Is it still possible to get IBM laptops without the DRM? I would like a new laptop, and I like the fact that IBM's are not Dells, but I don't want to fork out any cash for DRM harboring kit.
No, not forgotten, it's lying there in the commons, in that churned up piece of ground over there, where the hob-nail shod clydesdales in Armani Livery have ridden it into the ground.
There is no longer a test for obviousness as an expert in the given field would understand it.
I don't know what the fuck you got your panties in a bunch about, but it sure isn't about anything I have said. Go find your brilliantly engineered PC and rub it on your crotch, do whatever you want, because I don't give a fuck about you and you are bothering me about things that don't exist in my statements.
Generalizing is a perfectly valid mental exercise.
I'm not being a Mac zealot (or whatever notion you've got in your head) either, I'm just saying the Mac G5 desktop has airflow engineering. I have multiple desktop PCs at home, and NONE of them have carefully engineered airflow. As a generality it is perfectly valid to say PCs do or don't have X, where X is something Apple computers DO have.
It's the systems that have changed for the better.
I most certainly don't agree with that, but I think the OP may find some grounds for hope in the fact/. created the Politics section. It is a much needed novelty. Not even Google News has a section devoted to politics.
the NY Times has, at best, a Campaign2004 section. That's insufficient, IMHO, because it allows them to get lost in the strategic details of the election, and to talk about how well the candidates carried themselves, rather than the validity and wisdom of their respective platforms.
Talking heads say "Bush'll do better because he sounds like Billy-Bob next door" and "Bush promises to stay the course" and there's no analysis on whether there's even any wisdom in what Bush calls "staying the course".
Similarly, Kerry's stance on many issues isn't even examined. What does he think about the PATRIOT act, the INDUCE act, or the DMCA? What does he plan to do about corporate accountability, and piercing the corporate veil? What does he want to do about high paying jobs flying overseas?
I was going to flame you because your argument has no presuppositions: you forgot to INCLUDE the text you were responding to.
But in context your argument was ok. You might still be marked down as Offtopic, though, which you might have gird yourself against by including a little context.
[anonymous to avoid... ah hell, I have enough karma!]
The rest of your opinion is as unreal and unsupported as your creative wordsmithing.
I invite you to look into the US citizens (just to narrow the topic to things we can probably agree on, not because non-US-citizen's rights are any less important.) that have been detained by the Bush Administration without due process.
We are near 1984.
The fact some are still managing to complain about it 1. manages to escape center stage on the television news and, 2. is a relic of a freer time.
The Constitution and Bill of Rights are NOT not negotiable, as the current administration (and the previous) seem to believe.
The only reason the G5 needs 9 fans is because it cools each of 4 areas separately.
No, there is more involved than that. Airflow in the G5 case is an engineered factor in the cooling of its components. The very curves in the barriers aid in the efficient and directed flow of air through the components of the computer. The fans are also controlled via heat sensor input (but this is irrelevant as PCs often have this as well) and the result is precise and controlled applicaton of airflow to keep the computer cool while keeping the noise at a minimum. PCs, in contrast, merely try to keep the air moving around each component, and circulation relies on displacement by the powersupply fan and (sometimes) supplemental fans on the case. There is no regard for flow outside of rules of thumb.
That being said, the (smallish) room of my office grows noticeably warmer when my dual G5 is working through a problem.
You have changed the argument. Please go back and read again, so that you may see that Google's "do no evil" mandate is at conflict with their chosen strategy to "disappear" the blocked links on their results pages. That is the conflict we are arguing. It's completely irrelevant that Google is admitting (to us, who knows what the Chinese see since they are being censored by the PRC, not Google.) they are removing the dead links.
No, I don't believe I have changed the argument. Please re-read the parent post that I originally responded to. It claims that Google violate a principal that it cherished, and then went on to quote the Honesty principal from Google's Code of Conducts (and provided a link, too!). My original response was that I don't see how removing links per local law violates the Honesty principal.
You are using a quote he included from Google's Code of Conduct page to displace the argument at hand: that Google's "do no evil" policy conflicts with Google's choice to "disappear" evidence of censorship. Sorry, that Red Herring makes the rest of your post uninteresting to me.
Policies are needed and yes most organizations have computer usage policies so someone launching a worm can and should be fired but the administrator will always be blamed while the bosses of those who dont fill their job requirements rarely have their jobs on the line.
I'm not arguing that policies are needed or that people break them. No argument from me.
If a user unleashes a worm that cripples the internal network, though, is a different can of... well you know.
Worms come from (on MS-based machines) unpatched systems, and (more generally) Trojans come from deficient network policies regarding email.
Yep.
Blaming the user for not anticipating weaknesses in the operating system and mail reader is not fair.
Can't say I'd blame the network people either, though, since network/architecture configurations are subject to bean-counters and management decisions. It's complex.
So, is Google censoring while telling everyone they're not censoring? No. Did Google ever make any claims about letting its users search the whole web with no censorship whatsoever? Not that I know of. So, how are they dishonest?
You have changed the argument. Please go back and read again, so that you may see that Google's "do no evil" mandate is at conflict with their chosen strategy to "disappear" the blocked links on their results pages. That is the conflict we are arguing. It's completely irrelevant that Google is admitting (to us, who knows what the Chinese see since they are being censored by the PRC, not Google.) they are removing the dead links.
To argue against my point that the previous poster was being selective about the facts he chose to represent the conflict you have done the same thing. Do you hope to wear the truth of my argument down to a nub? You might tire me but you haven't addressed the crux of my argument.
Well, in that case, I'm glad to report that I'm not nuts at all. In fact, the idea never occurred to me until just now. Now, why / when / how are they going to censor the sites they link to?
Ok, my point (and I forgot to include the relevant portion in my original quote, so I'm sorry if that is a cause of misunderstanding) was to underscore that these are not analogous situations: that Google was complying with laws by removing DMCA takedown material. And that I'm not certain Google has child-porn material that it blocks. That I'm sure that stuff would be jumped on and removed by the Feds as soon as it showed up. But in any case, removal of material that violates law isn't censorship by Google, it's complying with the law.
There we go. Now we're getting to the crux of the problem. Google's censorship of their Mainland Chinese results is a result of them complying with local law.
No. PRC blocked Google entirely but it didn't hold because of popular resistance. PRC wants Google but they don't want some sites Google caches/links to. Those sites aren't in Googles purview, and providing a link to a site that's blocked is an inconvenience, not an illegal act. You are conflating the presence of a censored link with something far worse.
If the PRC wants to make a law against Google in the PRC, they can block Google. But they won't.
That's why Google has the option to leave the links but mark them (for the sake of convenience) or just leave them as dead and inconvenient. But they didn't take that option.
...open up with a new curve, which may or may not be true, as there we must take the true, holy word of the protagonist
No you don't, it's in the Fine Article itself. No new curves, just the topic of the Fine Article. Perhaps you should read it before sneering at my "holy word".
To me, the fact that google is stating exactly what they are doing makes it perfectly all right to me.
Google failed to choose the option least evil. They could have left the links as they were or put a little [censored] notice adjacent to it.
It's either that or not exist there at all.
You are wrong. Google's continued presence in China is not at issue as was clarified in the article.
If they were hiding what they were doing it would be very different.
They are hiding what the PRC is doing to the people of mainland China. That's the issue, that Google is cooperating with the PRC to hide censorship by the PRC.
Slashdot Mirror
thanks for the hint, and the link...
Is it still possible to get IBM laptops without the DRM? I would like a new laptop, and I like the fact that IBM's are not Dells, but I don't want to fork out any cash for DRM harboring kit.
My, my. I've never seen bile covered glasses before. But how they do color the world!
Has the test of obviousness just been forgotten?
No, not forgotten, it's lying there in the commons, in that churned up piece of ground over there, where the hob-nail shod clydesdales in Armani Livery have ridden it into the ground.
There is no longer a test for obviousness as an expert in the given field would understand it.
I don't know what the fuck you got your panties in a bunch about, but it sure isn't about anything I have said. Go find your brilliantly engineered PC and rub it on your crotch, do whatever you want, because I don't give a fuck about you and you are bothering me about things that don't exist in my statements.
Freak.
Says you.
Generalizing is a perfectly valid mental exercise.
I'm not being a Mac zealot (or whatever notion you've got in your head) either, I'm just saying the Mac G5 desktop has airflow engineering. I have multiple desktop PCs at home, and NONE of them have carefully engineered airflow. As a generality it is perfectly valid to say PCs do or don't have X, where X is something Apple computers DO have.
... or something similar. He can use it to scan the map along the Mississippi River or whatever feature is given to place his search.
Anti-Copy Technology.
Doesn't that just make you want to try?
It's the systems that have changed for the better.
/. created the Politics section. It is a much needed novelty. Not even Google News has a section devoted to politics.
I most certainly don't agree with that, but I think the OP may find some grounds for hope in the fact
the NY Times has, at best, a Campaign2004 section. That's insufficient, IMHO, because it allows them to get lost in the strategic details of the election, and to talk about how well the candidates carried themselves, rather than the validity and wisdom of their respective platforms.
Talking heads say "Bush'll do better because he sounds like Billy-Bob next door" and "Bush promises to stay the course" and there's no analysis on whether there's even any wisdom in what Bush calls "staying the course".
Similarly, Kerry's stance on many issues isn't even examined. What does he think about the PATRIOT act, the INDUCE act, or the DMCA? What does he plan to do about corporate accountability, and piercing the corporate veil? What does he want to do about high paying jobs flying overseas?
The Funny modifier does not increase your karma. If only people knew that, they wouldn't karma whore trying to get the non-existent points.
You can only lose trying to be funny: someone with moderator status may think you are unfunny and then you get a hit to your karma.
That scenario is even more likely if you are modded as funny.
You can use a negative modifier for Funny mods.
There's your utility, right in your eye!!!!111oneONE!
['course, unfunny jokes will get their own mods.]
[free will, loving gods, deletia]
I was going to flame you because your argument has no presuppositions: you forgot to INCLUDE the text you were responding to.
But in context your argument was ok. You might still be marked down as Offtopic, though, which you might have gird yourself against by including a little context.
[anonymous to avoid... ah hell, I have enough karma!]
Ok I understand that but, nevertheless, windows trashed your boot record. That's not nice.
dillusional? Now, there's a word!
The rest of your opinion is as unreal and unsupported as your creative wordsmithing.
I invite you to look into the US citizens (just to narrow the topic to things we can probably agree on, not because non-US-citizen's rights are any less important.) that have been detained by the Bush Administration without due process.
We are near 1984.
The fact some are still managing to complain about it 1. manages to escape center stage on the television news and, 2. is a relic of a freer time.
The Constitution and Bill of Rights are NOT not negotiable, as the current administration (and the previous) seem to believe.
- Only lets you do things with her approval
You mean like "su" to install anything?
su is an order, an override.
- Requires money once in a while to 'upgrade' her features
Like the free service packs and power toys?
No, shelling out dough as the only access to important security updates, or having to pay for upgrades was implied.
- Doesn't allow you to even think about seeing anyone else besides her
You've never seen a dual boot Linux and Windows machine?
Not where windows was installed after Linux.
The only reason the G5 needs 9 fans is because it cools each of 4 areas separately.
No, there is more involved than that. Airflow in the G5 case is an engineered factor in the cooling of its components. The very curves in the barriers aid in the efficient and directed flow of air through the components of the computer. The fans are also controlled via heat sensor input (but this is irrelevant as PCs often have this as well) and the result is precise and controlled applicaton of airflow to keep the computer cool while keeping the noise at a minimum. PCs, in contrast, merely try to keep the air moving around each component, and circulation relies on displacement by the powersupply fan and (sometimes) supplemental fans on the case. There is no regard for flow outside of rules of thumb.
That being said, the (smallish) room of my office grows noticeably warmer when my dual G5 is working through a problem.
A sierpinski triangle...
What did you do?
I stopped buying anything from Dell! About two years ago, after I saw what a mess the Inspiron 8200 is.
You just reminded me why I am not in IT anymore.
Ditto!
Policies are needed and yes most organizations have computer usage policies so someone launching a worm can and should be fired but the administrator will always be blamed while the bosses of those who dont fill their job requirements rarely have their jobs on the line.
I'm not arguing that policies are needed or that people break them. No argument from me.
If a user unleashes a worm that cripples the internal network, though, is a different can of... well you know.
Worms come from (on MS-based machines) unpatched systems, and (more generally) Trojans come from deficient network policies regarding email.
Yep.
Blaming the user for not anticipating weaknesses in the operating system and mail reader is not fair.
Can't say I'd blame the network people either, though, since network/architecture configurations are subject to bean-counters and management decisions. It's complex.
To argue against my point that the previous poster was being selective about the facts he chose to represent the conflict you have done the same thing. Do you hope to wear the truth of my argument down to a nub? You might tire me but you haven't addressed the crux of my argument.Ok, my point (and I forgot to include the relevant portion in my original quote, so I'm sorry if that is a cause of misunderstanding) was to underscore that these are not analogous situations: that Google was complying with laws by removing DMCA takedown material. And that I'm not certain Google has child-porn material that it blocks. That I'm sure that stuff would be jumped on and removed by the Feds as soon as it showed up. But in any case, removal of material that violates law isn't censorship by Google, it's complying with the law.No. PRC blocked Google entirely but it didn't hold because of popular resistance. PRC wants Google but they don't want some sites Google caches/links to. Those sites aren't in Googles purview, and providing a link to a site that's blocked is an inconvenience, not an illegal act. You are conflating the presence of a censored link with something far worse.
If the PRC wants to make a law against Google in the PRC, they can block Google. But they won't.
That's why Google has the option to leave the links but mark them (for the sake of convenience) or just leave them as dead and inconvenient. But they didn't take that option.
That option was the "do no evil" option.
...open up with a new curve, which may or may not be true, as there we must take the true, holy word of the protagonist
No you don't, it's in the Fine Article itself. No new curves, just the topic of the Fine Article. Perhaps you should read it before sneering at my "holy word".
First, attack the opponents character and integrety, then open up with a new curve
Are you referring to the PP's sneer at my "highmindedness"?
Or that I accepted that as a part of his "argument" and addressed it as such?
To me, the fact that google is stating exactly what they are doing makes it perfectly all right to me.
Google failed to choose the option least evil. They could have left the links as they were or put a little [censored] notice adjacent to it.
It's either that or not exist there at all.
You are wrong. Google's continued presence in China is not at issue as was clarified in the article.
If they were hiding what they were doing it would be very different.
They are hiding what the PRC is doing to the people of mainland China. That's the issue, that Google is cooperating with the PRC to hide censorship by the PRC.