If this will help them get their birth rate under control then great. Otherwise what they are doing is like trying to fix the sink when the kitchen is on fire.
If he really doesn't want to see the scumbags get hurt then one option is to use rock salt in place of standard shot in a shotgun. Getting shot with rock-salt is one of the most painful experiences known to man, with the added "benefit" of being non-lethal.
I just hope she doesn't live someplace where you need a permit. I don't register my guns and I never will. I'm not going to put myself on a list of people the gestapo will come visit should the second amendment ever be struck down.
At the very least he should be taken out someplace and literally beaten within an inch of his life. They ought to give every single person who was affected by his punk ass a chance to come take a swing at him, preferably with a baseball bat.
Blaming Microsoft for the acts of a vandal is like blaming TWA for the acts of terrorists.
Do a search for the author in relation to the cult and see what you get:
As one Amazon.com reviewer wrote:
"As a Health Educator with Master's level training, I took an interest in this book. After reading nearly a third (200 pages) or so of the book, I began to realize that this was a propoganda piece by the enemy of free speech known as the Church of Scientology. Ironically, the Church is not a church nor is there ANY science behind any of their malicious claims and attacks. It may be true that there are abuses within psychiatry, medicine or the mental health fields, AS THERE ARE IN EVERY OTHER PROFESSION INCLUDING THE CLERGY. I strongly advise readers not to buy this cleverly crafted collection of half-truths, misinformation and slander. The internet is a great instrument for exposing the lies and fraud from organizations like "The Citizens Commission for Human Rights" which is analogous to Hitler's SS in its assault on psychiatry. "
If so then there is a channel called "Comedy Central" that you would do well to watch more of, especially shows like "South Park", "Crank Yankers" , and especially "The Dave Chappelle Show." If you don't have cable then there is always the old standby, Saturday Night Live. If none of these are options then I'd suggest that you read "The Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy," and watch "Monty Python and the Holy Grail."
Be careful, statements like that one are exactly what fuel the Redmond FUD machine's claims that we're all a bunch of commies.
By they way, are you coming to the meeting this evening where we will further discuss the coming revolution and subsequent dictatorship of the proletariat? Comrade Stalin, uh I mean Stallman has asked that all good comm.. I mean Free Software Advocates attend this very important meeting!!
See you there Comrade!
(Message for the comically challenged.... Yes, I'm only joking)
Whether gay people choose to be gay has nothing to do with anything because homosexuality does not cause problems for society. Promiscuous homosexuality does, but then that IS a choice. So is shooting yourself in the foot.
Being born in a slum or a mansion is a matter of choice. Unfortunately it is a choice that your parents make instead of you. Whether you stay in that slum or mansion is where you must make your own choices. My ancestors came here from Ireland and were spit upon and made to live in shanty towns and slums. Today the Irish are as prosperous and accomplished as any other group. Why? Because hard work and dedication to improving one's self and one's condition are one of the best investments that can be made, and that investment paid off for the Irish. If someone is not willing to make a similar investment and has come to suffer because of it, then they've gotten what they deserve and I have no sympathy. I only hope their their children learn from the mistakes of their elders.
Comparing someone born in a slum with someone born in a mansion is really a dishonest comparison. Someone who comes from a wealthy background does have it easier, but how easy or hard one person has it is not an excuse for another person's failure. Most failure is the result of people refusing to try, not because there were some insurmountable obstacles in way of their success. This isn't the 3rd world where such obstacles are real, this is America where there are almost more opportunities than there are people to take advantage of them. Anyone of average ability who works hard and takes advantage of the opportunities available to them can make something of themself. They may not be rich, they may not even be well-off, but they won't be living in poverty. They'll be able to put food on the table and clothes on their children's backs.
My mother raised my sister and I on her own. As a bookkeeper without a degree, the most she's ever earned in a year is 20k. I know all about having to go without or go with second-best because the money just isn't there. I do well financially and professionally because I was taught the importance of hard work and education. I took advantage of my opportunities and prospered as a result.
As for the immigrants you mention, I think they would disagree with you. If this were not a land of opportunity where people from other places had a chance to suceed, we wouldn't have people from around the world clamoring to be let in. Ask someone what the happiest day of their life was and they might say the day their first child was born, or the day they got married. Ask a naturalized citzen and you're more likely to be told it was the day they became a US citizen.
In other words liberals are pretty much full of shit. They are an example of the perverse trimph of intelligence over wisdom and common sense, which is inevitable when one's ideology is disconnected from reality.
By your description I qualify as a conservative. I understand that there are good and bad people in the world. But unlike your hypothetical conservative I also understand that good and evil are choices. Bad people are bad because they choose to be. What causes them to make the choice to be bad depends upon the individual. There is no single root cause for that choice. Likewise good people are good because they choose to be and what causes them to make that choice is something that is specific to them as an individual.
I personally think that the relationship between poverty and crime is not one of cause and effect in either direction. Rather poverty and crime are both effects of the same cause, or at least they are in the setting you seem to imply, which is contemporary America in areas where both are high.
Just as there are people who are good and people who are bad, there are also what you could call winners and losers. The USA is the most prosperous nation the world has ever seen. Short of mental and physical disability, there is no reason why someone should be poor here. Great wealth may not be obtainable by absolutely everyone, but a comfortable middle-class existence certainly is. If someone isn't able to achieve that standard of living, and they are not disabled in some way, then it is usually because they have made bad choices in life There is always some sob story about how someone got done in by circumstances beyond their control, but that is the exception, not the rule, and even then the person in question still has the power to change their circumstances over tiem. There are so many opportunities available in this country that it's staggering. Even someone who is in prison has the opportunity to change their life and make something of themself. Our lives are the products of the choices we make, not what happens to us or the circumstances into which we are born.
The reason why poverty and crime tend to co-exist is because both phenomena are the product of people making bad choices. The socio-economic meritocracy that we have in this country works to segregate those who make good choices from those who make bad ones. Slums exist because that is where society puts those who make bad choices. Therefore both poverty and crime are going to rampant in these places.
As far as what do to about it, all I can say is that you can't fix broken people. The most we can do is work to maintain the opportunities available to those who were unfortunate enough to be born into such an environment, and work to incarcerate those who choose to be criminals. The schools in our slums are really bad, in part because they are filled with people whose parents made bad choices. Whatever genetic component predisposed their parents to making their bad choices tends to get passed down to the children, which means that you've got a school full fututre thugs and losers. Then there is the fact that some people are poor just because they're dumb as bricks. They don't make evil choices or even foolish ones as judged by their mental capacity, but they're still at a disadvantage. This creates a synergy of problems that even Socrates couldn't handle.
Imagine you're in a class of 30 student. Now imagine that eight of the people in your class are violent thugs who work to intimidate and attack other students as well as the teacher. They interrupt the class at every opportunity. They eventually wind up in "juvie," and prison soon after that, but not soon enough. 12 of your classmates are not violent and their not stupid, they just don't want to learn. They blame the consequences of their bad choices on external villans collectively known as "The Man." As a result they haven't learned and have suceeded in dragging the average standard of education in your school down
If, as a man, you look at another man's hairy ass and say to yourself "Damn! I just gotta get me some of that!!" then you are most certainly gay.
If, on the other hand, you look at another man's hair ass and think to yourself "What the hell is that?! Put some dammed pants on you freak!" then you are most certainly not gay.
XP has a built in firewall, did you know this? When it it turned on, even an unpatched system is protected from attempts at remote intrusion. You are still vulnerable to IE exploits, but if you're using IE on an unpatched system you need to be smacked. Actually if you're using IE at all you deserve to be smacked, just not as hard.
So, the next time you do a clean install of XP and need to download patches, turn on the firewall BEFORE you connect it to the network. Then immediately begin installing patches from windows update. Each time you need to reboot during this process, yank the network cable until the system has finished booting. The reason is that an unpatched and partially-patched Windows system is vulnerable during boot-up. It seems that the windows firewall is one of the last things to be turned on during boot up instead of the first, which creates a window of opportunity for attacks to succeed.
Once the system has installed all of the patches that are available, LEAVE THE FIREWALL ON unless you have a very good reason not to and know what the fsck you are doing.
If you'll follow this simple proceedure, patching your windows system is safe and easy.
I'm sick and tired of reading slashdot headlines that claim there are all kinds of problems patching a windows system. Windows may suck, but that is no excuse for lying about it. Propaganda and FUD are best left to the professionals in Redmond.
I can see why you posted as an AC. I've been a hacker for almost a quarter century and I don't need some wet behind the ears newbie telling me I have things I need to learn.
If you think you can consistently "salvage" compromised Windows systems then you're clearly delusional. You might be able to straighten things out about half of the time, if you're lucky. Otherwise a clean install is in your future.
Don't you understand that the very definition of sexual harassment is UNWANTED sexual advances??
Its not that attractive guys have more rights, its that they have a priviledge that, from the sound of it, you don't. Well guess what, life isn't fair. Intelligent people have priviledges that dumb people don't. Industrious people have priviledges that lazy people don't. How would you like to be stuck working with idiots because of some misguided P.C. ideological agenda that claimed a fry-cook was qualified to be a neurosurgeon? Or a bum off the street was qualified to be an attorney? I don't know about you, but I'd leave the fucking country if crap like that started happening.
Luckily unlike brains, one's looks can be improved. If you don't like being treated like a cave troll, then the thing to do is work on making yourself more attractive. The more unattractive you are, the more room there is for improvement. Get a haircut, lose weight, learn how to dress nice, start using mouthwash, whatever it is that's making you look bad there is almost certainly something you can do about it. You might not have Brad Pitt potential buried inside you, but one doesn't have to be Brad Pitt to do well with the ladies, unless of course you're looking to hook up with Gwyneth Paltrow, Jennifer Aniston, or some other luminary from the hottie hall of fame. If you're already putting in the effort to look your best, then chances are you've got a girl and don't have any business scoping the field anyway.
Besides, I think your example of a girl realizing that you're checking her out is a little far fetched. If you're working someplace where a girl is going to pitch a fit about that and be taken seriously then you need to find another job because that is NOT a healthy work environment. On the other hand, if you're GRABBING a girl's ass instead of just enjoying your view of it, then someone needs to kick your ass.
Let me explain something to you. Women WANT men to make sexual (well romantic at least) advances towards them. They're just as crazy over men as we are over them. They just don't want those advances from men they don't find attractive (you know who you are). And they definitely don't want the men they find unattractive to continue to pursue them after they've made it clear they are not interested. How would you like it if some hatched-faced skank wouldn't leave YOU alone? Its the latter situation that has created most of the brouhaha over "sexual harassment" in the first place. That and bosses who think its their prerogative to demand a blow job from their female underlings (which is why God invented scissors).
Anyone who tells you that women don't want to be approached is not the kind of person you want to be listening to. They're either an unattractive, socially inept male (we have guys like that in computer science?? NO!!), or a lesbian femi-nazi who doesn't like the competition.
Threats and bullying only work when you give in to them. If you're not willing to fight and sacrifice for your rights then guess what, you don't have them. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance, and that means doing things that are uncomfortable in the short run to ensure your freedom in the long run. Giving in to the abuse of power only makes that power more likely to be abused in the future. To stand fast and say "NO!" is a victory in and of itself regardless of the personal cost.
I don't know about you, but threats from law firms don't scare me. If they think my freedom and my rights are less important to me than my bank balance then they are sadly mistaken.
The fact that the law can be used to harass is a two way street. At the end of the day it all comes down to who is going to blink first. Who is willing to go the farthest, dig the deepest, and get the meanest. I don't know about other people here, but I'm one of the most vicious, spiteful, ruthless and stubborn people I know. I'm a nice guy when others are nice, but when it becomes clear that someone is trying to fuck with me my demeanor changes rather dramatically. When someone is clearly my enemy, I have no conscience, no scruples, and I'm willing to go as far as is necessary to make my enemy wish they were never born. This aspect of my personality is sometimes frightening even to me.
If I were someone these shysters were threatening, I do believe I'd tell them to put their money where their mouth is. Make them spend the time and money to pursue me. If they did...well lets just say that they'll wish they hadn't. That is the kind of vigilance that is necessary to secure and defend one's rights against abuse at the hands of others who have more money and power than you do. Make it as painful for them as possible at every turn. Make them PAY for it in ways that they just aren't willing to. Exact the maximum discomfort from them at every turn.
People just don't understand what biometrics are for. They are not appropriate as a primary means of verifying identity, but they do work well as a supplement to other methods.
I think the problem is you've got some sales monkeys who are selling the idea of biometrics as an authentication pancea to pointy-haired types, which is just further proof that non-technical people should never be in a position of authority or act in a primary decision making capacity where technology is concerned.
This is just a repeat of the problems that people used to have with Cyrix based systems. Companies would take a cyrix cpu, put it on a bottom-feeder motherboard, connect that to a piece of crap power supply, and then stick marginal memory on it.
The result? A system that was unstable and flaky.
The reason wasn't because the Cyrix CPU's were bad, but because they were the only primary component that wasn't crap. Now I'm not saying that Cyrix processors were great, only that the reputation they had as being flaky was undeserved. Pair them up with good quality components and the end result was just as stable as anything based off of AMD or Intel's processors.
The reason why Cyrix's CPU's were especially sensitive to the quality of the motherboard they were paired with is because they drew significantly more current than the Pentiums they were competing with. A crappy motherboard is going to have crappy power regulation. Plug in something that taxes that power system and the result is not going to be pretty.
As for the current issues that some people may be having with low-end consumer grade systems, all I can say is that from what I've seen the quality of those systems is about on par with an E-machines. I'd be shocked and amazed if there weren't just as many problems with the Intel based bottom-feeder systems that are being sold along side those Athlons.
I have two Athlon systems at home and two more at work. These are all systems that I put together myself. I've never had any problems with them, either from a compatibility standpoint or in terms of stability.
The bottom line is that, right now, AMD is the better choice just about any way you look at it. The only reason I can see someone buying or advocating Intel's wares is if they own stock in the company.
Most people buying consumer-level desktops don't know the difference between a CPU and a CPA.
Intel only has brand name recognition because they advertise themselves as a brand name.
I think AMD would do well to advertise themselves as a brand also. If I were them I'd completely ignore Intel in my ads. Rather than saying "We're just as good as intel," they should be saying "We're the shit and we've never even heard of Intel."
The reason that this kind of advertisement would be successful is because your average consumer doesn't know anything about computers. Ads that simply encourage consumers to feel good about AMD as a brand will therefore be more effective than ads with a more technical message. They should use the fact that consumers don't know about them to their advantage by NOT introducing themselves as an underdog or their wares as "3rd party" products. They should instead imply that they and their products are the standard, which increasingly they are.
Academic research only impresses those who have never worked in academia. This research MAY pan out in 3 or 4 years, or even later, but that is an epoch in terms of computer hardware. In the mean-time AMD is eating Intel's lunch.
Normally Intel would have sand-bagged on their R&D and be able to respond quickly, but because of the catastrophe that is the Itanium they're stuck. Intel poured so much money and R&D brainpower into the Itanium that when it bombed they didn't have anything else to show.
Intel basically tried to pull a PS/2 with the Itanium. They wanted an architecture that they had exclusive control over and that they could charge up the ass for. Such schemes can be successful at times, but when they fail the consequences are devastating, which is exactly what we're seeing right now.
Add to that the recent string of catastrophes in the P4 arena that has actually led Intel to drop a core revision in favor of a modified P-III that was originally desiged for laptops, and you've got a recipe for a total cluster-fuck.
Intel is not out of the game yet, but they're hurting bad and it is going to take a LOT more than a bunch of journal articles to get them out of the hole.
If Microsoft is a monopoly, Apple is surely a failed attempt at one. Apple has a long history of intentionally breaking their products so that they will not inter-operate with other products.
Remember back when Jean-Louis Gassée held up a telephone when asked how to make Macs and PC's work together on the same network? Apple not only wasn't interested in having Macs inter-operate with PC's on a LAN, they were openly hostile to the idea.
Anyone else remember the voodoo one had to go through to get a standard SCSI hard drive or CDROM drive to work in a Mac? Remember the bullshit that Apple tried to spout when asked about this? They tried to say that SCSI was an electrical standard and not an interface standard. Yeah, right. The truth of course was that their partitioning tools and CDROM drivers were specifically written to check for a tag in the drive's firmware and fail if that tag was not found.
Any company that is going to play keep-away like that will NEVER receive a dime from me.
It's this kind of snobbish nonesense that really made me dislike Apple, regardless of what the company used to be like back in the Apple II days.
This is why I won't buy an Ipod. That and the whole bullshit issue with the batteries not being replacable. I hear they've fixed that now, but it never should have been an issue in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
If this will help them get their birth rate under control then great. Otherwise what they are doing is like trying to fix the sink when the kitchen is on fire.
Lee
If he really doesn't want to see the scumbags get hurt then one option is to use rock salt in place of standard shot in a shotgun. Getting shot with rock-salt is one of the most painful experiences known to man, with the added "benefit" of being non-lethal.
I just hope she doesn't live someplace where you need a permit. I don't register my guns and I never will. I'm not going to put myself on a list of people the gestapo will come visit should the second amendment ever be struck down.
Lee
At the very least he should be taken out someplace and literally beaten within an inch of his life. They ought to give every single person who was affected by his punk ass a chance to come take a swing at him, preferably with a baseball bat.
Blaming Microsoft for the acts of a vandal is like blaming TWA for the acts of terrorists.
Lee
Do a search for the author in relation to the cult and see what you get:
As one Amazon.com reviewer wrote:
"As a Health Educator with Master's level training, I took an interest in this book. After reading nearly a third (200 pages) or so of the book, I began to realize that this was a propoganda piece by the enemy of free speech known as the Church of Scientology. Ironically, the Church is not a church nor is there ANY science behind any of their malicious claims and attacks. It may be true that there are abuses within psychiatry, medicine or the mental health fields, AS THERE ARE IN EVERY OTHER PROFESSION INCLUDING THE CLERGY. I strongly advise readers not to buy this cleverly crafted collection of half-truths, misinformation and slander. The internet is a great instrument for exposing the lies and fraud from organizations like "The Citizens Commission for Human Rights" which is analogous to Hitler's SS in its assault on psychiatry. "
Do you have cable TV?
If so then there is a channel called "Comedy Central" that you would do well to watch more of, especially shows like "South Park", "Crank Yankers" , and especially "The Dave Chappelle Show." If you don't have cable then there is always the old standby, Saturday Night Live. If none of these are options then I'd suggest that you read "The Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy," and watch "Monty Python and the Holy Grail."
Lee
....their mass wealth redistributed....
Be careful, statements like that one are exactly what fuel the Redmond FUD machine's claims that we're all a bunch of commies.
By they way, are you coming to the meeting this evening where we will further discuss the coming revolution and subsequent dictatorship of the proletariat? Comrade Stalin, uh I mean Stallman has asked that all good comm.. I mean Free Software Advocates attend this very important meeting!!
See you there Comrade!
(Message for the comically challenged.... Yes, I'm only joking)
That's going to entice you to WORK? If the natural result of that kind of enticement is their idea of employment, where do I send my resume?
The question you asked had already been answered in a previous post before you even asked it. Like I said, learn to read.
Learn to read
Whether gay people choose to be gay has nothing to do with anything because homosexuality does not cause problems for society. Promiscuous homosexuality does, but then that IS a choice. So is shooting yourself in the foot.
Being born in a slum or a mansion is a matter of choice. Unfortunately it is a choice that your parents make instead of you. Whether you stay in that slum or mansion is where you must make your own choices. My ancestors came here from Ireland and were spit upon and made to live in shanty towns and slums. Today the Irish are as prosperous and accomplished as any other group. Why? Because hard work and dedication to improving one's self and one's condition are one of the best investments that can be made, and that investment paid off for the Irish. If someone is not willing to make a similar investment and has come to suffer because of it, then they've gotten what they deserve and I have no sympathy. I only hope their their children learn from the mistakes of their elders.
Comparing someone born in a slum with someone born in a mansion is really a dishonest comparison. Someone who comes from a wealthy background does have it easier, but how easy or hard one person has it is not an excuse for another person's failure. Most failure is the result of people refusing to try, not because there were some insurmountable obstacles in way of their success. This isn't the 3rd world where such obstacles are real, this is America where there are almost more opportunities than there are people to take advantage of them. Anyone of average ability who works hard and takes advantage of the opportunities available to them can make something of themself. They may not be rich, they may not even be well-off, but they won't be living in poverty. They'll be able to put food on the table and clothes on their children's backs.
My mother raised my sister and I on her own. As a bookkeeper without a degree, the most she's ever earned in a year is 20k. I know all about having to go without or go with second-best because the money just isn't there. I do well financially and professionally because I was taught the importance of hard work and education. I took advantage of my opportunities and prospered as a result.
As for the immigrants you mention, I think they would disagree with you. If this were not a land of opportunity where people from other places had a chance to suceed, we wouldn't have people from around the world clamoring to be let in. Ask someone what the happiest day of their life was and they might say the day their first child was born, or the day they got married. Ask a naturalized citzen and you're more likely to be told it was the day they became a US citizen.
Lee
In other words liberals are pretty much full of shit. They are an example of the perverse trimph of intelligence over wisdom and common sense, which is inevitable when one's ideology is disconnected from reality.
By your description I qualify as a conservative. I understand that there are good and bad people in the world. But unlike your hypothetical conservative I also understand that good and evil are choices. Bad people are bad because they choose to be. What causes them to make the choice to be bad depends upon the individual. There is no single root cause for that choice. Likewise good people are good because they choose to be and what causes them to make that choice is something that is specific to them as an individual.
I personally think that the relationship between poverty and crime is not one of cause and effect in either direction. Rather poverty and crime are both effects of the same cause, or at least they are in the setting you seem to imply, which is contemporary America in areas where both are high.
Just as there are people who are good and people who are bad, there are also what you could call winners and losers. The USA is the most prosperous nation the world has ever seen. Short of mental and physical disability, there is no reason why someone should be poor here. Great wealth may not be obtainable by absolutely everyone, but a comfortable middle-class existence certainly is. If someone isn't able to achieve that standard of living, and they are not disabled in some way, then it is usually because they have made bad choices in life There is always some sob story about how someone got done in by circumstances beyond their control, but that is the exception, not the rule, and even then the person in question still has the power to change their circumstances over tiem. There are so many opportunities available in this country that it's staggering. Even someone who is in prison has the opportunity to change their life and make something of themself. Our lives are the products of the choices we make, not what happens to us or the circumstances into which we are born.
The reason why poverty and crime tend to co-exist is because both phenomena are the product of people making bad choices. The socio-economic meritocracy that we have in this country works to segregate those who make good choices from those who make bad ones. Slums exist because that is where society puts those who make bad choices. Therefore both poverty and crime are going to rampant in these places.
As far as what do to about it, all I can say is that you can't fix broken people. The most we can do is work to maintain the opportunities available to those who were unfortunate enough to be born into such an environment, and work to incarcerate those who choose to be criminals. The schools in our slums are really bad, in part because they are filled with people whose parents made bad choices. Whatever genetic component predisposed their parents to making their bad choices tends to get passed down to the children, which means that you've got a school full fututre thugs and losers. Then there is the fact that some people are poor just because they're dumb as bricks. They don't make evil choices or even foolish ones as judged by their mental capacity, but they're still at a disadvantage. This creates a synergy of problems that even Socrates couldn't handle.
Imagine you're in a class of 30 student. Now imagine that eight of the people in your class are violent thugs who work to intimidate and attack other students as well as the teacher. They interrupt the class at every opportunity. They eventually wind up in "juvie," and prison soon after that, but not soon enough. 12 of your classmates are not violent and their not stupid, they just don't want to learn. They blame the consequences of their bad choices on external villans collectively known as "The Man." As a result they haven't learned and have suceeded in dragging the average standard of education in your school down
There is a very simple test for homosexuality.
If, as a man, you look at another man's hairy ass and say to yourself "Damn! I just gotta get me some of that!!" then you are most certainly gay.
If, on the other hand, you look at another man's hair ass and think to yourself "What the hell is that?! Put some dammed pants on you freak!" then you are most certainly not gay.
I thought pilots got to fly for free on any airline. Or has that changed?
Firewall
Firewall
Firewall
XP has a built in firewall, did you know this? When it it turned on, even an unpatched system is protected from attempts at remote intrusion. You are still vulnerable to IE exploits, but if you're using IE on an unpatched system you need to be smacked. Actually if you're using IE at all you deserve to be smacked, just not as hard.
So, the next time you do a clean install of XP and need to download patches, turn on the firewall BEFORE you connect it to the network. Then immediately begin installing patches from windows update. Each time you need to reboot during this process, yank the network cable until the system has finished booting. The reason is that an unpatched and partially-patched Windows system is vulnerable during boot-up. It seems that the windows firewall is one of the last things to be turned on during boot up instead of the first, which creates a window of opportunity for attacks to succeed.
Once the system has installed all of the patches that are available, LEAVE THE FIREWALL ON unless you have a very good reason not to and know what the fsck you are doing.
If you'll follow this simple proceedure, patching your windows system is safe and easy.
I'm sick and tired of reading slashdot headlines that claim there are all kinds of problems patching a windows system. Windows may suck, but that is no excuse for lying about it. Propaganda and FUD are best left to the professionals in Redmond.
Lee
I can see why you posted as an AC. I've been a hacker for almost a quarter century and I don't need some wet behind the ears newbie telling me I have things I need to learn.
If you think you can consistently "salvage" compromised Windows systems then you're clearly delusional. You might be able to straighten things out about half of the time, if you're lucky. Otherwise a clean install is in your future.
Hours and days and weeks of work to "fix" her computer? I say fdisk and forget it.
Computer trashed with malware? fdisk
Computer owned by crackers (who I wish I could kill)? fdisk
Computer infected with viri and sending out penis-pill spam? fdisk
I get to fix infected systems at work all the time and I would NEVER spend weeks trying to fix a system instead of rebuilding it.
Lee
Don't you understand that the very definition of sexual harassment is UNWANTED sexual advances??
Its not that attractive guys have more rights, its that they have a priviledge that, from the sound of it, you don't. Well guess what, life isn't fair. Intelligent people have priviledges that dumb people don't. Industrious people have priviledges that lazy people don't. How would you like to be stuck working with idiots because of some misguided P.C. ideological agenda that claimed a fry-cook was qualified to be a neurosurgeon? Or a bum off the street was qualified to be an attorney? I don't know about you, but I'd leave the fucking country if crap like that started happening.
Luckily unlike brains, one's looks can be improved. If you don't like being treated like a cave troll, then the thing to do is work on making yourself more attractive. The more unattractive you are, the more room there is for improvement. Get a haircut, lose weight, learn how to dress nice, start using mouthwash, whatever it is that's making you look bad there is almost certainly something you can do about it. You might not have Brad Pitt potential buried inside you, but one doesn't have to be Brad Pitt to do well with the ladies, unless of course you're looking to hook up with Gwyneth Paltrow, Jennifer Aniston, or some other luminary from the hottie hall of fame. If you're already putting in the effort to look your best, then chances are you've got a girl and don't have any business scoping the field anyway.
Besides, I think your example of a girl realizing that you're checking her out is a little far fetched. If you're working someplace where a girl is going to pitch a fit about that and be taken seriously then you need to find another job because that is NOT a healthy work environment. On the other hand, if you're GRABBING a girl's ass instead of just enjoying your view of it, then someone needs to kick your ass.
Don't make sexual advances?
Let me explain something to you. Women WANT men to make sexual (well romantic at least) advances towards them. They're just as crazy over men as we are over them. They just don't want those advances from men they don't find attractive (you know who you are). And they definitely don't want the men they find unattractive to continue to pursue them after they've made it clear they are not interested. How would you like it if some hatched-faced skank wouldn't leave YOU alone? Its the latter situation that has created most of the brouhaha over "sexual harassment" in the first place. That and bosses who think its their prerogative to demand a blow job from their female underlings (which is why God invented scissors).
Anyone who tells you that women don't want to be approached is not the kind of person you want to be listening to. They're either an unattractive, socially inept male (we have guys like that in computer science?? NO!!), or a lesbian femi-nazi who doesn't like the competition.
Threats and bullying only work when you give in to them. If you're not willing to fight and sacrifice for your rights then guess what, you don't have them. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance, and that means doing things that are uncomfortable in the short run to ensure your freedom in the long run. Giving in to the abuse of power only makes that power more likely to be abused in the future. To stand fast and say "NO!" is a victory in and of itself regardless of the personal cost.
I don't know about you, but threats from law firms don't scare me. If they think my freedom and my rights are less important to me than my bank balance then they are sadly mistaken.
The fact that the law can be used to harass is a two way street. At the end of the day it all comes down to who is going to blink first. Who is willing to go the farthest, dig the deepest, and get the meanest. I don't know about other people here, but I'm one of the most vicious, spiteful, ruthless and stubborn people I know. I'm a nice guy when others are nice, but when it becomes clear that someone is trying to fuck with me my demeanor changes rather dramatically. When someone is clearly my enemy, I have no conscience, no scruples, and I'm willing to go as far as is necessary to make my enemy wish they were never born. This aspect of my personality is sometimes frightening even to me.
If I were someone these shysters were threatening, I do believe I'd tell them to put their money where their mouth is. Make them spend the time and money to pursue me. If they did...well lets just say that they'll wish they hadn't. That is the kind of vigilance that is necessary to secure and defend one's rights against abuse at the hands of others who have more money and power than you do. Make it as painful for them as possible at every turn. Make them PAY for it in ways that they just aren't willing to. Exact the maximum discomfort from them at every turn.
Lee
P.S. The scientologists can KISS MY ASS TOO!
People just don't understand what biometrics are for. They are not appropriate as a primary means of verifying identity, but they do work well as a supplement to other methods.
I think the problem is you've got some sales monkeys who are selling the idea of biometrics as an authentication pancea to pointy-haired types, which is just further proof that non-technical people should never be in a position of authority or act in a primary decision making capacity where technology is concerned.
This is just a repeat of the problems that people used to have with Cyrix based systems. Companies would take a cyrix cpu, put it on a bottom-feeder motherboard, connect that to a piece of crap power supply, and then stick marginal memory on it.
The result? A system that was unstable and flaky.
The reason wasn't because the Cyrix CPU's were bad, but because they were the only primary component that wasn't crap. Now I'm not saying that Cyrix processors were great, only that the reputation they had as being flaky was undeserved. Pair them up with good quality components and the end result was just as stable as anything based off of AMD or Intel's processors.
The reason why Cyrix's CPU's were especially sensitive to the quality of the motherboard they were paired with is because they drew significantly more current than the Pentiums they were competing with. A crappy motherboard is going to have crappy power regulation. Plug in something that taxes that power system and the result is not going to be pretty.
As for the current issues that some people may be having with low-end consumer grade systems, all I can say is that from what I've seen the quality of those systems is about on par with an E-machines. I'd be shocked and amazed if there weren't just as many problems with the Intel based bottom-feeder systems that are being sold along side those Athlons.
I have two Athlon systems at home and two more at work. These are all systems that I put together myself. I've never had any problems with them, either from a compatibility standpoint or in terms of stability.
The bottom line is that, right now, AMD is the better choice just about any way you look at it. The only reason I can see someone buying or advocating Intel's wares is if they own stock in the company.
Most people buying consumer-level desktops don't know the difference between a CPU and a CPA.
Intel only has brand name recognition because they advertise themselves as a brand name.
I think AMD would do well to advertise themselves as a brand also. If I were them I'd completely ignore Intel in my ads. Rather than saying "We're just as good as intel," they should be saying "We're the shit and we've never even heard of Intel."
The reason that this kind of advertisement would be successful is because your average consumer doesn't know anything about computers. Ads that simply encourage consumers to feel good about AMD as a brand will therefore be more effective than ads with a more technical message. They should use the fact that consumers don't know about them to their advantage by NOT introducing themselves as an underdog or their wares as "3rd party" products. They should instead imply that they and their products are the standard, which increasingly they are.
Lee
Academic research only impresses those who have never worked in academia. This research MAY pan out in 3 or 4 years, or even later, but that is an epoch in terms of computer hardware. In the mean-time AMD is eating Intel's lunch.
Normally Intel would have sand-bagged on their R&D and be able to respond quickly, but because of the catastrophe that is the Itanium they're stuck. Intel poured so much money and R&D brainpower into the Itanium that when it bombed they didn't have anything else to show.
Intel basically tried to pull a PS/2 with the Itanium. They wanted an architecture that they had exclusive control over and that they could charge up the ass for. Such schemes can be successful at times, but when they fail the consequences are devastating, which is exactly what we're seeing right now.
Add to that the recent string of catastrophes in the P4 arena that has actually led Intel to drop a core revision in favor of a modified P-III that was originally desiged for laptops, and you've got a recipe for a total cluster-fuck.
Intel is not out of the game yet, but they're hurting bad and it is going to take a LOT more than a bunch of journal articles to get them out of the hole.
Lee
If Microsoft is a monopoly, Apple is surely a failed attempt at one. Apple has a long history of intentionally breaking their products so that they will not inter-operate with other products.
Remember back when Jean-Louis Gassée held up a telephone when asked how to make Macs and PC's work together on the same network? Apple not only wasn't interested in having Macs inter-operate with PC's on a LAN, they were openly hostile to the idea.
Anyone else remember the voodoo one had to go through to get a standard SCSI hard drive or CDROM drive to work in a Mac? Remember the bullshit that Apple tried to spout when asked about this? They tried to say that SCSI was an electrical standard and not an interface standard. Yeah, right. The truth of course was that their partitioning tools and CDROM drivers were specifically written to check for a tag in the drive's firmware and fail if that tag was not found.
Any company that is going to play keep-away like that will NEVER receive a dime from me.
It's this kind of snobbish nonesense that really made me dislike Apple, regardless of what the company used to be like back in the Apple II days.
This is why I won't buy an Ipod. That and the whole bullshit issue with the batteries not being replacable. I hear they've fixed that now, but it never should have been an issue in the first place.
Lee
No, I have two of them. I can spare you one if you'd like.