way to kill someone. Where there's a will, there's a way.
_______
I am 100% in favor of crime control. I am not in favor of the government disarming the public. You keep touting how firearms take lives. The primary purpose of a firearm is to save lives. If someone breaks into my home I will use whatever force is necessary to make sure they are no longer a danger to my family. Criminals will always have access to guns, when you remove the ability of an honest citizen to protect themselves you make life a lot easier for a criminal.
I would definitely think twice before breaking into someone's house if I knew there was a distinct posibility that there would be a loaded firearm pointed at me once I was inside. Why do you think home invasions are so high in Canada and Australia? I personally know someone in Canada that has been the victim of a home invasion three times in an upscale neighborhood! Criminals have no fear of an unarmed populous.
They clearly fail to realise that they have mis-interpreted the meaning of the 2nd Amendment, using it in such a way as to satisfy their child like need to own a lethal firearm.
I take my responsibility to protect myself and my loved ones from dangerous criminals that would put them at risk very seriously. The most effective way to do that is to arm myself with the best weapon suited for this job. By owning a firearm I am prepared to save the lives of honest citizens and loved ones. I may never need to, and I hope I will never have to, but I am prepared.
What's with this "lethal firearm" crap? Of course a firearm is lethal. The lethality of my firearm is directly proportional to it's ability to protect and save the lives of honest people. Lethality is the quality of a gun that makes it useful as a crime-stopping, life-saving, defensive tool. Caliber and capacity restrictions reduce lethality and my ability to save myself or a loved one from becoming the victim of a violent crime. Reducing lethality costs lives. Why should police need more capacity than me, when we both face the same criminals?
Guns are dangerous. They're supposed to be dangerous. They wouldn't be any good if they weren't dangerous. Anything that makes them less dangerous by reducing lethality puts honest people at unacceptable risk.
They choose to ignore the overwhelming statistics that show that gun related accidents, including those that resulted in death, are exponentially higher in the United States of America, than in countries with sensible gun control policies.
Of course the United States has higher ammounts of reported accidents then a country that has made it almost impossible for an honest citizen to own firearm. That's basic arithmetic. I am all in favor of laws that encourage gun safety training and responsible firearms ownership, as opposed to repressive laws that criminalize honest gun ownership and infringe on civil rights. We need more gun saftey, not fewer guns.
The United States does not need any more anti-gun laws. Everything criminal about guns and more is already illegal.
Some people would like nothing more than to have the general populous disarmed and the only people in possession of firearms to be government agents. There is a word for this type of agenda. Communisim.
_______
Gore said he created the internet. Lie.
When he visited union workers while campaigning he said his mother used to sing him 'the union song' at bedtime. He was 27 when the union song was written. That also was a lie.
In the first debate he told a tear jerking story of a poor girl that had to stand during her class at school. Later the teacher said that was for one day because the room was full of new equipment they had bought. Gore's claim was once again a lie.
Gore said during the first debate in response to Bush telling how he provided aide to the flood victims in Texas that he also visited the flood victims. While it was true he was in Texas, he never went to see the victims. This claim was also proven to be a lie.
Now, both candidates have proven they don't understand the internet. So what? Given their views on the other issues and Gore's childish tendancy to lie whenever he feels it will give him brownie points, Bush is the only logical choice for me.
Character DOES matter!
_______
Nice way to be impartial jamie. I like how you slanted your view against Bush instead of just reporting the facts. Keep up the good work.
_______
No, they were not hackers, they were crackers. White hat crackers if you will. :)
_______
An AUP is an Acceptable Useage Policy
_______
Look for DC coming to a FuckedCompany website near you!
_______
Well, if there's nothing legal to do we can always take it into our own hands and by everyone visiting their site we can bring the now infamous SlasDoS down upon them. >:)
_______
I'll add my two cents in with this in-depth discussion, and go for the publicity stunt option.
_______
Does anyone have some links to third party windows or linux software for the cuecat?
My grandfather was killed in a German concentration camp. He fell out of a guard tower.
_______
The MP3 header is in binary, so of course you're not going to be able to just read it straight off the wire and say "Hey look! There's the header!"
This will be great for projects like FreeNet, Gnutella, Napster, or any other form of data transferral that someone might want to prosecute you over.
This sounds a lot like the digital cable radio that some cable companies offer. I personally don't like it, the lack of D.J.'s make it dull and the lack of good music makes it duller. :P
We Want Jack Daniels?
I predict that some group will prosecute a handfull of people and try to use the publicity to scare "pirates" into stop using services like Napster or Gnutella.
Remember when the BSA (Business Software Alliance) camped out in an IRC warez channel and had about 20 kids raided? I think that some people are going to be taken to court and made examples of. (Not like it's going to stop anyone, peer-to-peer file sharing has become too mainstream to stop now. These people need to realize that and find a way to make it work for them instead of fighting it tooth and nail.)
>In the US, in 1985, records cost $10. Now in the
.ASF or .MPG format a couple days after its release.
>US in 2000, CD's cost $15. Inflation in the past
>15 years has been about 50%. Which makes the
>cost exactly on target.
Correct. Albums were overpriced back then, and they still are today. It costs the record companies what, at most $2 to create a CD? Their proffit margin is rediculous.
>Nobody has a problem paying $10 for a movie
>(which is temporary pleasure), but whine about
>paying $15 for a CD (a lifetime of listening
>pleasure).
Funny you should mention that. I do have a problem with theater's rediculous prices. You know what I do? Instead of going to the theater, I dowload the movie in
Back when VHS first came out the MPAA was complaining that it would lead to movie piracy. Back then a single movie on VHS was upwards of $100, what did people do? One person would buy a tape, then hook their VCR into their friend's VCR and run off a few copies. Slowly VHS prices started coming down. Now that a VHS movie is $14.99 it's not worth people's time to make copies. The same goes for albums, when the prices become reasonable people (say... $4.99?) it won't be worth your time to download and burn a full album.
- WD_40
I recently held an animal rights barbecue
It's too late for MicroSoft to stop it. If they pull one link to the PDF down 20 more will spring up. It's like what happened with IRCNews.com and the GeorgeK mirrors. Once it gets out in the open they can't squash it.
This is just another example of Microsoft trying to get their foot in the door. Linux is cutting into their market share and they're not too happy about it. This is like Microsoft bundling IE with windows. They're trying to keep a hold on their windows users even after they've moved on to Linux. If I want to run Windows in VMWare, then I'll install VMWare and then install windows. I don't want to have an OS forced upon me.
I do have to say, digital service is sometimes a pain. You get a short "lag" for whatever reason, and on a cloudy day you tend to get an echo of yourself. However, it's hard to even get an analog phone anymore. They're being faded out very quickly and are already a thing of the past. I have a Nokia 6120 (a $300 fone I got for free :D) and I absolutly love it. Go with Nokia, doesn't matter what model you choose.