If all the technical specs of each cpu, including cache, FSB, pipeline, etc were all displayed on the packaging, it wouldn't matter what the product was called, because you're taking the time to read the packaging anyway.
Great, then you should have no trouble telling me which of these two processors is better:
2.4 GHz x86
2.4 GHz x86
I'll make it easy for you and say the 2.4 GHz x86 is a Celeron D with a 533 MHz FSB and 256K L2 cache and the 2.4 GHz x86 is an Athlon 64 FX-53 with a 1 GHz HT bus speed and 1 MB of L2 cache. We can also throw in three different Pentium 4s, an Opteron, a couple more Celerons, but hey, I don't need to tell you that, right? You already know which is which, remember?
The difference between getting a copy of the SAM database and installing a keystroke logger is huge. Namely, I can copy your SAM database without changing a single thing on your system. Installing a keystroke logger would require a service to be sure the password's picked up, and would alter your system.
While you're right that they have bigger problems if someone has that kind of access to their systems, simply saying "Hey, you're fucked if someone's that close to your box" is not very helpful as there are varying levels of being fucked, and sometimes the worst kind of fucking is when you don't even know someone's fucked you.
Now, do you have any sources to prove the original accusation?
I'm not interested in pursuing it to prove a point to a slashbot that isn't willing to change his mind anyway. So take from that what you will: I concede; you're right; I'm wrong; I'm dumb; you're smart; I can't prove it; everything you say is right.
And until I hear George W Bush say he didn't snort coke, it's all just a load of crap that he didn't.
What is being done is that people are trying to get information to overseas voters as best they can. There have been issues at embassies with people trying to get information to vote. You don't need to wait to hear personally from a soldier that they can't vote. It happens. It is happening. It is real. And your line of "Ahh, that shit isn't real until I see it myself!" is a great attitude. You're essentially saying that, without weighing the merits of someone's objection, we should discount that objection because you haven't heard about it yourself.
Why don't we just wait until after the election to deal with problems voters are having? Seems like a great idea, since there's a total of two and a half months until the president has to be sworn in, by law. Let's wait even longer!
Don't get me wrong, both the DNC and RNC are completely corrupt and neither has any qualms about breaking a few laws to get their person in office. It's my opinion that the GOP is more egregious in their violations than the Democrats, though.
I'd personally never vote for a Democratic president unless I felt the impetus to save the future of the country from what I think is a horrible path that the present GOP elite have set us on. Jobless hippies and right-wing gun-nuts be damned, I believe George W Bush is a criminal and should be ejected from office and prosecuted for what he's done. That's an opinion I formed for myself.
Since this statement is completely false, I'll take it to mean you're an idiot without much to contribute, but we'll see what the rest of what you have to say is true. http://www.gwcollegedemocrats.com/deadlines.htm
Do you have a source for this? Perhaps where people filed suit against Florida (or anyone else) in 2000 to describe how their votes were not counted?
It took me about two seconds to find a story on it:
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/LAW/11/16/in.the.cour t.01/. It's got a fair amount of information on lawsuits regarding the election. The fact that you're incredulous about the possibility of illegal activities taking place in the Florida election kind of amazes me, but I might be misreading you.
So the fact that democrats keep trying to keep Nader off the ballot and Military personel from voting make up an insignificant ammount?
Nope, not at all. I think that both parties are horribly corrupt and do all sorts of illegal things at this time. But when it's republicans fighting tooth and nail to stop ballots from being counted outside the proper precinct, I really start to stand up. The point of election reform in the post 2000 election world was supposed to be REFORM. The argument boils down to a dry mass of "We, the GOP, do not want votes to be counted because of a technicality. We think that people who fail to pay enough attention to how they cast their ballots don't deserve to cast one. Oh, and we'll go to federal court to make SURE your vote doesn't count."
You make a good point, but this season it appears, to me, that the republican party is up to the worst tricks.
I realized after I posted that we have 100,000+ in Iraq alone. My mistake, and thanks for the numbers on the UK; I'm curious about how many of those people are eligible to vote, then how many are registered, then how many actually vote.
In a time where 537 votes makes ALL the difference, the ten-thousand plus Americans overseas certainly do not consider themselves a statistically negligible group. Your feelings may vary.
Granted, it's primarily Republicans that are fighting to ensure that not all the votes counted, as they did in 2000 when they argued before the Supreme Court that racially marginalized populations don't deserve to have their votes counted (being too brown, and all), but it's not at all inconceivable that someone overseas might not know how to vote and might need to find out how to vote. While they can, of course, search for the information on Google and check out cached pages and do a reverse DNS over IP doubleback-traceroute off a proxy server in Malaysia to get to the information they need, chances are they are not as computer savvy as your average slashbot (though certainly more worldly, as you've pointed out). In fact, there is undoubtedly someone out there that can only guess at where they might go, and it certainly seems to the layperson that the candidates that want your vote might have information on how to vote on their webpages. Guessing http://www.georgewbush.com/ is a lot easier than guessing http://www.eac.gov/register_vote_forms.asp.
Of course, if people overseas can't get to the cesspool of lies that is georgewbush.com, they're more likely to go to the mildly festering swamp of lies and revealing truths at http://www.johnkerry.com/, or preferably the amusing and admirable http://www.georgewbush.org/. Either way, it's a step in the right direction (or at least shorter strides in the wrong one).
I agree. I paid for their custom dyndns service several years ago, which was a one-time $30 donation to their company and received free life-time (of me or the company, I wonder) custom dyndns.
Granted, I never used it for high traffic things, but running my own email and webserver I never noticed any issues, with services provided at random times of the day and night. My guess, then, is that they have a pretty good stability/uptime record.
What it comes down to, though, is that they've been around for a very, very long time, they're the de facto standard, and for a long time much of what they did was out of an idea that it would be a helpful service for people; the money came later. They're a good and honest company from all my dealings and readings.
Corporations can get it at $150 or so, or maybe even less depending on the number of licenses, but it is still not cheap by a long shot
My company employs about 18,600 people, and we get Windows XP licenses (not upgrades) for $53. There are only about 5,000 computers. I don't know where you get your information, but mine's first hand.
That's a great cop out. Used millions of times throughout history but never as much as on the Internet.
"You're dumb. Everything you said was wrong. But as I'm reading and repeatedly answering you, I have to maintain my very high standards of Internet discourse. And even though in the space of these words I could have easily shown you how wrong you are, because, as I've said, everything you said was wrong so truly I would need only pick out one item to make my point, I won't do it. It is beneath me to do so. I wouldn't want to waste my time. Even though I just took the time to read your reply, click the Reply button, put in a reply and submit it. Fuckwit."
It's amazing I've haven't succumbed to the black hole of your mind, where anything can go but nothing of use can ever leave.
And like I said, very clearly, it is both about intentandthe item. Go back and read again about how we punish people who act foolishly with a gun more than we punish people who act foolishly with a lighter. It is not only intent.
I mean, how many times do I have to say this? You can't regulate people; you can deal with the consequences of their actions, though. If we only dealt with the consequences of guns we would have a lot of dead people and a lot of people in prison. So we instead regulate guns and deal with people afterward.
This makes so much sense it must hurt you. We can either have a shitload of dead and imprisoned people with free-wheeling guns for everyone, or we can have a few dead people, a few imprisoned people, and limited access to guns. Wow, who would have thought that dealing with not only the intent of people but the object itself would work?
"You just start harping on this point last post and prove exactly what I was initially trying to say"
I think you're a little confused. You seem to speak of intent only with the mind of the person. I speak of intent with the mind of the person, the object's intended use, and the intent of legislators. If you doubt me, you said it yourself:
"It's not the item"
You ask questions about whether we should regulate your thumbs or your hands. The answer is no. It sounds like whatever point you were trying to make could be wrapped up as "Guns don't kill people, people kill people," which is obviously wrong.
"as well as taking a stack of stuff out of context and manipulating it"
We call that "quoting," and if the best you can do as a rebuttal is say "(sniff) the bad man doesn't understand me!" then you're a long fucking way from Kansas. Don't try to blame your lack of standing on me. If you have something to say, say it, prove it, or shut the fuck up. Lying is unbecoming.
"indeed fulfilling my earlier prediction about your continuous ad hominem sledging"
"I am right; you are wrong."
"No, you are wrong because x y z."
"QED."
I mean really, come back again when you have a fucking argument. Did you miss my previous post where I said the same fucking thing? Do you really, honestly believe that if Einstein had said "And Newton was a fucking idiot for coming up with the crap he did" that he would have totally invalidated his theories of relativity, and even further somehow prove Newton right? Do you really believe that if someone has a sound argument but calls you an idiot (which, as you know, I believe you to be) that your crap suddenly becomes true? If the Bible says rabbits chew cud, and I say to the person that quotes the scripture "Only an idiot would think rabbits chew cud" that suddenly the Bible is right and rabbits really do chew cud?
More to the point, can you even answer any of these, or would you prefer to continue sticking your fingers in your ears, a la Cecil?
"you're obviously COMPLETELY INCAPABLE of engaging in an actual debate"
I've yet to see you successfully challenge anything I've said. I'm (and have been) actively engaging you; you're attempting to dismiss me without even making an argument. As has been said: Kettle; thou art black!
"You are a fuckwit"
So by your reasoning, my arguments are all now correct. QED. Wow, your way of thinking is easy!
"without devolving to ad hominem attacks, which you have not managed to duplicate in this reply"
The man with the most solid of arguments is free to call those who choose to dodge points that which they are.
"Your initial point was that the specific purpose for a gun was to kill people, I pointed out that that was not the case"
Wrong. Guns aren't made to be paperweights. They aren't made to hold open doors. They're not made to be worn as an accessory. They do not filter tap water. They do not make good chairs. They're designed to move little pieces of metal very fast and into people.
"a police officer on hearing about my ingenious killing device would probably be none to happy about it, I say quote me law, act and paragraph, where it says such a device is illegal."
Law is not only that which is written down by legislators. Have you ever heard, "Intent is 9/10ths of the law?" If I carry a steak knife around with me, there's no issue if I intend to cut steak with it when I get home. If I carry a steak knife around with me for protection, or so I can rob a liquor store, then intent comes into play and there is a lot of leeway in legality. What all laws come down to is how the judge and/or jury interpret the law, interpret your actions, and interpret your intent.
So to better inform you, let's recap: if you cut a four inch piece of metal out in shop class to wedge under your front door to keep it held open, there's no issue. If you do the same so you can carry around a shiv, then there can be an issue. It's sad that you see law so cut and dry--sad only because that's not how it is.
"You cannot do this."
Indeed, you can't.
"I provided analogies where I substituted a gun for my thumb, the ridge of my hand, I could have provided many more analogies, I assumed however that those that were provided would be sufficient"
And like I said, the ridge of your hand isn't controlled, nor is a cigarette lighter, nor is a bucket, because of intent, among other things. It's like this (and as a slashbot I'm sure you'll get this one): Kazaa and other P2P networks are not considered illegal because in addition to facilitating the transfer of copyrighted works they have substantial non-infringing uses. Get it? Your hand has a substantial non-infringing use, like cracking its own knuckles, opening jars of pickles, holding a steering wheel, etc. A cigarette lighter can be used to light, of all things, cigarettes. Cigars. Fireplaces. Pilot lights. They can be used for illumination. They can be used to start controlled fires. Sure, you could slingshot a lighter into someone's head, or maybe drop it off a tall building onto someone's head, but are we then going to outlaw lighters? What if you dropped a rock? Are we to outlaw rocks?
The answer, as you already know, because I can see glimmers of understanding beginning to form already, is No. Resoundingly No. We don't stop lighters or rocks, because they have uses outside being dropped on peoples' heads. Instead, we deal with the intent of a person. We deal with the state of mind of the person when they dropped the lighter or put it in a slingshot.
You don't seem to realize it, but we do the same with people who shoot others with guns. If someone accidentally shoots another person, then we will let them off with a much lighter punishment than if they had malicious intent. But the punishment for shooting and killing someone accidentally is much higher than if you accidentally dropped your lighter and killed a passerby while peering over the edge of the Empire State Building. Why is that?
The reason that is the case is because lighters are not inherently life-threatening; guns are. Lighters are designed to burn things, not be dropped on people. If you drop your lighter, it was an accident because you took reasonable precautions not to drop it (i.e., you held onto it, b
I'm not going to recognize your first comments because they show that you didn't even have the goddamned courtesy to read my entire post. I'm not even looking at my post and know that you've consciously chosen not to address valid points in your rebuttal; ignoring them does not make them go away, so while you may think you're some hotshot with a point, understand that the premise of your reply is unfounded. So go back and try again, then perhaps we can talk about it.
As for "what if I made a 4 inch long piece of metal with the specific usage to jam it into people's temples, would you think it sensible to regulate such a device?" you're goddamned right it would be sensible. In fact, it's already done. And if you doubt me, the next time you get pulled over by the police, pull out your shiv and say "This has the specific usage of being jammed into people's temples to kill them." Bonus points if you're black.
"If you have to keep a gun locked in a underground vault, why not your cigarette lighter? Way more kids die from that. It's not an issue because it looks less threatening. What we really need is more water bucket control because more little kids die drowning in those things that guns"
Verily, I say unto you, again and again and again...
Guns are kept in a protected state because they are instruments of death and harm. Cigarette lighters are only dangerous to the point of death under specific circumstances, and even then it takes a considerable amount of time to create fatal surroundings with a goddamned cigarette lighter.
Let me put it this way: a cigarette lighter will not kill you if it is lit and held to your face for.2 seconds. A gun, most assuredly, will.
Let me even put it this way: the amount of time it takes for a cigarette lighter to kill you is way, way above the amount of time it takes for a gun to kill you.
That is why cigarette lighters are not kept under lock and key.
As for bucket control, we don't have bucket control because the bucket was not designed to kill or seriously injure humans. It was designed to carry water. It has a function beyond your description; in addition to killing people through drowning, the bucket is used to carry water. It's just like the gun: in addition to killing people through shootings, the gun is used to... uhhm... seriously injure... people... through shootings...
Seriously, dude, think your arguments through before you post tripe like this. You can't drown someone with a fucking bucket of water from 50 feet away. You can't burn someone to death with a fucking cigarette lighter from across the street.
People have to sleep. People who don't sleep die. Insomnia is the inability to fall asleep or stay asleep for long periods. The author could not fall asleep until 4 AM, which is an unnatural rhythm (apparently) for him. This is an inability to fall asleep.
People who don't sleep die. The body eventually knocks itself out, because it's unable to keep going. The person will then sleep, but it typically is not restful sleep and for insomniacs it is often peppered with bouts of hypnagogic hallucinations, which greatly impedes rest.
And before anyone says "That's bullshit, I can stay up for four days straight!" please shut the fuck up as you're lowering the standards of humanity by speaking. People who have had insomnia for weeks generally are unable to function enough to stay awake for four days straight. They are already so exhausted because their bodies have only been getting intermittent sleep for weeks. Maybe you can stay up for four days, but your normal sleep habits allow you to do it.
Hey, no offense to them, as I'm sure they had a crack team of four or five programmers write the software six years ago, but I don't trust Sophos to block any virus, so I'm sure as hell not going to trust them to have the dirt on which viruses were the worst.
I think anyone that's used Sophos on an Enterprise level can definitely agree: it fucking sucks.
Slashdot Mirror
If all the technical specs of each cpu, including cache, FSB, pipeline, etc were all displayed on the packaging, it wouldn't matter what the product was called, because you're taking the time to read the packaging anyway.
Great, then you should have no trouble telling me which of these two processors is better:
2.4 GHz x86
2.4 GHz x86
I'll make it easy for you and say the 2.4 GHz x86 is a Celeron D with a 533 MHz FSB and 256K L2 cache and the 2.4 GHz x86 is an Athlon 64 FX-53 with a 1 GHz HT bus speed and 1 MB of L2 cache. We can also throw in three different Pentium 4s, an Opteron, a couple more Celerons, but hey, I don't need to tell you that, right? You already know which is which, remember?
1. The copy that is available on the internet cannot play online.
Gee, I sure wish *I* could be one of the three other people that's able to play online.
The difference between getting a copy of the SAM database and installing a keystroke logger is huge. Namely, I can copy your SAM database without changing a single thing on your system. Installing a keystroke logger would require a service to be sure the password's picked up, and would alter your system.
While you're right that they have bigger problems if someone has that kind of access to their systems, simply saying "Hey, you're fucked if someone's that close to your box" is not very helpful as there are varying levels of being fucked, and sometimes the worst kind of fucking is when you don't even know someone's fucked you.
And until I hear George W Bush say he didn't snort coke, it's all just a load of crap that he didn't.
What is being done is that people are trying to get information to overseas voters as best they can. There have been issues at embassies with people trying to get information to vote. You don't need to wait to hear personally from a soldier that they can't vote. It happens. It is happening. It is real. And your line of "Ahh, that shit isn't real until I see it myself!" is a great attitude. You're essentially saying that, without weighing the merits of someone's objection, we should discount that objection because you haven't heard about it yourself.
Why don't we just wait until after the election to deal with problems voters are having? Seems like a great idea, since there's a total of two and a half months until the president has to be sworn in, by law. Let's wait even longer!
Don't get me wrong, both the DNC and RNC are completely corrupt and neither has any qualms about breaking a few laws to get their person in office. It's my opinion that the GOP is more egregious in their violations than the Democrats, though.
I'd personally never vote for a Democratic president unless I felt the impetus to save the future of the country from what I think is a horrible path that the present GOP elite have set us on. Jobless hippies and right-wing gun-nuts be damned, I believe George W Bush is a criminal and should be ejected from office and prosecuted for what he's done. That's an opinion I formed for myself.
You make a good point, but this season it appears, to me, that the republican party is up to the worst tricks.
I realized after I posted that we have 100,000+ in Iraq alone. My mistake, and thanks for the numbers on the UK; I'm curious about how many of those people are eligible to vote, then how many are registered, then how many actually vote.
In a time where 537 votes makes ALL the difference, the ten-thousand plus Americans overseas certainly do not consider themselves a statistically negligible group. Your feelings may vary.
Granted, it's primarily Republicans that are fighting to ensure that not all the votes counted, as they did in 2000 when they argued before the Supreme Court that racially marginalized populations don't deserve to have their votes counted (being too brown, and all), but it's not at all inconceivable that someone overseas might not know how to vote and might need to find out how to vote. While they can, of course, search for the information on Google and check out cached pages and do a reverse DNS over IP doubleback-traceroute off a proxy server in Malaysia to get to the information they need, chances are they are not as computer savvy as your average slashbot (though certainly more worldly, as you've pointed out). In fact, there is undoubtedly someone out there that can only guess at where they might go, and it certainly seems to the layperson that the candidates that want your vote might have information on how to vote on their webpages. Guessing http://www.georgewbush.com/ is a lot easier than guessing http://www.eac.gov/register_vote_forms.asp.
Of course, if people overseas can't get to the cesspool of lies that is georgewbush.com, they're more likely to go to the mildly festering swamp of lies and revealing truths at http://www.johnkerry.com/, or preferably the amusing and admirable http://www.georgewbush.org/. Either way, it's a step in the right direction (or at least shorter strides in the wrong one).
I agree. I paid for their custom dyndns service several years ago, which was a one-time $30 donation to their company and received free life-time (of me or the company, I wonder) custom dyndns.
Granted, I never used it for high traffic things, but running my own email and webserver I never noticed any issues, with services provided at random times of the day and night. My guess, then, is that they have a pretty good stability/uptime record.
What it comes down to, though, is that they've been around for a very, very long time, they're the de facto standard, and for a long time much of what they did was out of an idea that it would be a helpful service for people; the money came later. They're a good and honest company from all my dealings and readings.
"A grammar checker for text input boxes is something you might not want to live without."
A grammar checker for text input boxes is something without which you might not want to live.
I mean, if pedantry's your thing or anything.
Corporations can get it at $150 or so, or maybe even less depending on the number of licenses, but it is still not cheap by a long shot
My company employs about 18,600 people, and we get Windows XP licenses (not upgrades) for $53. There are only about 5,000 computers. I don't know where you get your information, but mine's first hand.
That's a great cop out. Used millions of times throughout history but never as much as on the Internet.
"You're dumb. Everything you said was wrong. But as I'm reading and repeatedly answering you, I have to maintain my very high standards of Internet discourse. And even though in the space of these words I could have easily shown you how wrong you are, because, as I've said, everything you said was wrong so truly I would need only pick out one item to make my point, I won't do it. It is beneath me to do so. I wouldn't want to waste my time. Even though I just took the time to read your reply, click the Reply button, put in a reply and submit it. Fuckwit."
It's amazing I've haven't succumbed to the black hole of your mind, where anything can go but nothing of use can ever leave.
And like I said, very clearly, it is both about intent and the item. Go back and read again about how we punish people who act foolishly with a gun more than we punish people who act foolishly with a lighter. It is not only intent.
I mean, how many times do I have to say this? You can't regulate people; you can deal with the consequences of their actions, though. If we only dealt with the consequences of guns we would have a lot of dead people and a lot of people in prison. So we instead regulate guns and deal with people afterward.
This makes so much sense it must hurt you. We can either have a shitload of dead and imprisoned people with free-wheeling guns for everyone, or we can have a few dead people, a few imprisoned people, and limited access to guns. Wow, who would have thought that dealing with not only the intent of people but the object itself would work?
"You just start harping on this point last post and prove exactly what I was initially trying to say"
I think you're a little confused. You seem to speak of intent only with the mind of the person. I speak of intent with the mind of the person, the object's intended use, and the intent of legislators. If you doubt me, you said it yourself:
"It's not the item"
You ask questions about whether we should regulate your thumbs or your hands. The answer is no. It sounds like whatever point you were trying to make could be wrapped up as "Guns don't kill people, people kill people," which is obviously wrong.
"as well as taking a stack of stuff out of context and manipulating it"
We call that "quoting," and if the best you can do as a rebuttal is say "(sniff) the bad man doesn't understand me!" then you're a long fucking way from Kansas. Don't try to blame your lack of standing on me. If you have something to say, say it, prove it, or shut the fuck up. Lying is unbecoming.
"indeed fulfilling my earlier prediction about your continuous ad hominem sledging"
"I am right; you are wrong."
"No, you are wrong because x y z."
"QED."
I mean really, come back again when you have a fucking argument. Did you miss my previous post where I said the same fucking thing? Do you really, honestly believe that if Einstein had said "And Newton was a fucking idiot for coming up with the crap he did" that he would have totally invalidated his theories of relativity, and even further somehow prove Newton right? Do you really believe that if someone has a sound argument but calls you an idiot (which, as you know, I believe you to be) that your crap suddenly becomes true? If the Bible says rabbits chew cud, and I say to the person that quotes the scripture "Only an idiot would think rabbits chew cud" that suddenly the Bible is right and rabbits really do chew cud?
More to the point, can you even answer any of these, or would you prefer to continue sticking your fingers in your ears, a la Cecil?
"you're obviously COMPLETELY INCAPABLE of engaging in an actual debate"
I've yet to see you successfully challenge anything I've said. I'm (and have been) actively engaging you; you're attempting to dismiss me without even making an argument. As has been said: Kettle; thou art black!
"You are a fuckwit"
So by your reasoning, my arguments are all now correct. QED. Wow, your way of thinking is easy!
"without devolving to ad hominem attacks, which you have not managed to duplicate in this reply"
The man with the most solid of arguments is free to call those who choose to dodge points that which they are.
"Your initial point was that the specific purpose for a gun was to kill people, I pointed out that that was not the case"
Wrong. Guns aren't made to be paperweights. They aren't made to hold open doors. They're not made to be worn as an accessory. They do not filter tap water. They do not make good chairs. They're designed to move little pieces of metal very fast and into people.
"a police officer on hearing about my ingenious killing device would probably be none to happy about it, I say quote me law, act and paragraph, where it says such a device is illegal."
Law is not only that which is written down by legislators. Have you ever heard, "Intent is 9/10ths of the law?" If I carry a steak knife around with me, there's no issue if I intend to cut steak with it when I get home. If I carry a steak knife around with me for protection, or so I can rob a liquor store, then intent comes into play and there is a lot of leeway in legality. What all laws come down to is how the judge and/or jury interpret the law, interpret your actions, and interpret your intent.
So to better inform you, let's recap: if you cut a four inch piece of metal out in shop class to wedge under your front door to keep it held open, there's no issue. If you do the same so you can carry around a shiv, then there can be an issue. It's sad that you see law so cut and dry--sad only because that's not how it is.
"You cannot do this."
Indeed, you can't.
"I provided analogies where I substituted a gun for my thumb, the ridge of my hand, I could have provided many more analogies, I assumed however that those that were provided would be sufficient"
And like I said, the ridge of your hand isn't controlled, nor is a cigarette lighter, nor is a bucket, because of intent, among other things. It's like this (and as a slashbot I'm sure you'll get this one): Kazaa and other P2P networks are not considered illegal because in addition to facilitating the transfer of copyrighted works they have substantial non-infringing uses. Get it? Your hand has a substantial non-infringing use, like cracking its own knuckles, opening jars of pickles, holding a steering wheel, etc. A cigarette lighter can be used to light, of all things, cigarettes. Cigars. Fireplaces. Pilot lights. They can be used for illumination. They can be used to start controlled fires. Sure, you could slingshot a lighter into someone's head, or maybe drop it off a tall building onto someone's head, but are we then going to outlaw lighters? What if you dropped a rock? Are we to outlaw rocks?
The answer, as you already know, because I can see glimmers of understanding beginning to form already, is No . Resoundingly No . We don't stop lighters or rocks, because they have uses outside being dropped on peoples' heads. Instead, we deal with the intent of a person. We deal with the state of mind of the person when they dropped the lighter or put it in a slingshot.
You don't seem to realize it, but we do the same with people who shoot others with guns. If someone accidentally shoots another person, then we will let them off with a much lighter punishment than if they had malicious intent. But the punishment for shooting and killing someone accidentally is much higher than if you accidentally dropped your lighter and killed a passerby while peering over the edge of the Empire State Building. Why is that?
The reason that is the case is because lighters are not inherently life-threatening; guns are. Lighters are designed to burn things, not be dropped on people. If you drop your lighter, it was an accident because you took reasonable precautions not to drop it (i.e., you held onto it, b
I'm not going to recognize your first comments because they show that you didn't even have the goddamned courtesy to read my entire post. I'm not even looking at my post and know that you've consciously chosen not to address valid points in your rebuttal; ignoring them does not make them go away, so while you may think you're some hotshot with a point, understand that the premise of your reply is unfounded. So go back and try again, then perhaps we can talk about it.
As for "what if I made a 4 inch long piece of metal with the specific usage to jam it into people's temples, would you think it sensible to regulate such a device?" you're goddamned right it would be sensible. In fact, it's already done. And if you doubt me, the next time you get pulled over by the police, pull out your shiv and say "This has the specific usage of being jammed into people's temples to kill them." Bonus points if you're black.
"If you have to keep a gun locked in a underground vault, why not your cigarette lighter? Way more kids die from that. It's not an issue because it looks less threatening. What we really need is more water bucket control because more little kids die drowning in those things that guns"
.2 seconds. A gun, most assuredly, will.
... uhhm ... seriously injure ... people ... through shootings ...
Verily, I say unto you, again and again and again...
Guns are kept in a protected state because they are instruments of death and harm. Cigarette lighters are only dangerous to the point of death under specific circumstances, and even then it takes a considerable amount of time to create fatal surroundings with a goddamned cigarette lighter.
Let me put it this way: a cigarette lighter will not kill you if it is lit and held to your face for
Let me even put it this way: the amount of time it takes for a cigarette lighter to kill you is way, way above the amount of time it takes for a gun to kill you.
That is why cigarette lighters are not kept under lock and key.
As for bucket control, we don't have bucket control because the bucket was not designed to kill or seriously injure humans. It was designed to carry water. It has a function beyond your description; in addition to killing people through drowning, the bucket is used to carry water. It's just like the gun: in addition to killing people through shootings, the gun is used to
Seriously, dude, think your arguments through before you post tripe like this. You can't drown someone with a fucking bucket of water from 50 feet away. You can't burn someone to death with a fucking cigarette lighter from across the street.
People have to sleep. People who don't sleep die. Insomnia is the inability to fall asleep or stay asleep for long periods. The author could not fall asleep until 4 AM, which is an unnatural rhythm (apparently) for him. This is an inability to fall asleep.
People who don't sleep die. The body eventually knocks itself out, because it's unable to keep going. The person will then sleep, but it typically is not restful sleep and for insomniacs it is often peppered with bouts of hypnagogic hallucinations, which greatly impedes rest.
And before anyone says "That's bullshit, I can stay up for four days straight!" please shut the fuck up as you're lowering the standards of humanity by speaking. People who have had insomnia for weeks generally are unable to function enough to stay awake for four days straight. They are already so exhausted because their bodies have only been getting intermittent sleep for weeks. Maybe you can stay up for four days, but your normal sleep habits allow you to do it.
Ahh... that does make all the difference. That's very good to know.
I hope Google will take steps to correct this.
This screenshot seems to show that it will show the appropriate date on the messages.
Have you ever heard of stateful packet inspection?
As it has been told to me, this is not an acceptable form of proof, and does not hold up in a court of law.
After all, how hard is it to fake a stamp like the one used by the post office?
Hey, no offense to them, as I'm sure they had a crack team of four or five programmers write the software six years ago, but I don't trust Sophos to block any virus, so I'm sure as hell not going to trust them to have the dirt on which viruses were the worst.
I think anyone that's used Sophos on an Enterprise level can definitely agree: it fucking sucks.