From personal experience, the last 4 Seagate drives that I've made the mistake of purchasing have crapped themselves within 3 months of solid use. I've never had WD fail on me. Hitachi is pretty bad, though.
I wasn't aware that a monopoly could be considered against a company when users by and large prefer a service they offer over their competitors. I wonder what's going to happen with this one, am I going to be forced to use a different search provider? Fat chance.
Seagate's a piece of crap anyways. They're just finding new ways to polish turds and pass the savings onto the consumer. This should come as no surprise.
I don't trust Seagate at all, either. Last 4 Seagate HDs I bought all failed within about 3 months of solid use. Needless to say, I stopped buying them. So far, I've never had a problem with WD, however the warranty slashing does bother me somewhat. I think I'll wait until the larger drives have been out for about 2-3 years before I purchase them. Until then, I think I'll stick to my array of 500GB HDs.
Until other browsers crash less than Chrome, I won't be using them. It may take up slightly more RAM than I like, but it crashes maybe once every 2-3 months. I can also leave dozens of tabs open and not have to worry about memory leak issues. I also don't have to wait inordinate lengths of time for the browser to start up. When other browsers can perform these basic tasks, I'll give them a second (or in some cases, third or fourth) chance.
The only time I've ever had Chrome lock up is when certain sites have so much crap littering the page that ANY browser would choke on it.
I would have to agree with http://slashdot.org/~Jane+Q.+Public that polygraphs are not accurate at all. The fact they are not admissible in court as evidence is enough proof of the fact they are not a legit form of evidence. However, if you're working for a non-public agency, they *are* used as qualifications for either hiring or termination. As long as you're honest and forthcoming about what projects you work on, there is no reason to panic if you're concerned about your employment with a government agency, even with the advent of NDAA and SOPA, and as long as there is no reason to believe that any projects you're working on will provide a reasonable risk to national security.
Mark me as a "troll" or "flamebait" all you like, but the above statement is based on fact. Until someone can provide inarguable evidence to the contrary, marking me down only proves you're a moron.
Leaving a receipt laying around from an ATM transaction is more worrisome. Even then, a bank rep wouldn't need to ask you for your card data, considering they already have it on file. Anyone who falls for a social engineering trick in which the operator requires data is clearly a fool.
No, you're finished because you know I'm right. I've made the facts pretty clear, whereas you pretty much fumbled your way through this argument like a blind man in an orgy. At least *I* know where *MY* penis is.
My point still stands, regardless of your last-ditch-analogy. Thanks to whoever it was for making sure I got marked as a -1 Troll for posting indisputable fact, though. That actually makes me look like less of an idiot.
Look, this isn't a difficult concept to underfuckinstand.
In civil court, you only have to have a majority vote (beyond reasonable doubt) to get a conviction.
In a criminal court, all the jurors have to agree to the charge, or the defendant isn't convicted. My first statement that unless the plaintiff(s) can prove beyond a reasonable doubt, with the burden of proof being provided by the plaintiff, then you literally have nothing to worry about. If no admissible evidence exists, then there is no ground to even bring forth a lawsuit.
I'm pretty sure I'm not the one that's being selectively literate. If you're having that much trouble with a compiler, then you either need to reduce as many lines of code as possible, while still keeping the features intact, or you need to use a less resource intensive compiler. It's that simple, and still goes back to what I initially said.
As for Kommet calling me a troll and adding me to his foe list... Seriously, dude, where'd you get your degree from? Assmad University?
I believe you're slightly confused on the matter in regards to "Beyond A Reasonable Doubt" and "Beyond A Shadow Of A Doubt". The first is used in CIVIL cases. In CRIMINAL cases, the burden of proof is much, much higher. In fact, so high, that if so much as one juror disagrees, then the accused is/are automatically found not to be guilty. It's amazing how that works. A layman's explanation of the difference between these two can be found here, although international courts handle things differently.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_doubt http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beyond_the_shadow_of_a_doubt
That's the difference between the two. Whether the case is criminal or civil (depending on the severity of the alleged crime), the accuser still assumes burden of proof. The difference between these is that reasonable doubt is only required in a civil suit, which only requires a majority consensus among the jurors involved in the deliberation. Criminal cases are an all-or-none deal. Other countries handle their courts differently, yes, but that's an entirely different topic, since it's pretty obvious that's what you're hinting at. The burden of proof ALWAYS rests with the accuser, not on the accused.
So back to my original statement (which amazingly, still holds true), "The burden of proof lies with the accuser. Until they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you've done what you're being accused of doing, you can sit back and laugh at them."
Poor dev is poor dev, so I call it like I see it. I will quote myself in response, because clearly, you're being selectively literate. Most memory issues are the direct result of poor programming techniques and excessive code bloat. Any seasoned veteran will tell you this.
But the point at which THAT much RAM isn't enough to build a browser, then as a dev, you need to turn off the computer and relearn how to engineer software by taking appropriate remedial courses.
relearn how to engineer software by taking appropriate remedial courses.
But the point at which THAT much RAM isn't enough to build a browser, then as a dev, you need to turn off the computer and relearn how to engineer software by taking appropriate remedial courses. Seriously, Mozilla... you're supposed to be building a browser, not a cross-platform serverside SQL database management package (in which case the problem still wouldn't be acceptable). Jesus H. Christ.
Now that's silly. These companies have everyone's best interest in mind. Clearly, there's no risk for groundwater contamination because the companies told us so. They have money and lawyers to handle these kinds of things. Obviously, the citizens who complain of contamination clearly just want a bigger slice of the pie. The most outlandish of these anecdotal "claims" is that in some communities, the tapwater can be set on fire. Anyone with half a brain knows you can't set water on fire. Water is a non-combustible compound, and even if the water could somehow be set on fire, it's not the fault of the companies doing the hydraulic fracturing, but clearly, a problem with their own water system, since the companies use water from a completely isolated region. The waste from this process is loaded in several large trucks and carried off to a safe location somewhere else. Anyone who doesn't believe that an oil and gas company doesn't have their best interest in mind is clearly a conspiracy theorist.
It's funny you ask that, because here in the U.S., you're innocent until *proven* guilty. The burden of proof lies with the accuser. Until they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you've done what you're being accused of doing, you can sit back and laugh at them. It's that simple.
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly my point.
From personal experience, the last 4 Seagate drives that I've made the mistake of purchasing have crapped themselves within 3 months of solid use. I've never had WD fail on me. Hitachi is pretty bad, though.
Does anyone actually care?
I wasn't aware that a monopoly could be considered against a company when users by and large prefer a service they offer over their competitors. I wonder what's going to happen with this one, am I going to be forced to use a different search provider? Fat chance.
Seagate's a piece of crap anyways. They're just finding new ways to polish turds and pass the savings onto the consumer. This should come as no surprise.
Drop The Big One.
I for one, would like to know what happens when God has bad sex.
I don't trust Seagate at all, either. Last 4 Seagate HDs I bought all failed within about 3 months of solid use. Needless to say, I stopped buying them. So far, I've never had a problem with WD, however the warranty slashing does bother me somewhat. I think I'll wait until the larger drives have been out for about 2-3 years before I purchase them. Until then, I think I'll stick to my array of 500GB HDs.
Until other browsers crash less than Chrome, I won't be using them. It may take up slightly more RAM than I like, but it crashes maybe once every 2-3 months. I can also leave dozens of tabs open and not have to worry about memory leak issues. I also don't have to wait inordinate lengths of time for the browser to start up. When other browsers can perform these basic tasks, I'll give them a second (or in some cases, third or fourth) chance.
The only time I've ever had Chrome lock up is when certain sites have so much crap littering the page that ANY browser would choke on it.
I would have to agree with http://slashdot.org/~Jane+Q.+Public that polygraphs are not accurate at all. The fact they are not admissible in court as evidence is enough proof of the fact they are not a legit form of evidence. However, if you're working for a non-public agency, they *are* used as qualifications for either hiring or termination. As long as you're honest and forthcoming about what projects you work on, there is no reason to panic if you're concerned about your employment with a government agency, even with the advent of NDAA and SOPA, and as long as there is no reason to believe that any projects you're working on will provide a reasonable risk to national security.
Mark me as a "troll" or "flamebait" all you like, but the above statement is based on fact. Until someone can provide inarguable evidence to the contrary, marking me down only proves you're a moron.
Leaving a receipt laying around from an ATM transaction is more worrisome. Even then, a bank rep wouldn't need to ask you for your card data, considering they already have it on file. Anyone who falls for a social engineering trick in which the operator requires data is clearly a fool.
No, you're finished because you know I'm right. I've made the facts pretty clear, whereas you pretty much fumbled your way through this argument like a blind man in an orgy. At least *I* know where *MY* penis is.
Good day, sir.
My point still stands, regardless of your last-ditch-analogy. Thanks to whoever it was for making sure I got marked as a -1 Troll for posting indisputable fact, though. That actually makes me look like less of an idiot.
Look, this isn't a difficult concept to underfuckinstand.
In civil court, you only have to have a majority vote (beyond reasonable doubt) to get a conviction.
In a criminal court, all the jurors have to agree to the charge, or the defendant isn't convicted. My first statement that unless the plaintiff(s) can prove beyond a reasonable doubt, with the burden of proof being provided by the plaintiff, then you literally have nothing to worry about. If no admissible evidence exists, then there is no ground to even bring forth a lawsuit.
Are you really that stupid?
I hate saying this, but when the code can't be compiled because the library is too massive for the compiler, there is no benefit.
Learn to read, son.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_doubt
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beyond_the_shadow_of_a_doubt
Apparently, you don't, since what I just posted should be common knowledge to anyone who paid attention in 9th grade U.S. History.
The fact it happened twice is a dead giveaway.
I'm pretty sure I'm not the one that's being selectively literate. If you're having that much trouble with a compiler, then you either need to reduce as many lines of code as possible, while still keeping the features intact, or you need to use a less resource intensive compiler. It's that simple, and still goes back to what I initially said.
As for Kommet calling me a troll and adding me to his foe list... Seriously, dude, where'd you get your degree from? Assmad University?
Yes, most cases that are brought about in regards to "internet piracy" (and I use that term loosely here) tend to be adjudicated under criminal courts. Hell, even the RIAA has a post about it ON THEIR SITE: http://www.riaa.com/physicalpiracy.php?content_selector=piracy_online_the_law
I believe you're slightly confused on the matter in regards to "Beyond A Reasonable Doubt" and "Beyond A Shadow Of A Doubt". The first is used in CIVIL cases. In CRIMINAL cases, the burden of proof is much, much higher. In fact, so high, that if so much as one juror disagrees, then the accused is/are automatically found not to be guilty. It's amazing how that works. A layman's explanation of the difference between these two can be found here, although international courts handle things differently.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_doubt
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beyond_the_shadow_of_a_doubt
That's the difference between the two. Whether the case is criminal or civil (depending on the severity of the alleged crime), the accuser still assumes burden of proof. The difference between these is that reasonable doubt is only required in a civil suit, which only requires a majority consensus among the jurors involved in the deliberation. Criminal cases are an all-or-none deal. Other countries handle their courts differently, yes, but that's an entirely different topic, since it's pretty obvious that's what you're hinting at. The burden of proof ALWAYS rests with the accuser, not on the accused.
So back to my original statement (which amazingly, still holds true), "The burden of proof lies with the accuser. Until they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you've done what you're being accused of doing, you can sit back and laugh at them."
Poor dev is poor dev, so I call it like I see it. I will quote myself in response, because clearly, you're being selectively literate. Most memory issues are the direct result of poor programming techniques and excessive code bloat. Any seasoned veteran will tell you this.
But the point at which THAT much RAM isn't enough to build a browser, then as a dev, you need to turn off the computer and relearn how to engineer software by taking appropriate remedial courses.
relearn how to engineer software by taking appropriate remedial courses.
But the point at which THAT much RAM isn't enough to build a browser, then as a dev, you need to turn off the computer and relearn how to engineer software by taking appropriate remedial courses. Seriously, Mozilla... you're supposed to be building a browser, not a cross-platform serverside SQL database management package (in which case the problem still wouldn't be acceptable). Jesus H. Christ.
Now that's silly. These companies have everyone's best interest in mind. Clearly, there's no risk for groundwater contamination because the companies told us so. They have money and lawyers to handle these kinds of things. Obviously, the citizens who complain of contamination clearly just want a bigger slice of the pie. The most outlandish of these anecdotal "claims" is that in some communities, the tapwater can be set on fire. Anyone with half a brain knows you can't set water on fire. Water is a non-combustible compound, and even if the water could somehow be set on fire, it's not the fault of the companies doing the hydraulic fracturing, but clearly, a problem with their own water system, since the companies use water from a completely isolated region. The waste from this process is loaded in several large trucks and carried off to a safe location somewhere else. Anyone who doesn't believe that an oil and gas company doesn't have their best interest in mind is clearly a conspiracy theorist.
;-)
"Proof? How do you prove it wasn't you?"
It's funny you ask that, because here in the U.S., you're innocent until *proven* guilty. The burden of proof lies with the accuser. Until they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you've done what you're being accused of doing, you can sit back and laugh at them. It's that simple.
I think you might want to read this carefully.
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/12/14/0632236/sony-universal-and-fox-caught-pirating-through-bittorrent