Quoted from the story, "Twenty years ago, it was inconvenient to have a brownout. It's a killer in the silicon economy. It's blue-screen death."
Ok, I don't mind catchy phrases like, "the cat's out of the bag," but this is awful. Are we going to start hearing that something "blue-screened" when it breaks? My car blue-screened, My refridgerator blue screened. Someone hit a ball through my window, and blue-screened my glass.
Personally I prefer Klipsch. For the money, they're great. For $600?/pair, I got two awesome front speakers. They have a 15" sub in the back, and a 12" sub in the front, there's no need to get a powered subwoofer. Klipsch speakers have, in my opinion, the best midrange horn in the market.
If you have some cash, get a Nakamichi receiver. If not, get a good(middle to top of the line) Pioneer, Sony or JVC receiver.
I personally like my speaker setup, 4 Klipsch in the livingroom, 2 in the bedroom, and 2 in the bathroom(flushmount in the ceiling). I have a nice switchbox that allows me to control the volume on each set, turn on/off each set, individually. I think it was about $120.
Hope it helps,
Justin
P.S. The bathroom speakers are not optional. I was just turning up the livingroom speakers to hear when I was in the shower, but the neighbors started complaining. I live in a house, they're next door.
My AP Exam taught me everything I ever needed to know about Programming. It was in Pascal and had questions about The Large Integer Case Study. No questions about pointers, linked lists, queues, stacks or any other abstract datatype were on the test. Why do you need those????
ok, wait a second...let's think about this logically...
An e-commerce site PAYS for it's internet connection. Say it happens to come from AT&T, then AT&T is already getting their money from the e-commerce site. Isn't that why a site would pay for a connection? So they can have people come to their site?
Another point of view...The customer has a connection from Blah.net, therefore they pay Blah.net to use the internet. Blah.net buy's their bandwidth from AT&T. The customer is still indirectly paying for their RIGHT to access/buy something from Foo.com.
I don't see what their problem is. If AT&T isn't making enough money, then for god's sake, they should raise the price for their Modem/ISDN/Cable/High Bandwidth Customers.
The people that are paying for an internet connection are paying for exactly that. They are paying to access the INTERNET.
Just think about how life would be if you had to pay extra, above and beyond, everytime you made a sale over the phone. Do you pay restraunts money(besides for a meal), when you make a business deal over lunch? How about meeting for business at Starbucks? Do I pay Logitech a monthly bill when I type up an Invoice? Wait a minute, who own's the "air" with which we use to speak?
I'd rather this come to a close much sooner. I think Gates and Jackson should have a dual to settle this thing once and for all. I know that won't happen, so I guess I'll have to watch Gates shoot himself in the foot during the next few months in court.
A bank gets robbed. The guy gets away with 5 million dollars. You DON'T sue the State Board of Transportation for creating the highways. You have police/fbi to hunt them down for you. That's the way the system works. If you know where he is, tell the PROPER authorities, don't waste others time and money because you're too lazy to do the damn job on your own.
Linking to a site that has illegal content should be illegal. I understand how it shouldn't be illegal to link in some instances(i.e. Search Engines, Links pointing to a page with information on it, but it also contains illegal content, News Stories, etc. But the point they are trying to make is that it's not just illegal to share copyrighted software/music, but it's also illegal to tell someone where to find it(i.e. linking). This should really be a case by case issue, depending on how the person provided the links, decides whether or not they are guilty.
Under no circumstances should the RIAA be able to censor a website by harassing the ISP into shutting the site down without hearing the owner's side, but unfortunatly the laws are already in place, and people are already being affected. This is the battle we should be fighting, not whether or not we can blatently link to a known illegal site about.
Ok, here it is. Linking to a site that has illegal content should be illegal. I understand how it shouldn't be illegal to link in some instances(i.e. Search Engines, Links pointing to a page with information on it, but it also contains illegal content, News Stories, etc. But the point they are trying to make is that it's not just illegal to share copyrighted software/music, but it's also illegal to tell someone where to find it(i.e. linking). This should really be a case by case issue, depending on how the person provided the links, decides whether or not they are guilty. Under no circumstances should the RIAA be able to censor a website by harassing the ISP into shutting the site down without hearing the owner's side, but unfortunatly the laws are already in place, and people are already being affected. This is the battle we should be fighting, not whether or not we can blatently link to a known illegal site about. Thank you for your time Justin
I know how the DMCA works. I just think it is so very low of microsoft to notify the ISP of/.
"Dear Internet Service Provider: " taken from their original letter.
Now why not hit the nail on the head? Why go behind/.'s back? Is this what the internet has turned into? Come on now, why don't they say it to their face? Who's the coward, hiding behind money(i.e. power)?
Hey guys, I just wanted to let ya'll know that I can't get www.slashdot.org to come up on IE5. It works fine from Netscape on the same computer. I know this is flamebait but oh well.
Slashdot Mirror
Quoted from the story, "Twenty years ago, it was inconvenient to have a brownout. It's a killer in the silicon economy. It's blue-screen death."
Ok, I don't mind catchy phrases like, "the cat's out of the bag," but this is awful. Are we going to start hearing that something "blue-screened" when it breaks? My car blue-screened, My refridgerator blue screened. Someone hit a ball through my window, and blue-screened my glass.
Personally I prefer Klipsch. For the money, they're great. For $600?/pair, I got two awesome front speakers. They have a 15" sub in the back, and a 12" sub in the front, there's no need to get a powered subwoofer. Klipsch speakers have, in my opinion, the best midrange horn in the market.
If you have some cash, get a Nakamichi receiver. If not, get a good(middle to top of the line) Pioneer, Sony or JVC receiver.
I personally like my speaker setup, 4 Klipsch in the livingroom, 2 in the bedroom, and 2 in the bathroom(flushmount in the ceiling). I have a nice switchbox that allows me to control the volume on each set, turn on/off each set, individually. I think it was about $120.
Hope it helps,
Justin
P.S. The bathroom speakers are not optional. I was just turning up the livingroom speakers to hear when I was in the shower, but the neighbors started complaining. I live in a house, they're next door.
Didn't anyone read this Slashdot Article? According to it, we can hunt the guy down.
I propose we cram 10 pounds of spam up his ass and close it off with a cork. Make him jog 5 miles, and then turn him over to the authorities.
Have fun,
Justin
My AP Exam taught me everything I ever needed to know about Programming. It was in Pascal and had questions about The Large Integer Case Study. No questions about pointers, linked lists, queues, stacks or any other abstract datatype were on the test. Why do you need those????
An e-commerce site PAYS for it's internet connection. Say it happens to come from AT&T, then AT&T is already getting their money from the e-commerce site. Isn't that why a site would pay for a connection? So they can have people come to their site?
Another point of view...The customer has a connection from Blah.net, therefore they pay Blah.net to use the internet. Blah.net buy's their bandwidth from AT&T. The customer is still indirectly paying for their RIGHT to access/buy something from Foo.com.
I don't see what their problem is. If AT&T isn't making enough money, then for god's sake, they should raise the price for their Modem/ISDN/Cable/High Bandwidth Customers.
The people that are paying for an internet connection are paying for exactly that. They are paying to access the INTERNET.
Just think about how life would be if you had to pay extra, above and beyond, everytime you made a sale over the phone. Do you pay restraunts money(besides for a meal), when you make a business deal over lunch? How about meeting for business at Starbucks? Do I pay Logitech a monthly bill when I type up an Invoice? Wait a minute, who own's the "air" with which we use to speak?
Obsurd ain't it?
Oh well,
Justin
--Justin
Good point.
Ok, here it is.
Linking to a site that has illegal content should be illegal. I understand how it shouldn't be illegal to link in some instances(i.e. Search Engines, Links pointing to a page with information on it, but it also contains illegal content, News Stories, etc. But the point they are trying to make is that it's not just illegal to share copyrighted software/music, but it's also illegal to tell someone where to find it(i.e. linking). This should really be a case by case issue, depending on how the person provided the links, decides whether or not they are guilty.
Under no circumstances should the RIAA be able to censor a website by harassing the ISP into shutting the site down without hearing the owner's side, but unfortunatly the laws are already in place, and people are already being affected. This is the battle we should be fighting, not whether or not we can blatently link to a known illegal site about.
Thank you for your time
Justin
Ok, here it is. Linking to a site that has illegal content should be illegal. I understand how it shouldn't be illegal to link in some instances(i.e. Search Engines, Links pointing to a page with information on it, but it also contains illegal content, News Stories, etc. But the point they are trying to make is that it's not just illegal to share copyrighted software/music, but it's also illegal to tell someone where to find it(i.e. linking). This should really be a case by case issue, depending on how the person provided the links, decides whether or not they are guilty. Under no circumstances should the RIAA be able to censor a website by harassing the ISP into shutting the site down without hearing the owner's side, but unfortunatly the laws are already in place, and people are already being affected. This is the battle we should be fighting, not whether or not we can blatently link to a known illegal site about. Thank you for your time Justin
I know how the DMCA works. I just think it is so very low of microsoft to notify the ISP of /.
/.'s back? Is this what the internet has turned into? Come on now, why don't they say it to their face? Who's the coward, hiding behind money(i.e. power)?
"Dear Internet Service Provider: " taken from their original letter.
Now why not hit the nail on the head? Why go behind
Hey guys, I just wanted to let ya'll know that I can't get www.slashdot.org to come up on IE5. It works fine from Netscape on the same computer. I know this is flamebait but oh well.