Wow, I guess that's why so many foreign investors are so keen to invest in Dubya's America then!
Re:Does it matter? Opera's still the best browser.
on
Netscape 7.2 Released
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Opera has customisable tabs. I very much doubt that Firefox approaches the level of customisation that you can get in Opera courtesy of Sessions, etc.
Re:Opera inferior to Mozilla & everything else
on
Netscape 7.2 Released
·
· Score: 1
You can't be talking about Opera. It stinks compared to Mozilla. Opera has a needlessly vast header area that takes up too much screen real estate, and it has a poor record if being able to display web pages. I quickly deleted the thing after I found that it jumbled pages that MSIE and Mozilla could display just fine.
I'll address those one by one:
Opera has a needlessly vast header area that takes up too much screen real estate...
No it doesn't. In fact, the default installation now has a very, very small header area. But, of course, this is and always has been something that you can change yourself, either by adjusting the size of the buttons (in percentage terms) or by applying a sleeker skin, or both....it has a poor record if being able to display web pages. I quickly deleted the thing after I found that it jumbled pages that MSIE and Mozilla could display just fine.
No, it doesn't. It might have had problems with some badly coded pages in the past, but even the ones that were slightly off before are perfect now. One of the features of Opera is to mimic the rendering of other browsers, including MSIE, and this is now perfectly implemented.
Re:Does it matter? Opera's still the best browser.
on
Netscape 7.2 Released
·
· Score: 1, Informative
Notes. Sessions. Mouse Gestures. Wand password manager. Complete control over pop-ups, Java, javascript, plug-ins, referrer logging, etc. Instantaneous back button. Etc, etc.
Does it matter? Opera's still the best browser...
on
Netscape 7.2 Released
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
Opera's still the best browser out there, and well worth the money for the ad-free version.
Even the free, ad-supported verstion is preferable to anything else out there, including Mozilla.
Virtually all those cool features that you take for granted in Mozilla came from Opera, and Opera has a ton more yet still has a much smaller footprint. It's faster, richer, smaller and just plain better than the competition.
Frankly, if you haven't tried it recently then you're doing yourself a great disservice.
Re:basic... very basic.
on
You've Got PC
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
You're not just getting a PC, you're getting a PC and a 12-month dial-up service. If you're going to evaluate the real value of this deal then price up a similar spec PC and include a 12-month subscription to a ISP on par with AOL in terms of service, etc.
Also, remember that this is the sort of deal that's put together specifically to attract novice PC users. People who've never owned a PC before can buy a machine and not have to worry about where to get an internet connection, etc: it's an all-under-one-roof solution that's perfect for people who know what they want to do (surf the internet, send email, type the odd letter) but have no idea about what to buy when they flick through a magazine or go to a superstore.
In those terms, I don't see what there is to complain about.
Assuming the male form is arguably more scientific than guessing, which is what you seem to suggest should be done. Yes, it's what's historically been done and that's exactly why if you're not sure of someone's gender or want to make a general case using "he" is better than using "she". (Of course, using "he or she" or "s/he" is an alternative, but as you've pointed out it can become unwieldy.)
(By the way, why is guessing that the librarian in question is a woman right? You could argue that the librarian in question is also a technically-capable Slashdot reader, and that stacks the odds in favour of that person being a man rather than a woman.)
When you use "she" you're giving readers little doubt that you're referring specifically to a woman. But when you use "he" readers are more likely to appreciate that you mean "he or she".
To give an example, if I were to say "mankind has reached for the stars", you know that I'm referring to men and women. But if I was to say "womankind has reached for the stars" then that's a totally different meaning.
Yes, this is a grey area of language. Yes, it's all about personal interpretation and preferences. But momentum is on the side of "he", in this case and in general.
If he didn't cause the damage then who did? It was a virus that he had created, albeit one based on someone else's code, so who else is responsible for it?
Pretending that he's not responsible for the damage his virus caused because it wasn't solely his own work is narrow-sighted. Suppose someone were to take a fairly harmless human virus, say chickenpox, and tweak it to turn it into a pandemic-level threat that kills anyone infected: would you argue that that person isn't responsible?
Both cases involve taking a virus from the wild and engineering it to cause more destruction. Both should be treated accordingly.
This kid knew the potential consequences of his actions. He isn't someone else's patsy, he's a smart individual who just didn't care about the damage he could cause. It's his crime, it should be his time.
People who aren't technically-gifted should just quit using a computer? Wow, that's a narrow-sighted view if ever I've seen one: if nothing else, you forget that we were all new at this once.
And I like to know how or why an answering machine is the holy grail to telemarketing. Why should someone have to pay for an answering machine to solve a problem created by someone else? How does the answering machine help free up your phone line whilst the telemarketers are actually calling? What happens if you go away for a week and miss the message from your mother that someone's at death's door and that you should get your ass to the hospital ASAP because the entire recording length of your answering machine is taken up by sales pitches for fencing and windows?
That would be the same analogy as people suing a Gun manfacture just because the gun was used in a crime. Why stop there why not sue the developer that wrote the code for Windows Messenger.
I hate to break it to you, but suing a gun manufacturer because the gun was used in a crime has been done.
I can't remember the actual case, but there was one recently where a gun maker had a model that couldn't be safely loaded: due to a design flaw, you had to take the safety off to load the weapon. This flaw was known to the gun maker who did nothing to rectify it and when the gun went off accidentally, killing (if I remember correctly) the wielder, the courts held them responsible for the consequences because they had knowingly sold an inherently flawed and unsafe product.
Now, I'm no lawyer, and if I was I wouldn't be as good as any lawyer (and lobbying firm, and campaign contributions) that Microsoft could muster, but it seems to me that you could reasonably argue that the security loopholes left wide open in the default setup of Windows XP, etc could leave Microsoft vulnerable to the same line of argument: ie, that they knowingly sell an inherently flawed and unsafe product.
It might be just a "midly annoying" problem to you but to someone less technically-gifted it might be the most annoying thing in the world. Similarly, telemarketers might not be the bane of your life but I'm sure there are people out there who get call after call after call from the same companies that just won't take no for an answer.
People should be able to use their PCs for the purposes that they see fit without being constantly disrupted by pop-up ads, and people should be able to enjoy the benefit of owning a phone without being constantly bombarded by companies trying to sell them their wares.
Even peer pressure and market forces go so far. Again, it all comes down to the fact that there's always someone who abuses the system.
I was using the others as examples of areas where regulation already exists and why it exists. But to say that companies should be allowed to do anything short of kill you is just as silly.
If I don't want spam filling up my inbox, junk mail filling up my post box, text spams filling up my mobile phone, or calls and messages from telemarketers hogging up my home phone line then I shouldn't have to rely solely on their ability to follow some flimsy voluntary code of practice. Like I said before, there's always someone who abuses the system and it's that someone that you need laws to protect you and everyone else against.
Self-regulation doesn't work. If you can name me one industry in which it does then I'll tip my hat to you.
Well, I'm not saying that pop-up ads are as bad as a poisoned water supply or contaminated food. But do we have to live in a world where only the most heinous crimes are punished?
If you want to go down that road then why not just lock up mass murderers and let burglars and fraudsters go unpunished. After all, one's not as bad as the other, right?
Less government is almost always good? Yeah, in a utopian world perhaps. But in the real world it doesn't work that way, does it? Someone always comes along and abuses the system. If people didn't steal we wouldn't need laws against it, if people didn't write malicious viruses we wouldn't need laws against it, etc.
You know, I'd rather live in a society where businesses were properly regulated so that they weren't able to abuse and harass individuals and society in general rather than one where they were allowed to do as they please.
Would you rather live in a country where food manufacturers could sell you contaminated foods, where chemical companies could poison the land that you live on, where oil companies could turn their backs on oil spills, or fill your mailbox with thousands of unwanted sales pitches? Or one where they couldn't literally get away with murder?
Remember, the only reason why regulation is necessary is because someone always abuses the system. If everyone could be trusted to act ethically then regulation wouldn't be needed, but everyone doesn't do that, do they?
It's a mistake - not exactly an obvious one and could certainly be forgiven - yet you have to bring up some crap about it being "actionable". Why? Are you even someone who knows whether or not it's "actionable"? Or are you just someone with false delusions of importance? I suspect the latter.
Browse the comments and see just how many other people have made the same mistake. I did too. Perhaps ZDNet should have, like most bought out spin-offs, rebranded to avoid confusion and association with their old parentage, for exactly this reason.
I see from your comment history you're a frequent troller here. I hope all that accumulated karma eventually gets you an orgasm, it's probably the only way you can.
"A frequent troller"? Is that what you call anyone who's opinions don't agree with yours? A personal attack on my beliefs and views: that's rather rich coming from someone who hides behind the Anonymous Coward option.
And, by the way, the whole point in CNET buying ZDNet.com (and ZDNet.co.uk, etc) from Ziff-Davis was to acquire the brand and its established customers and readers. Immediately rebranding it would have been rather counter-productive, don't you think?
Am I someone who knows whether something is actionable or not? Well, I've worked in publishing for some considerable time, and I know basic libel law. I was even once involved in a case where libel law was raised by someone who felt that an article printed by a publication that I was working on defamed his character. I think that first hand experience has given me good idea of what's libel and what's not, thank you very much for asking.
"Too quick to judge"? I think not: the weaknesses of Slashdot's editorial processes have been there for years. I may not have bothered creating a Slashdot ID until way after you had but I've been reading the site since 1998. In all that time how often do you think these flaws have been pointed out to the Slashdot editorial team (by dozens if not hundreds of people) yet how much have they actually done about it?
As for your first point, well, there are a bunch of us that are way ahead of you. And it's ironic that you call me a grammar-Nazi, because it's the arrogant, condescending and totalitarian attitude of the Slashdot editorial team that's the driving force behind a collaborative effort to form a serious alternative site.
So, you've got it totally wrong on both counts. Even the most polite attempts to communicate with the Slashdot editors is ignored or rebuffed and the situation has gotten so bad for many long-time regulars that they're looking at setting up on their own: the former has forced the latter.
(And, by the way, if pertinent observations, relevant criticisms and honest answers offend you so much then I suggest you look to yourself for answers, because clearly nothing I say or do will provide them for you.)
Lastly, it's interesting to see that this is one of the comparatively few occasions where a totally inaccurate story submission has been edited after the fact. I guess the idea of legal action against them does occasionally frighten the Slashdot editors into activity after all.
The bad guys in this case are Ziff-Davis Media, publishers of the print magazines and the www.eweek.com/ website that was linked to in pocketpctools.com's article.
ZDNet, which originally was Ziff-Davis's umbrella web prescence now has nothing to do with Ziff-Davis, and thus ZDNet is an innocent party here, so mentioning its name (as the story summary does twice) is completely inaccurate.
In fact, as it stands, the Slashdot story summary is highly actionable, as it places ZDNet in a very negative light for the misdeeds of a totally unrelated company. But, despite the fact that they're almost certainly libelling ZDNet here, the chances of the Slashdot editors actually doing something about it and changing the story summary are minimal.
Yes, confusing Ziff-Davis Media and ZDNet is a mistake that pocketpctools.com themselves make but the Slashdot editors should know better. Some basic fact-checking on their part wouldn't go amiss but that would involve an actual editorial review process, something that Slashdot has never really had, hence the dupes, fakes, spelling and grammar mistakes, inaccuracies, etc that plague virtually every story summary.
Maybe ZDNet initiating legal action against Slashdot would be a good thing. It might actually wake Taco and co. up to the fact that getting it right does matter.
That apostrophe really shouldn't be there in my parent post. That's what you get when you visit Slashdot after a long, hot Sunday spent plastering and sanding walls rather than catching some sun.
a link to [a] budget-conscious and game-oriented review of an AMD processor that's not on the bleeding edge, but makes a good showing for the money... "For gamers on a budget, I think the choice is obvious."
So, if you're on a budget you shouldn't buy bleeding edge? Wow, thanks for that amazing bit of insight. I'll file it next to "the Pope might be Catholic" and "day is warmer than night" in my mental list of secret bits of info that might come in handy sometime.
Seriously though, doesn't it seem like we're constantly being told this by Slashdot every six months? I wouldn't mind, but even if it wasn't so bloody obvious then it's the kind of thing that the average Slashdot reader would have learnt years ago.
Let's get this straight: as it stands, your device is broken and the manufacturer is offering to replace it with another unit and you're not happy with that situation?
Just what do you think would constitute good customer service on their part if replacing a dead unit with a working one isn't to your satisfaction? Just what do you want out of Linksys? Blood?
If Linksys told you to go take a running jump and were of no help whatsoever I'd understand you having a beef with them but they've done what they should do in this situation and yet you're still not happy.
Why do you need to fingerprint, etc every visitor to the US? Because one out of millions of them might be a potential terrorist? Well why not fingerprint every US citizen too then? After all, the Unabomber and Timothy McVeigh were both Americans who blew up other Americans, right?
While you're at it, why not make gun ownership in the US illegal. After all, some people use them for evil purposes, so take them all away. Knives too. And cars: we don't want people running anyone over, do we? Oh yeah, don't forget to ban peanuts because they can kill some people too, and we can't be taking any chances. And stop kids from playing sports ASAP because someone somewhere is going to die this year playing American football, baseball, etc.
This is why the dumb knee-jerk reaction is "big brother"ish. It punishes millions and acheives nothing: as others have pointed out, none of the September 11th hijackers would have been stopped from entering the US, because none of them had any red flags against them.
I am not American. I have dozens of reasons to want to visit the US right now (watching Roger Clemens pitch for my Houston Astros is just one of them) but I have one strong reason not to: I will not visit any country that presumes to treat me like a criminal even before I officially set foot on its soil. Not even the Cold War Soviet Union was that draconian.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow, I guess that's why so many foreign investors are so keen to invest in Dubya's America then!
Opera has customisable tabs. I very much doubt that Firefox approaches the level of customisation that you can get in Opera courtesy of Sessions, etc.
You can't be talking about Opera. It stinks compared to Mozilla. Opera has a needlessly vast header area that takes up too much screen real estate, and it has a poor record if being able to display web pages. I quickly deleted the thing after I found that it jumbled pages that MSIE and Mozilla could display just fine.
...it has a poor record if being able to display web pages. I quickly deleted the thing after I found that it jumbled pages that MSIE and Mozilla could display just fine.
I'll address those one by one:
Opera has a needlessly vast header area that takes up too much screen real estate...
No it doesn't. In fact, the default installation now has a very, very small header area. But, of course, this is and always has been something that you can change yourself, either by adjusting the size of the buttons (in percentage terms) or by applying a sleeker skin, or both.
No, it doesn't. It might have had problems with some badly coded pages in the past, but even the ones that were slightly off before are perfect now. One of the features of Opera is to mimic the rendering of other browsers, including MSIE, and this is now perfectly implemented.
Notes. Sessions. Mouse Gestures. Wand password manager. Complete control over pop-ups, Java, javascript, plug-ins, referrer logging, etc. Instantaneous back button. Etc, etc.
Opera's still the best browser out there, and well worth the money for the ad-free version.
Even the free, ad-supported verstion is preferable to anything else out there, including Mozilla.
Virtually all those cool features that you take for granted in Mozilla came from Opera, and Opera has a ton more yet still has a much smaller footprint. It's faster, richer, smaller and just plain better than the competition.
Frankly, if you haven't tried it recently then you're doing yourself a great disservice.
You're not just getting a PC, you're getting a PC and a 12-month dial-up service. If you're going to evaluate the real value of this deal then price up a similar spec PC and include a 12-month subscription to a ISP on par with AOL in terms of service, etc.
Also, remember that this is the sort of deal that's put together specifically to attract novice PC users. People who've never owned a PC before can buy a machine and not have to worry about where to get an internet connection, etc: it's an all-under-one-roof solution that's perfect for people who know what they want to do (surf the internet, send email, type the odd letter) but have no idea about what to buy when they flick through a magazine or go to a superstore.
In those terms, I don't see what there is to complain about.
Assuming the male form is arguably more scientific than guessing, which is what you seem to suggest should be done. Yes, it's what's historically been done and that's exactly why if you're not sure of someone's gender or want to make a general case using "he" is better than using "she". (Of course, using "he or she" or "s/he" is an alternative, but as you've pointed out it can become unwieldy.)
(By the way, why is guessing that the librarian in question is a woman right? You could argue that the librarian in question is also a technically-capable Slashdot reader, and that stacks the odds in favour of that person being a man rather than a woman.)
When you use "she" you're giving readers little doubt that you're referring specifically to a woman. But when you use "he" readers are more likely to appreciate that you mean "he or she".
To give an example, if I were to say "mankind has reached for the stars", you know that I'm referring to men and women. But if I was to say "womankind has reached for the stars" then that's a totally different meaning.
Yes, this is a grey area of language. Yes, it's all about personal interpretation and preferences. But momentum is on the side of "he", in this case and in general.
If he didn't cause the damage then who did? It was a virus that he had created, albeit one based on someone else's code, so who else is responsible for it?
Pretending that he's not responsible for the damage his virus caused because it wasn't solely his own work is narrow-sighted. Suppose someone were to take a fairly harmless human virus, say chickenpox, and tweak it to turn it into a pandemic-level threat that kills anyone infected: would you argue that that person isn't responsible?
Both cases involve taking a virus from the wild and engineering it to cause more destruction. Both should be treated accordingly.
This kid knew the potential consequences of his actions. He isn't someone else's patsy, he's a smart individual who just didn't care about the damage he could cause. It's his crime, it should be his time.
She? Who said that phatlipmojo was a she? Not all librarians are women, you know.
Looks like we could do with losing the stereotypes about librarians as well as the stereotypes about CS students.
Wow. What a compelling argument you've got there, Bob. "Yawn"? Yup, you really converted me with that one.
People who aren't technically-gifted should just quit using a computer? Wow, that's a narrow-sighted view if ever I've seen one: if nothing else, you forget that we were all new at this once.
And I like to know how or why an answering machine is the holy grail to telemarketing. Why should someone have to pay for an answering machine to solve a problem created by someone else? How does the answering machine help free up your phone line whilst the telemarketers are actually calling? What happens if you go away for a week and miss the message from your mother that someone's at death's door and that you should get your ass to the hospital ASAP because the entire recording length of your answering machine is taken up by sales pitches for fencing and windows?
That would be the same analogy as people suing a Gun manfacture just because the gun was used in a crime. Why stop there why not sue the developer that wrote the code for Windows Messenger.
I hate to break it to you, but suing a gun manufacturer because the gun was used in a crime has been done.
I can't remember the actual case, but there was one recently where a gun maker had a model that couldn't be safely loaded: due to a design flaw, you had to take the safety off to load the weapon. This flaw was known to the gun maker who did nothing to rectify it and when the gun went off accidentally, killing (if I remember correctly) the wielder, the courts held them responsible for the consequences because they had knowingly sold an inherently flawed and unsafe product.
Now, I'm no lawyer, and if I was I wouldn't be as good as any lawyer (and lobbying firm, and campaign contributions) that Microsoft could muster, but it seems to me that you could reasonably argue that the security loopholes left wide open in the default setup of Windows XP, etc could leave Microsoft vulnerable to the same line of argument: ie, that they knowingly sell an inherently flawed and unsafe product.
It might be just a "midly annoying" problem to you but to someone less technically-gifted it might be the most annoying thing in the world. Similarly, telemarketers might not be the bane of your life but I'm sure there are people out there who get call after call after call from the same companies that just won't take no for an answer.
People should be able to use their PCs for the purposes that they see fit without being constantly disrupted by pop-up ads, and people should be able to enjoy the benefit of owning a phone without being constantly bombarded by companies trying to sell them their wares.
Even peer pressure and market forces go so far. Again, it all comes down to the fact that there's always someone who abuses the system.
I was using the others as examples of areas where regulation already exists and why it exists. But to say that companies should be allowed to do anything short of kill you is just as silly.
If I don't want spam filling up my inbox, junk mail filling up my post box, text spams filling up my mobile phone, or calls and messages from telemarketers hogging up my home phone line then I shouldn't have to rely solely on their ability to follow some flimsy voluntary code of practice. Like I said before, there's always someone who abuses the system and it's that someone that you need laws to protect you and everyone else against.
Self-regulation doesn't work. If you can name me one industry in which it does then I'll tip my hat to you.
Well, I'm not saying that pop-up ads are as bad as a poisoned water supply or contaminated food. But do we have to live in a world where only the most heinous crimes are punished?
If you want to go down that road then why not just lock up mass murderers and let burglars and fraudsters go unpunished. After all, one's not as bad as the other, right?
Less government is almost always good? Yeah, in a utopian world perhaps. But in the real world it doesn't work that way, does it? Someone always comes along and abuses the system. If people didn't steal we wouldn't need laws against it, if people didn't write malicious viruses we wouldn't need laws against it, etc.
You know, I'd rather live in a society where businesses were properly regulated so that they weren't able to abuse and harass individuals and society in general rather than one where they were allowed to do as they please.
Would you rather live in a country where food manufacturers could sell you contaminated foods, where chemical companies could poison the land that you live on, where oil companies could turn their backs on oil spills, or fill your mailbox with thousands of unwanted sales pitches? Or one where they couldn't literally get away with murder?
Remember, the only reason why regulation is necessary is because someone always abuses the system. If everyone could be trusted to act ethically then regulation wouldn't be needed, but everyone doesn't do that, do they?
It's a mistake - not exactly an obvious one and could certainly be forgiven - yet you have to bring up some crap about it being "actionable". Why? Are you even someone who knows whether or not it's "actionable"? Or are you just someone with false delusions of importance? I suspect the latter.
Browse the comments and see just how many other people have made the same mistake. I did too. Perhaps ZDNet should have, like most bought out spin-offs, rebranded to avoid confusion and association with their old parentage, for exactly this reason.
I see from your comment history you're a frequent troller here. I hope all that accumulated karma eventually gets you an orgasm, it's probably the only way you can.
"A frequent troller"? Is that what you call anyone who's opinions don't agree with yours? A personal attack on my beliefs and views: that's rather rich coming from someone who hides behind the Anonymous Coward option.
And, by the way, the whole point in CNET buying ZDNet.com (and ZDNet.co.uk, etc) from Ziff-Davis was to acquire the brand and its established customers and readers. Immediately rebranding it would have been rather counter-productive, don't you think?
Am I someone who knows whether something is actionable or not? Well, I've worked in publishing for some considerable time, and I know basic libel law. I was even once involved in a case where libel law was raised by someone who felt that an article printed by a publication that I was working on defamed his character. I think that first hand experience has given me good idea of what's libel and what's not, thank you very much for asking.
"Too quick to judge"? I think not: the weaknesses of Slashdot's editorial processes have been there for years. I may not have bothered creating a Slashdot ID until way after you had but I've been reading the site since 1998. In all that time how often do you think these flaws have been pointed out to the Slashdot editorial team (by dozens if not hundreds of people) yet how much have they actually done about it?
As for your first point, well, there are a bunch of us that are way ahead of you. And it's ironic that you call me a grammar-Nazi, because it's the arrogant, condescending and totalitarian attitude of the Slashdot editorial team that's the driving force behind a collaborative effort to form a serious alternative site.
So, you've got it totally wrong on both counts. Even the most polite attempts to communicate with the Slashdot editors is ignored or rebuffed and the situation has gotten so bad for many long-time regulars that they're looking at setting up on their own: the former has forced the latter.
(And, by the way, if pertinent observations, relevant criticisms and honest answers offend you so much then I suggest you look to yourself for answers, because clearly nothing I say or do will provide them for you.)
Lastly, it's interesting to see that this is one of the comparatively few occasions where a totally inaccurate story submission has been edited after the fact. I guess the idea of legal action against them does occasionally frighten the Slashdot editors into activity after all.
The bad guys in this case are Ziff-Davis Media, publishers of the print magazines and the www.eweek.com/ website that was linked to in pocketpctools.com's article.
ZDNet, which originally was Ziff-Davis's umbrella web prescence now has nothing to do with Ziff-Davis, and thus ZDNet is an innocent party here, so mentioning its name (as the story summary does twice) is completely inaccurate.
In fact, as it stands, the Slashdot story summary is highly actionable, as it places ZDNet in a very negative light for the misdeeds of a totally unrelated company. But, despite the fact that they're almost certainly libelling ZDNet here, the chances of the Slashdot editors actually doing something about it and changing the story summary are minimal.
Yes, confusing Ziff-Davis Media and ZDNet is a mistake that pocketpctools.com themselves make but the Slashdot editors should know better. Some basic fact-checking on their part wouldn't go amiss but that would involve an actual editorial review process, something that Slashdot has never really had, hence the dupes, fakes, spelling and grammar mistakes, inaccuracies, etc that plague virtually every story summary.
Maybe ZDNet initiating legal action against Slashdot would be a good thing. It might actually wake Taco and co. up to the fact that getting it right does matter.
That apostrophe really shouldn't be there in my parent post. That's what you get when you visit Slashdot after a long, hot Sunday spent plastering and sanding walls rather than catching some sun.
It wants it's dupe back.
a link to [a] budget-conscious and game-oriented review of an AMD processor that's not on the bleeding edge, but makes a good showing for the money... "For gamers on a budget, I think the choice is obvious."
So, if you're on a budget you shouldn't buy bleeding edge? Wow, thanks for that amazing bit of insight. I'll file it next to "the Pope might be Catholic" and "day is warmer than night" in my mental list of secret bits of info that might come in handy sometime.
Seriously though, doesn't it seem like we're constantly being told this by Slashdot every six months? I wouldn't mind, but even if it wasn't so bloody obvious then it's the kind of thing that the average Slashdot reader would have learnt years ago.
Show me anything that can't be destroyed by "normal user behaviour" and I'll show you a lie.
Let's get this straight: as it stands, your device is broken and the manufacturer is offering to replace it with another unit and you're not happy with that situation?
Just what do you think would constitute good customer service on their part if replacing a dead unit with a working one isn't to your satisfaction? Just what do you want out of Linksys? Blood?
If Linksys told you to go take a running jump and were of no help whatsoever I'd understand you having a beef with them but they've done what they should do in this situation and yet you're still not happy.
There's no pleasing some people.
Why do you need to fingerprint, etc every visitor to the US? Because one out of millions of them might be a potential terrorist? Well why not fingerprint every US citizen too then? After all, the Unabomber and Timothy McVeigh were both Americans who blew up other Americans, right?
While you're at it, why not make gun ownership in the US illegal. After all, some people use them for evil purposes, so take them all away. Knives too. And cars: we don't want people running anyone over, do we? Oh yeah, don't forget to ban peanuts because they can kill some people too, and we can't be taking any chances. And stop kids from playing sports ASAP because someone somewhere is going to die this year playing American football, baseball, etc.
This is why the dumb knee-jerk reaction is "big brother"ish. It punishes millions and acheives nothing: as others have pointed out, none of the September 11th hijackers would have been stopped from entering the US, because none of them had any red flags against them.
I am not American. I have dozens of reasons to want to visit the US right now (watching Roger Clemens pitch for my Houston Astros is just one of them) but I have one strong reason not to: I will not visit any country that presumes to treat me like a criminal even before I officially set foot on its soil. Not even the Cold War Soviet Union was that draconian.