Your comment is assinine and has nothing to do with TFA.
First, this was six thousand dollars... not exactly inflation causing, eh?
Second, this was a single check mailed to a single creditor. One could just as easily send an envelope full of IRRATIONAL_FEAR to whomever they wanted to with out attaching a monetary device to it.
Dell can't make money unless the charge ~$550 a PC, so they lure you in with a $400 unit but charge unreasonable handling fees. Sure, you could by more PC and get break on handling, but now you're looking at a PC that is 50% more expensive than the one you wanted, and even the cheaper PC has three times the horsepower you need to surf the web.
Very good point... I priced out a bottom-end Dell, skipped on the monitor... and they still wanted to charge me $250 for standard shipping! Ended up goint to Best Buy and picking up a cheap HP box (with beafier specs) for less than the price of the Dell, before shipping & handeling.
Really, though, when it comes to the bottom-bottom end PCs -- which are more than enough for the vast majority of users out there -- you just can't build it as cheap as Dell or HP. That $525 price on the Ars article is sans OS, which adds at least another $80 for an OEM copy of XP Home; or you can walk into BB, pick a $400 computer and $150 monitor off of the shelf, probably get a rebate on top of that, and bring home a system that you can setup an half an hour instead of half a day.
The only redeaming feature of building your own is that the cheap, name brand kit (like mentioned in the Ars article) is usually of a slightly better quality than the manufactured PC's -- that last cheap Dell I purchased for mum didn't even have an AGP slot; it was on-board graphics or a PCI card:-/
First, I think that sustained "not quite uncomfortable" heat will, over the course of a few hours, produce a burn.
Second, there are design compromises in everything. "They" could have easilly added a couple of 80mm fans, or used slower, cooler-running chips. But I don't think the market is too keen on big or slow laptops. So you have to chose your tool carefully: if you want screaming, desktop-like performance from a computer that is 1/2" tall, understand that you are going to have a hot bottom surface and that you should strive to provide some kind of airflow over (err, under) that sufrace.
It was apparent from the outset that the right hand is slightly larger than the left hand; this size difference is likely a reaction to the right hand being used for more tasks. During key benchmarking (hand writting, manipulating can openers, masturbating) the right hand provided better results for longer durations than the left hand did.
You're right, that is more interesting that the laptop desk comparo.
First, RTFA. These "laptop desks" are the same as old-school lap desks: just a way to work away from a desk or table. What these do is keep that insane heat source away from your vijayjay or yoohoo.
To answer your first question: "to each their own". I have a PowerBook 'cause I like to use the same development machine at home, work, or at Panera's. I very seldom use it on my lap.
To answer your second question: to be able to reproduce later in life. Or maybe to not hinder the growth of leg hair. Or to prevent second-degree burns on your thighs.
Just cause it's called a "laptop" doesn't mean you have to use it on your lap. When people call 'em "notebooks" do you try to write on them with pens? Hey, I wardrive with mine... should I start calling it a "shotgun computer"?
If it is a school requirement, it's a school requirement. Can't afford it? Don't want to borrow money for it? Go to a different school.
My alma matta required every student to own a computer; believe me, back in '94 a 486DX2 cost a hell of a lot more than most mid- to high-end laptops do these days. But I knew it was a requirement when I applied, and I was excited to actually own a computer ("what's this 'DOOM Deathmatch' I keep hearing about?").
Now, there are other drawbacks to the "must have a laptop" scenario: labs have always been home to expensive hardware and software (Pro/Engineer, SGI machines, trick little AutoCad-specific pointing devices), and now you will burn a lot of money on software and mobile hardware that will spend most of it's life folded up in a book bag -- instead of in a shared envirornment getting constant use. But to address your issue:
If you don't like the laptop requirement, go to a different school.
Unless you plan on having your techs spend the day hand-writing notes
I believe that was his point; these are field techs, and they may have to document their experiences, costs, and/or services provided by hand. I don't know about "Geek Squad", but I have never had a field tech bring along a printer and leave me with a nice, typed receipt of what he just did (yes, I'm sure there are tech support shops with that kind of setup, but I haven't used one).
If they are [protecting a trademark], it's the first time.
Uhm, no, it is not. Read the parent-post of the post you replied to.
As others have pointed out, this is not a matter of trademark law but of international treaty: that red cross is to be used only to mark non-targets during conflicts (e.g. medics & clergy, hospitals, ambulances) and by members of the International Red Cross Society.
The Geneva Conventions obliged their signatories to prevent the unauthorized use of the name and emblem in wartime and peacetime in order to ensure universal respect for the emblem.
Nevertheless, the emblem is often used to indicate first aid, medical supplies, and the like, which are abuses of the emblem and shall be forbidden by all signatory powers to the Geneva Conventions. In order to avoid this conflict, a different-colored cross is often used.
So, I guess the International Red Cross is kinda obligated to go after the non-military uses of that symbol.
Remember, these are the same fuckers that sued the Boy Scounts over a red cross on their "Emergency Preparedness" merit badge; the cross is now green, and has been since 1980.
On Valve's Steam engine you can make ping times a server search criteria. No, there is not a way to tell if the players on a given Counter Strike server are way above or below your skill level[1], but this addresses the issue of minimalizing lag.
1: With me, finding good CS:S competitors is easy: everyone is way above my skill level:-)
And you know what? Fuck the ratings... sit down with them, watch what they're doing. If you don't understand that "M" on a video game box means "Mature", fine -- but know what they are doing anyway! If they are a part of your lives, then play video games with them. Just... be there to guide.
If the parents make a peep about suing EA under the pretense that
"they are just kids and didn't know what they were doing", charge them with
child negligence -- first, with providing them access to such a dangerous
video game, and second by providing them access to their cars.
Note that there have only been 6 (!) bugs since V3.7 (almost a year old now; 3.9 Beta is already available), none are remote exploitable, and all have been fixed!
And Nash talks about the software stack? The ports for Apache and Sendmail have been audited and patched, the sendmail patches are sent up-stream and the Apache patches... well, I guess it's a fork at this point, but still secured.
Oh, well all know that MS has an affinity for BSD-licenced software -- is it any surprise that their attempt at "write xor execute" memory came after OpenBSD's did?
Considering the typical web connection, throtteling the traffic back to an enduser will seriously degrade their internet experiance. For a simplified example:
You: GET / HOST slashdot.org Slashdot: <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd"> <html> <head> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
... all this and much more, before you even get to the stuff that renders too your screen.
It isn't "power to the coporations", it is a Big Corp setting a precident (Google won't pay shit, even though they could afford too) that will help out the little man -- say the next Craig's List or del.ico.us ("little" as in before the buy-outs, obviously).
I'm beginning to think this dictionary attack from spam idea is largely an explanation looking for a problem.
Well then, you're just a dumbass.
I'm sorry, I meant "inexperienced".
I am sure that most people who have managed email for a domain have seen dictionary attacks many, many times. How do you think e-mail ends up at a "sales@" email address when one never existed, and therefore wasn't published on the web or appeared in some kind of directory?
Seriously, your arguments are week; those who run their own domains -- manage their own mail and web servers -- have seen email sent to ficticous addresses. Where does a directory come into play when the email address never exisited?
And think about resources a little bit: which is easier, to generate a hojillion email addresses and just send them out or to crawl for these "hidden directory pages" and inundate a system with finger requests?
Links with the "ping" attribute should be diffrentiated from other links.
There should client-side options to control "ping" behavior, similar to current cookie options: "respond to all", "ignore 3rd party", "ignore all".
FWIW, this really seems dead in the water. First, not too many users will have it enabled (or even available, for that matter). Second, this information is already being reliably collected with cookies, mod_usertrack, javascript, and page redirect tricks -- mostly with no knowledge of the enduser.
Why go with a little-available, easily disable mechanisim when the tried-and-true method is already available?
Slashdot Mirror
Your comment is assinine and has nothing to do with TFA.
First, this was six thousand dollars... not exactly inflation causing, eh?
Second, this was a single check mailed to a single creditor. One could just as easily send an envelope full of IRRATIONAL_FEAR to whomever they wanted to with out attaching a monetary device to it.
Well, that's kinda the point...
Dell can't make money unless the charge ~$550 a PC, so they lure you in with a $400 unit but charge unreasonable handling fees. Sure, you could by more PC and get break on handling, but now you're looking at a PC that is 50% more expensive than the one you wanted, and even the cheaper PC has three times the horsepower you need to surf the web.
Very good point... I priced out a bottom-end Dell, skipped on the monitor... and they still wanted to charge me $250 for standard shipping! Ended up goint to Best Buy and picking up a cheap HP box (with beafier specs) for less than the price of the Dell, before shipping & handeling.
Really, though, when it comes to the bottom-bottom end PCs -- which are more than enough for the vast majority of users out there -- you just can't build it as cheap as Dell or HP. That $525 price on the Ars article is sans OS, which adds at least another $80 for an OEM copy of XP Home; or you can walk into BB, pick a $400 computer and $150 monitor off of the shelf, probably get a rebate on top of that, and bring home a system that you can setup an half an hour instead of half a day.
The only redeaming feature of building your own is that the cheap, name brand kit (like mentioned in the Ars article) is usually of a slightly better quality than the manufactured PC's -- that last cheap Dell I purchased for mum didn't even have an AGP slot; it was on-board graphics or a PCI card :-/
... the article is now tagged "bullshitbingo" and "buzzwordcompliant"
I find your ideas intriguing and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
Two things to think about:
First, I think that sustained "not quite uncomfortable" heat will, over the course of a few hours, produce a burn.
Second, there are design compromises in everything. "They" could have easilly added a couple of 80mm fans, or used slower, cooler-running chips. But I don't think the market is too keen on big or slow laptops. So you have to chose your tool carefully: if you want screaming, desktop-like performance from a computer that is 1/2" tall, understand that you are going to have a hot bottom surface and that you should strive to provide some kind of airflow over (err, under) that sufrace.
Well, if you must use it on your lap, you are the target market for one of these laptop desks. Remeber: laptops burn.
From that article:
You're right, that is more interesting that the laptop desk comparo.
First, RTFA. These "laptop desks" are the same as old-school lap desks: just a way to work away from a desk or table. What these do is keep that insane heat source away from your vijayjay or yoohoo.
To answer your first question: "to each their own". I have a PowerBook 'cause I like to use the same development machine at home, work, or at Panera's. I very seldom use it on my lap.
To answer your second question: to be able to reproduce later in life. Or maybe to not hinder the growth of leg hair. Or to prevent second-degree burns on your thighs.
Just cause it's called a "laptop" doesn't mean you have to use it on your lap. When people call 'em "notebooks" do you try to write on them with pens? Hey, I wardrive with mine... should I start calling it a "shotgun computer"?
If it is a school requirement, it's a school requirement. Can't afford it? Don't want to borrow money for it? Go to a different school.
My alma matta required every student to own a computer; believe me, back in '94 a 486DX2 cost a hell of a lot more than most mid- to high-end laptops do these days. But I knew it was a requirement when I applied, and I was excited to actually own a computer ("what's this 'DOOM Deathmatch' I keep hearing about?").
Now, there are other drawbacks to the "must have a laptop" scenario: labs have always been home to expensive hardware and software (Pro/Engineer, SGI machines, trick little AutoCad-specific pointing devices), and now you will burn a lot of money on software and mobile hardware that will spend most of it's life folded up in a book bag -- instead of in a shared envirornment getting constant use. But to address your issue:
If you don't like the laptop requirement, go to a different school.
Wow.
Kudos on skipping the "In Soviet Russia" joke -- I'm sure you were tempted to throw it in there.
I believe that was his point; these are field techs, and they may have to document their experiences, costs, and/or services provided by hand. I don't know about "Geek Squad", but I have never had a field tech bring along a printer and leave me with a nice, typed receipt of what he just did (yes, I'm sure there are tech support shops with that kind of setup, but I haven't used one).
Uhm, no, it is not. Read the parent-post of the post you replied to.
As others have pointed out, this is not a matter of trademark law but of international treaty: that red cross is to be used only to mark non-targets during conflicts (e.g. medics & clergy, hospitals, ambulances) and by members of the International Red Cross Society.
Also from that article:
So, I guess the International Red Cross is kinda obligated to go after the non-military uses of that symbol.
Remember, these are the same fuckers that sued the Boy Scounts over a red cross on their "Emergency Preparedness" merit badge; the cross is now green, and has been since 1980.
On Valve's Steam engine you can make ping times a server search criteria. No, there is not a way to tell if the players on a given Counter Strike server are way above or below your skill level[1], but this addresses the issue of minimalizing lag.
1: With me, finding good CS:S competitors is easy: everyone is way above my skill level :-)
And you know what? Fuck the ratings... sit down with them, watch what they're doing. If you don't understand that "M" on a video game box means "Mature", fine -- but know what they are doing anyway! If they are a part of your lives, then play video games with them. Just... be there to guide.
Throw the kids in jail.
If the parents make a peep about suing EA under the pretense that "they are just kids and didn't know what they were doing", charge them with child negligence -- first, with providing them access to such a dangerous video game, and second by providing them access to their cars.
You want to know what those OpenBSD bugs are? Visit http://openbsd.org/security.html#38
Note that there have only been 6 (!) bugs since V3.7 (almost a year old now; 3.9 Beta is already available), none are remote exploitable, and all have been fixed!
And Nash talks about the software stack? The ports for Apache and Sendmail have been audited and patched, the sendmail patches are sent up-stream and the Apache patches... well, I guess it's a fork at this point, but still secured.
Oh, well all know that MS has an affinity for BSD-licenced software -- is it any surprise that their attempt at "write xor execute" memory came after OpenBSD's did?
Uhm.
Considering the typical web connection, throtteling the traffic back to an enduser will seriously degrade their internet experiance. For a simplified example:
You:
GET / HOST slashdot.org
Slashdot:
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
... all this and much more, before you even get to the stuff that renders too your screen.
It isn't "power to the coporations", it is a Big Corp setting a precident (Google won't pay shit, even though they could afford too) that will help out the little man -- say the next Craig's List or del.ico.us ("little" as in before the buy-outs, obviously).
Well then, you're just a dumbass.
I'm sorry, I meant "inexperienced".
I am sure that most people who have managed email for a domain have seen dictionary attacks many, many times. How do you think e-mail ends up at a "sales@" email address when one never existed, and therefore wasn't published on the web or appeared in some kind of directory?
Seriously, your arguments are week; those who run their own domains -- manage their own mail and web servers -- have seen email sent to ficticous addresses. Where does a directory come into play when the email address never exisited?
And think about resources a little bit: which is easier, to generate a hojillion email addresses and just send them out or to crawl for these "hidden directory pages" and inundate a system with finger requests?
Did you read the article, or the WHATWG spec?
It specifically mentions:
FWIW, this really seems dead in the water. First, not too many users will have it enabled (or even available, for that matter). Second, this information is already being reliably collected with cookies, mod_usertrack, javascript, and page redirect tricks -- mostly with no knowledge of the enduser.
Why go with a little-available, easily disable mechanisim when the tried-and-true method is already available?
It was with very good reason that your post was modded +5 funny.
Empty your wallet.