In case it wasn't made clear in the/. reprint, it is made clear on the page (and its backup) -- NO one is in the house.
Just a happy little webcam, a few boxen, and a (doubly) nervous T1.
Of course, if you are objecting to the inhumane treatment of the Linuxen, I think that is an entirely different issue.
And if nothing else, being able to watch as this hurricane rips up the little pier, the trees in the yard, the back porch, and ultimately frazzle the webcam and its box, will make me appreciate the deadly power of the hurricane... not trivialize it.
Perhaps this mail should be sent to CNN, Reuters, AP, UPI, and the major networks instead -- groups which are encouraging hapless freelance paparazzi to deliberately risk their lives to film the storm themselves.
All the testy objections to publicity of one little linux-cam taking footage of the storm, which apparently all of you have forgotten has been standard media fare in every disaster for the past 20 years at least, are ignoring one significant point here.
How much does a cheap Linux box cost? 500, 600 dollars, if that? And a little color webcam comes to 100 - 150 dollars? And no one has to be there. So not only do you come up with a remotely viewable camera that costs MUCH less then your average news camera, it doesnt require anyone to risk their life filming a dangerous situation.
To me, that's much more preferable than people driving themselves off of torn-up causeways and dunking into turbulent water just to film swaying trees and floods on a Florida barrier island. It's not worth anyone's life. THAT is something to be thankful for.
Cry all you want about the Slashdot effect, suddenly a scourge upon society and no longer an ironic amusement. If you re-read the story, and perhaps try loading http://linuxpower.cx/ , you'll notice that the guy who runs the cam is the same one who gave/. the link. So he brings the ruckus upon himself.
When you think about it, how would you rather your machine meet its demise -- by involuntary submission to the awesome power of nature, or by a deliberate sacrifice to the awesome power of Slashdot?
Many of us [hear] complaints that computers are too hard to use - there's no simple way to operate a computer like a television (push a button, and you're there). (We all know we hate these comments, but almost have to admit it.)
Of course not. The only thing you can do with a TV is watch it. Computers are far more useful. The fact that the average shmoe doesn't appreciate how useful is computer can be is a different matter.
The good thing about Dreamcast is that any John Q. Gamer (even their parents) can use this thing - they don't have to be computer literate!
If people want a simple entertainment device, they should get a TV. They might even do well to support the onset of digital / interactive TV. These people obviously have no desire for a useful machine like a computer, or an expensive and slow replacement for a telephone like a WebTV.
Question: Was Dreamcast built to be a game machine, or a hacker toy?
Just because our input(s) may be serial, and just because we only have one CPU, doesn't mean we cant have many processes going on at once.
Most of the evidence people in here have presented to argue against the serial processing theory sounds a lot more like multitasking, or perhaps even closer to threading. Though you have two threads going at once, say each focused on one item, you can't process each thread better than one at a time. Then occasionally you can put both threads in a wait state while you start another thread to process the results.
Also keep in mind that a lot of what we might perceive to indicate parallel processing is actually being done by recognized behavior analysis, which was burnt into us during our very early years.
We're also great at filtering, so that we can store one image or sound, but only focus on certain aspects of it. Later we may recall other aspects that we weren't paying attention to.
Can you tell me what flavors make up the flavor of Coca-Cola (without looking it up the same place I did)? Can you perceive a taste in parallel and pick out each part? Maybe you can take in a sample of data, filter it for one taste, take another sample, filter it a different way... but thats about it.
Same with musical chords -- this is purely a serial observation which we need to filter in order to pull out different bits, ond only by filtering out other sounds which we recognize. Often the best we can do is pattern-match one chord with the sound of the same chord we have heard before. Can even a trained ear recognize each note of a chord it hasn't heard before?
Okay, I don't have a degree or a research paper to back this up (I wish I did), but neither do most of you.
That's a nice (and rather unoriginal) rant about parents neglecting their children's upbringing by spending their energy trying to protect their own dubious reputations.
Unfortunately, no where is it said that the child's "psychological problems" (also dubious, you'll agree) has to do with _watching_ the show, nor do we know that her child even does watch the show.
It's more likely, if you think about it, that the problems the child is having comes from _other_ kids watching the show. Kids he goes to school with. Neighborhood kids. Evil older siblings and bratty cousins.
Imagine being this kid. Every time you get together with your schoolmates, and other so-called 'friends', they decide "Let's play South-Park." And for the next hour or so they come up with creative ways to simulate your death.
Which, would all be made worse if you've never seen the show, and don't even know why they see humor in treating you like a guinea pig.
Blame Canda.
PS Thanks for promoting the V Chip. Next thing, you'll be promoting key escrow.
That's a nice (and rather unoriginal) rant about parents neglecting their children's upbringing by spending their energy trying to protect their own dubious reputations.
Unfortunately, no where is it said that the child's "psychological problems" (also dubious, you'll agree) has to do with _watching_ the show, nor do we know that her child even does watch the show.
It's more likely, if you think about it, that the problems the child is having comes from _other_ kids watching the show. Kids he goes to school with. Neighborhood kids. Evil older siblings and bratty cousins.
Imagine being this kid. Every time you get together with your schoolmates, and other so-called 'friends', they decide "Let's play South-Park." And for the next hour or so they come up with creative ways to simulate your death.
Which, would all be made worse if you've never seen the show, and don't even know why they see humor in treating you like a guinea pig.
They clearly don't own the copyright on this guy's work. Isn't it fraduldent for them to claim they do?
They seem to think the freeness of the material makes it OK for them to appropriate it and claim it as their own property, or claim that they have special rights to it, like control distribution.
Or, they think copyright is just a formality of the imperialist capitalist machine and they don't have to worry about what it means.
The whole thing is a shame. If people, geeks or not geeks, weren't so durned stuck up about the speed/power/yadda of the computer they use, this would be a non-issue.
Old computers, and I dont just mean 486's, are still perfectly useful. Sure, if you insist on / absolutely need to run Word 6, or want to run Quake, or need to have a dozen browser windows open at once, you'll hit the ceiling. Even an old Win 3.1 box will still allow you to, say, track your finances better and faster than you can with pencil and paper, whip out a few letters, and use a moderate speed modem to check email via POP or telnet. (And c'mon, isn't this supposed to be the biggest Lynx-using crowd anyway?)
L0pht is/was a tribute to retrocomputing, and a good example of computer recycling. They once had a web server running on a Mac Plus. Friends of mine rigged up an abandoned IBM XT and used it as a cheap 4-screen terminal and ftp client.
Just last week, we saw the news about a low-output web server made out of two chips and a few wires, smaller than a finger, and most of us were amazed or excited. We don't get nearly as excited about web server running on a Commodore, even though it would be quite a feat, IMO.
And whatever happened to Linux-on-a-floppy? There is no need for these machines to go to waste.
Taco wrote: Including these long drawn out messages from clueless folks warning me that Slashdot is not y2k compliant (because dear god, if the URL of stories contains 00 all hell is gonna break lose;)
I stand corrected. Nevertheless, OS/2 is definitely in a different marketing class than the OSes MS was actually promoting, so I wouldn't say its development affected the outcome of Windows*.
How would you describe the type/amount of support you get from the hacker/tech community, e.g. the reactions of the average hacker/tech to the very notion of political action, or specifically the causes you work for?
I ask because I find that the idea of any sort of "political action" is offensive to many in this community.
Chances are, the wide majority of the population ignores this, even though they know it, because they are paranoid.
And if you say doing something will stop crime, and that there are evil people in their midsts doing bad things in secret, and couple it with a national fear that computers will someday make us their slaves, and that smart people want to take over the world,
...if you're lucky, they'll still allow trojan decoder rings in Froot Loops boces.
I was interested in this place... the politics and all that actually interest me, not repulse me...
But I decided I don't trust a constitution that hasn't heard of the word "quorum".
From Article 2:
Two thirds of population has to vote FOR or AGAINST the change suggested by any citizen, including the Constitution changes. Fifty percent of this electorial body, plus one vote has to accept the suggestion in order for it to be applied.
Sudden thought:...imagine if that sort of quorum (67%) was imposed on the US -- we wouldn't probably have had a single president in this century.
If you can figure out the average speed, and move at that speed, and leave an appropriate interval between yourself and the car in front of you, you can break the stop & go pattern.
Not entirely, because if you are moving at the average speed, there will be some points where the average is below the current speed, and points where it is above. When the latter occurs, you'll have to brake.
The other problem is the only way to get a reliable average speed is to wait for the traffic jam to be over and average out the speeds at certain intervals. (This sounds like an integral problem. Ugh.) So you can't do this well while you're in the middle of the traffic jam's time frame.
Of course, you lose a little because people cut into your buffer space, but... it appears to average out over time.
Except when that person cuts into your space, it again upsets your average speed. You'll have to decelerate from that speed for each cutter, and then accelerate when each leaves (assuming its the one right in front of you).
You cant solve the problem.. best you can do is smooth it a little. (I only say all this because this is exactly what I try to do in traffic.)
What I advocate more, if you can swing it, is to get three of your friends to drive next to you in different lanes, and then stand still until the end of the traffic cluster is about a tenth of a mile away, and then go. This is the Java-esque producer-consumer model solution, of course.:)
Some adults also believe that their kids can't decide what movies to watch without their permission, and HOPE that the theater will help them enforce this decision
Yes, "Passing the buck" is the parenting style of the 90's, isn't it?
On the other hand, some parents have faith in their ability to raise their children to be sensible, good-natured, and morally secure, and able to grow intellectually as a mentally balanced individual. (Mine did.) They HOPE that other people, including movie theaters, will help them enforce this decision by letting their children do what they have allowed them to do.
If it were still the case where you could get all the admins on the net to, for example, spam-proof their sendmails, or smurf-proof their networks, that would be great, and there would be a little less need to get help from "outside" bodies.
What happens for example when your network pipe is hosed by a smurf attack, because some schmoe admin at a major provider wont set their routers to prevent it? Do you then turn on your users, and start denying them "problem" services, because of someone else's negligence? Or would it be a little better, for all concerned, to make an example of the networks whose idleness adds to your grief?
For another example, see last week's (?) article about the site that was blocked by CyberPatrol. Was it best in that ISP's case to pretend there wasn't a problem? And to accept the CyberPatrol block as a fact of life, and pretend to themselves that it wouldn't eventually damage their business?
If you really believe you/we can get everyone on the net to stop using suppressware anytime soon, please, show me how. Or, if you think rampant negligence, abuse, and bad faith can go unchecked, and you can still make a long-term profit as a small or mid-size tech firm on the Internet, I'm sorry, I don't see how in the current trend.
In point of fact, outside bodies are already interfering, quite a lot, and little is being done, effectively, to stop it. In my mind, using legal action is an inside force, as opposed to knee-jerk legislation which is coming from totally nowhere and with little input from those it affects.
I dont know why so many in this field think law is always their enemy.
I concur with AC earlier that OpenMail is a hellish experience. Getting it to run properly is more than a full-time job. Getting it to run half-assed is still a pain.
A previous workplace had a powerful HP box chugging and chugging away on openmail and the thing was always overworked. About 3000 moderate-to-low use mail users, something like 96 GB of disks, and mail still took about 15-30 minutes to deliver.
What really made it worse is that this place was using it as a POP server. No OpenMail clients (which were horrendous anyway) being used and POP was only semi-supported on OpenMail (this is in early 98). And you had to use HP sendmail, which was always about six to a dozen revisions behind the one everyone else was using.
One poster suggests that there are people using HP OpenMail for good uses. (Not HP, I bet!) I'll be impressed to find out what, but if you ask me, you can see OpenMail one of two ways: it's either a second- or third-rate Lotus Notes, or an incredibly wasteful MTA.
Abraham Lincoln once said, if you call a dog's tail a leg, the dog still only has four legs.
It's the same thing with liberals. You can call a moderate Democrat a liberal, but that doesnt make them a liberal.
Is Al Gore a liberal? Not to my thinking. Being married to Tipper "Sticker" Gore makes you pretty conservative in my book. I dont care _who_ you're desperately trying to pimp yourself to for votes.
Now as an example, does the ACLU oppose censorship? Yes, last time I checked. Would I consider it a liberal organization? Yes, I would, and I think everyone else would, too. And yes, I'm a card carrying member.
>> Something of this sort would be a great prec[e]dent setter if anyone was interested in taking it.
Yes, I agree. This would require a) winning the case, and b) anyone with enough money to sue to actually care, or not be scared s---less of actually trying to make a change.
"Make a change" -- aren't those words the bane of the average tech?
_IS_ anyone, who can, interested in taking it? Isn't it easier -- and more "professional" -- to simply bend, instead of sue?
Tech firms bend so often they ought to dump their lawyers and hire yoga instructors.
Geek kids dont hand out in front of liquor stores waiting for someone to buy them alcohol, cause they know it doesnt work.
Oh sure... _trendy_ loser kids do, and MIS majors do, but not _geek_ kids.
I loved National Buy A Geek Kid Alcohol Night my first few years in college. It was what, every other Saturday?
Oh, so how do geek kids get their alcohol? They find geek juniors and seniors to get it for them, and sometimes - and this is the bit that makes it a bit different - drink with them too.
I guess you weren't a beer-loving geek kid like the rest of us.
Judging from your tagline, I guess you preferred National Get A Geek Kid Some Acid Day.
Slashdot Mirror
In case it wasn't made clear in the /. reprint, it is made clear on the page (and its backup) -- NO one is in the house.
Just a happy little webcam, a few boxen, and a (doubly) nervous T1.
Of course, if you are objecting to the inhumane treatment of the Linuxen, I think that is an entirely different issue.
And if nothing else, being able to watch as this hurricane rips up the little pier, the trees in the yard, the back porch, and ultimately frazzle the webcam and its box, will make me appreciate the deadly power of the hurricane... not trivialize it.
Romulus
Perhaps this mail should be sent to CNN, Reuters, AP, UPI, and the major networks instead -- groups which are encouraging hapless freelance paparazzi to deliberately risk their lives to film the storm themselves.
All the testy objections to publicity of one little linux-cam taking footage of the storm, which apparently all of you have forgotten has been standard media fare in every disaster for the past 20 years at least, are ignoring one significant point here.
How much does a cheap Linux box cost? 500, 600 dollars, if that? And a little color webcam comes to 100 - 150 dollars? And no one has to be there. So not only do you come up with a remotely viewable camera that costs MUCH less then your average news camera, it doesnt require anyone to risk their life filming a dangerous situation.
To me, that's much more preferable than people driving themselves off of torn-up causeways and dunking into turbulent water just to film swaying trees and floods on a Florida barrier island. It's not worth anyone's life. THAT is something to be thankful for.
Romulus
Cry all you want about the Slashdot effect, suddenly a scourge upon society and no longer an ironic amusement. If you re-read the story, and perhaps try loading http://linuxpower.cx/ , you'll notice that the guy who runs the cam is the same one who gave /. the link. So he brings the ruckus upon himself.
When you think about it, how would you rather your machine meet its demise -- by involuntary submission to the awesome power of nature, or by a deliberate sacrifice to the awesome power of Slashdot?
Romulus
Many of us [hear] complaints that computers are too hard to use - there's no simple way to operate a computer like a television (push a button, and you're there). (We all know we hate these comments, but almost have to admit it.)
Of course not. The only thing you can do with a TV is watch it. Computers are far more useful. The fact that the average shmoe doesn't appreciate how useful is computer can be is a different matter.
The good thing about Dreamcast is that any John Q. Gamer (even their parents) can use this thing - they don't have to be computer literate!
If people want a simple entertainment device, they should get a TV. They might even do well to support the onset of digital / interactive TV. These people obviously have no desire for a useful machine like a computer, or an expensive and slow replacement for a telephone like a WebTV.
Question: Was Dreamcast built to be a game machine, or a hacker toy?
Romulus
I realize this is barely worth a 1, but...
Just because our input(s) may be serial, and just because we only have one CPU, doesn't mean we cant have many processes going on at once.
Most of the evidence people in here have presented to argue against the serial processing theory sounds a lot more like multitasking, or perhaps even closer to threading. Though you have two threads going at once, say each focused on one item, you can't process each thread better than one at a time. Then occasionally you can put both threads in a wait state while you start another thread to process the results.
Also keep in mind that a lot of what we might perceive to indicate parallel processing is actually being done by recognized behavior analysis, which was burnt into us during our very early years.
We're also great at filtering, so that we can store one image or sound, but only focus on certain aspects of it. Later we may recall other aspects that we weren't paying attention to.
Can you tell me what flavors make up the flavor of Coca-Cola (without looking it up the same place I did)? Can you perceive a taste in parallel and pick out each part? Maybe you can take in a sample of data, filter it for one taste, take another sample, filter it a different way... but thats about it.
Same with musical chords -- this is purely a serial observation which we need to filter in order to pull out different bits, ond only by filtering out other sounds which we recognize. Often the best we can do is pattern-match one chord with the sound of the same chord we have heard before. Can even a trained ear recognize each note of a chord it hasn't heard before?
Okay, I don't have a degree or a research paper to back this up (I wish I did), but neither do most of you.
With a one-track mind,
That's a nice (and rather unoriginal) rant about parents neglecting their children's upbringing by spending their energy trying to protect their own dubious reputations.
Unfortunately, no where is it said that the child's "psychological problems" (also dubious, you'll agree) has to do with _watching_ the show, nor do we know that her child even does watch the show.
It's more likely, if you think about it, that the problems the child is having comes from _other_ kids watching the show. Kids he goes to school with. Neighborhood kids. Evil older siblings and bratty cousins.
Imagine being this kid. Every time you get together with your schoolmates, and other so-called 'friends', they decide "Let's play South-Park." And for the next hour or so they come up with creative ways to simulate your death.
Which, would all be made worse if you've never seen the show, and don't even know why they see humor in treating you like a guinea pig.
Blame Canda.
PS Thanks for promoting the V Chip. Next thing, you'll be promoting key escrow.
That's a nice (and rather unoriginal) rant about parents neglecting their children's upbringing by spending their energy trying to protect their own dubious reputations.
Unfortunately, no where is it said that the child's "psychological problems" (also dubious, you'll agree) has to do with _watching_ the show, nor do we know that her child even does watch the show.
It's more likely, if you think about it, that the problems the child is having comes from _other_ kids watching the show. Kids he goes to school with. Neighborhood kids. Evil older siblings and bratty cousins.
Imagine being this kid. Every time you get together with your schoolmates, and other so-called 'friends', they decide "Let's play South-Park." And for the next hour or so they come up with creative ways to simulate your death.
Which, would all be made worse if you've never seen the show, and don't even know why they see humor in treating you like a guinea pig.
Blame Canda.
They clearly don't own the copyright on this guy's work. Isn't it fraduldent for them to claim they do?
They seem to think the freeness of the material makes it OK for them to appropriate it and claim it as their own property, or claim that they have special rights to it, like control distribution.
Or, they think copyright is just a formality of the imperialist capitalist machine and they don't have to worry about what it means.
Old computers, and I dont just mean 486's, are still perfectly useful. Sure, if you insist on / absolutely need to run Word 6, or want to run Quake, or need to have a dozen browser windows open at once, you'll hit the ceiling. Even an old Win 3.1 box will still allow you to, say, track your finances better and faster than you can with pencil and paper, whip out a few letters, and use a moderate speed modem to check email via POP or telnet. (And c'mon, isn't this supposed to be the biggest Lynx-using crowd anyway?)
L0pht is/was a tribute to retrocomputing, and a good example of computer recycling. They once had a web server running on a Mac Plus. Friends of mine rigged up an abandoned IBM XT and used it as a cheap 4-screen terminal and ftp client.
Just last week, we saw the news about a low-output web server made out of two chips and a few wires, smaller than a finger, and most of us were amazed or excited. We don't get nearly as excited about web server running on a Commodore, even though it would be quite a feat, IMO.
And whatever happened to Linux-on-a-floppy? There is no need for these machines to go to waste.
Regards,
Including these long drawn out messages from clueless folks warning me that Slashdot is not y2k compliant (because dear god, if the URL of stories contains 00 all hell is gonna break lose
C'mon Rob, let's see some of these...
Regards,
Regards,
I ask because I find that the idea of any sort of "political action" is offensive to many in this community.
Regards,
Note that "biggest competition" doesn't mean that more than a handful of people used it. (It was also the only competition, AFAIK.)
Regards,
And if you say doing something will stop crime, and that there are evil people in their midsts doing bad things in secret, and couple it with a national fear that computers will someday make us their slaves, and that smart people want to take over the world,
...if you're lucky, they'll still allow trojan decoder rings in Froot Loops boces.
Regards,
But I decided I don't trust a constitution that hasn't heard of the word "quorum".
From Article 2:
Two thirds of population has to vote FOR or AGAINST the change suggested by any citizen, including the Constitution changes. Fifty percent of this electorial body, plus one vote has to accept the suggestion in order for it to be applied.
Sudden thought:
Regards,
Not entirely, because if you are moving at the average speed, there will be some points where the average is below the current speed, and points where it is above. When the latter occurs, you'll have to brake.
The other problem is the only way to get a reliable average speed is to wait for the traffic jam to be over and average out the speeds at certain intervals. (This sounds like an integral problem. Ugh.) So you can't do this well while you're in the middle of the traffic jam's time frame.
Of course, you lose a little because people cut into your buffer space, but... it appears to average out over time.
Except when that person cuts into your space, it again upsets your average speed. You'll have to decelerate from that speed for each cutter, and then accelerate when each leaves (assuming its the one right in front of you).
You cant solve the problem.. best you can do is smooth it a little. (I only say all this because this is exactly what I try to do in traffic.)
What I advocate more, if you can swing it, is to get three of your friends to drive next to you in different lanes, and then stand still until the end of the traffic cluster is about a tenth of a mile away, and then go. This is the Java-esque producer-consumer model solution, of course.
Regards,
Yes, "Passing the buck" is the parenting style of the 90's, isn't it?
On the other hand, some parents have faith in their ability to raise their children to be sensible, good-natured, and morally secure, and able to grow intellectually as a mentally balanced individual. (Mine did.) They HOPE that other people, including movie theaters, will help them enforce this decision by letting their children do what they have allowed them to do.
Regards,
What happens for example when your network pipe is hosed by a smurf attack, because some schmoe admin at a major provider wont set their routers to prevent it? Do you then turn on your users, and start denying them "problem" services, because of someone else's negligence? Or would it be a little better, for all concerned, to make an example of the networks whose idleness adds to your grief?
For another example, see last week's (?) article about the site that was blocked by CyberPatrol. Was it best in that ISP's case to pretend there wasn't a problem? And to accept the CyberPatrol block as a fact of life, and pretend to themselves that it wouldn't eventually damage their business?
If you really believe you/we can get everyone on the net to stop using suppressware anytime soon, please, show me how. Or, if you think rampant negligence, abuse, and bad faith can go unchecked, and you can still make a long-term profit as a small or mid-size tech firm on the Internet, I'm sorry, I don't see how in the current trend.
In point of fact, outside bodies are already interfering, quite a lot, and little is being done, effectively, to stop it. In my mind, using legal action is an inside force, as opposed to knee-jerk legislation which is coming from totally nowhere and with little input from those it affects.
I dont know why so many in this field think law is always their enemy.
Regards,
A previous workplace had a powerful HP box chugging and chugging away on openmail and the thing was always overworked. About 3000 moderate-to-low use mail users, something like 96 GB of disks, and mail still took about 15-30 minutes to deliver.
What really made it worse is that this place was using it as a POP server. No OpenMail clients (which were horrendous anyway) being used and POP was only semi-supported on OpenMail (this is in early 98). And you had to use HP sendmail, which was always about six to a dozen revisions behind the one everyone else was using.
One poster suggests that there are people using HP OpenMail for good uses. (Not HP, I bet!) I'll be impressed to find out what, but if you ask me, you can see OpenMail one of two ways: it's either a second- or third-rate Lotus Notes, or an incredibly wasteful MTA.
Regards,
Is this supposed to be a good thing?
Or is it the RedHat-going-public sort of "good" thing?
Regards,
Regards,
The notion of mp3 trading as being "theft" seems out of place in that sort of system, doesnt it?
Dear, dear, what would Chairman Mao have said about MP3?
Regards,
It's the same thing with liberals. You can call a moderate Democrat a liberal, but that doesnt make them a liberal.
Is Al Gore a liberal? Not to my thinking. Being married to Tipper "Sticker" Gore makes you pretty conservative in my book. I dont care _who_ you're desperately trying to pimp yourself to for votes.
Now as an example, does the ACLU oppose censorship? Yes, last time I checked. Would I consider it a liberal organization? Yes, I would, and I think everyone else would, too. And yes, I'm a card carrying member.
Regards,
Yes, I agree. This would require a) winning the case, and b) anyone with enough money to sue to actually care, or not be scared s---less of actually trying to make a change.
"Make a change" -- aren't those words the bane of the average tech?
_IS_ anyone, who can, interested in taking it? Isn't it easier -- and more "professional" -- to simply bend, instead of sue?
Tech firms bend so often they ought to dump their lawyers and hire yoga instructors.
(Still ranting,)
Regards,
Geek kids dont hand out in front of liquor stores waiting for someone to buy them alcohol, cause they know it doesnt work.
Oh sure... _trendy_ loser kids do, and MIS majors do, but not _geek_ kids.
I loved National Buy A Geek Kid Alcohol Night my first few years in college. It was what, every other Saturday?
Oh, so how do geek kids get their alcohol? They find geek juniors and seniors to get it for them, and sometimes - and this is the bit that makes it a bit different - drink with them too.
I guess you weren't a beer-loving geek kid like the rest of us.
Judging from your tagline, I guess you preferred National Get A Geek Kid Some Acid Day.
Regards,