"If some FBI clerk wants to tape my conversations with my girlfriend in which I spout off against the President, the NSA, and then start talking dirty."
Hmm, be ready to go to jail for that then. Espically on the part about sputing off against the president....
I had a simlar situation. Although I never got abused(well endlessly verbly abused if that counts) or had to live in a FHA house. My mother divorced my father, she remarried a drunk, who stole *MY* child support money to buy wastful things, all I had was food and cloths. Then when got older I moved in with my Dad, and he was so poor all he could do was feed, cloth, and give me a warm place to live in the winter. Then when I was about 12 years old I wanted a computer but there was no money for it. So I decided to go out and get a paper route. I worked my ass off, I remember one winter we had about 6 or 7 inches of snow, and I had to carry 100 news papers in the snow on a sled to have them delivered just to make $15.00 that day. Any how I saved all my pennys and bought myself a brand new 286 computer. Then the 386's came out and well no money for that, so I waited and bought myself a 486 a year or two later. By then I knew enough about computers and got some lame computer job, earned more money, put myself through technical school, got a better job, earned more money and now I'm making $50,000/yr. Now when I look at computer prices you can pick yourself up a Pentium machine for around $200.00 geez, when I did it, I had to pay $1,500 it took me quiet awhile to save up for that 286. Now if you can't come up with $200.00 these days you're just a lazy fool and deserve to be a janitor.
Actually if 99% of the population had half a clue, then maybe halfway decent people could get elected. It's not that we don't have more than two or three people to choose from, it's just those two or three people are good at getting the morons to vote for them in the first place. Take Clinton for instance: he's lied so much to the American people that his nose is as long as a telephone wire and people STILL like him. It would be very easy for a halfway decent person to get elected president it's just that the people who vote for them seem to like the liars and fall for it so thus they don't get elected because they're a good person, with good morals, good character, and would make a good president.
Oh well, hopefully I'll die before everything gets really bad... I hope so...:)
As other posters said, I think a Library is a perfect place for poor people or ANYONE for that matter to use the Internet. The ones that say Library's don't have enough information as the Internet? Well a lot of Library's are getting Internet connections. In my little town of 85,000 people our Library has connections to other Library's in the state, even to other colleges. They got some weird name for it, but any how, say you're looking for a certain magazine or book and the library you're at doesn't have it, but the one 300 miles away has it, they'll ship it to the library local to you. It takes about a day or two for it to happen but you get it. PLUS you get the additive bonus of having Internet access as well.
Some Library's don't have Internet connections yet, I know this, but do you expect this to happen over night? I'm sure if we look ahead 5 years from now Internet connections in Libraries will be quite common. I believe it'll be as common as books are too.
So honestly I really don't see an issue here at all. If you're someone who doesn't know anything about computers, why not take a class at a local Technical College? They offer them here pretty cheap, like $100.00 a semester plus about $50.00 in books. If that costs too much for the person then they can apply for finical aid.
This whole issue to me is bogus, since if you really WANT to use the Internet you can do it. It's just a matter of whether you want to or not. Perhaps these people feel like there's no point in them buying a computer and using the Internet? Perhaps these people just don't want to use the Internet. Perhaps these people have better things to do. Perhaps these low-income families are too busy working and raising their kids to use the Internet. Either way you look at it, it isn't because they're stupid and surely isn't because of racism.
According to that article 133 million Americans will have Internet access soon. Just a few years ago it was something like 20 million or 30 million or so? So say we have 133 million people using the Internet, that means about half the United States population will still be Internet less in their home. Maybe the reason why they don't have Internet access is because half the US population doesn't have it either? Everyone's still catching up with this whole thing. I think it's a bit absurd to start throwing racism or because they're poor or anything out right now. Just think 10 years ago hardly anyone used the Internet. Now 10 years later half of the people in the United States have Internet access. Pretty good for a 10-year surge don't you think?
So really I don't see a problem here, wait see how things go, and honestly I really don't give a fling flip if someone isn't using the Internet. It's really up to them and there is nothing holding them back from using it, whether you're poor, black, white, green, pink, purple, gray, yellow, Klingon, Romulan, or all those other aliens you see on TV but never really see.:)
- lakdjfalkdj - cuz all the good nicks were taken:)
"THUS, they are truley engaging in predatory pricing and should be boycotted. Thank you."
Ok, I totally don't understand this predatory pricing from Intel. Lets take a look here at prices, shall we?
In QTY's of 1,000 AMD 600MHz costs ~$699 AMD 550MHz costs ~$479 AMD 500MHz costs ~$324
(prices taken from the url posted) Intel 550MHz will cost ~$646 Intel 500MHz will cost ~$415 Intel 450MHz will cost ~$226
Ok, so say I want to buy a new CPU, I could go out and buy an AMD 600MHz CPU which is faster than an Intel 550 for $53.00 more. Looking at the bench marks recently posted about the K7 The AMD 600MHz blows the Intel 550 out of the water in a lot of cases. So unless you're really stupid, you'd spend the $53.00 more and get an AMD. AMD has a BETTER CPU than Intel and it isn't much more expensive. So I don't see where the problem is.
The thing I don't get, is *WHY* should Intel charge around $730.00 for a P3-550MHz when AMD is offering a 600MHz CPU for $699 which is BETTER. Intel would be stupid NOT to drop their prices. Intel would probably loose a ton of money if they don't since everyone would buy a better CPU at a cheaper price. What is wrong with a better CPU costing slightly more than a CPU that isn't quite as good?
Actually I was thinking of buying an AMD CPU because the prices looked good for what the CPU is offering, Intel dropped their prices and AMD still is the winner for price and speed.
Now if Intel was selling a P3-550MHz CPU for like $200.00 then a P3-450MHz for $80.00 then maybe you'd a point
While reading your comment I personally never had any trouble with any of the 5 things you listed, which is a good thing, however, the whole reason why were talking about this is so it DOESN'T happen to the majority of the people. I personally love being able to go to my local place of worship, being able to have a peaceful protest, not being denied freedom of speech, etc and quiet frankly I like the idea YOU can do it too.
We had a lot of people die to give us the freedoms we have I think the least we could do is keep those freedoms so they didn't die in vain, because if we allow our rights to dwindle away, then what did they die for?
I read the other posters comments below yours the one about the guy who got a broom stick shoved up his butt, the thing with that, is it did happen and did the cops who did it not get in trouble for it? Does the fact that we KNOW about it and COULD do something about it being denied in anyway? I'm sure if everyone got together we could take care of whoever did it very quickly and make sure if any time something like it did happen again the person who did it will be dealt accordingly and punished correctly. If didn't know it happened how could we do anything about it?
It's our responsibility as a people to make sure whomever does these things pay for what they did. If you just go along your daily life and ignore it will continue to happen. Which is in a sense means were all just accepting what's happening.
While the majority of us still do have a few freedoms left over it is our responsibility to use those freedoms so that we don't loose them. If you don't use them, you loose them, very simple. Which is why I believe it's a good thing we discuss this and as a people take care of the problems that exist so we don't loose what little rights we have left.
- lakdjfalkdj cus all the good nicks were taken.:)
While reading your comment I personally never had any trouble with any of the 5 things you listed, which is a good thing, however, the whole reason why were talking about this is so it DOESN'T happen to the majority of the people. I personally love being able to go to my local place of worship, being able to have a peaceful protest, not being denied freedom of speech, etc and quiet frankly I like the idea YOU can do it too.
We had a lot of people die to give us the freedoms we have I think the least we could do is keep those freedoms so they didn't die in vain, because if we allow our rights to dwindle away, then what did they die for?
I read the other posters comments below yours the one about the guy who got a broom stick shoved up his butt, the thing with that, is it did happen and did the cops who did it not get in trouble for it? Does the fact that we KNOW about it and COULD do something about it being denied in anyway? I'm sure if everyone got together we could take care of whoever did it very quickly and make sure if any time something like it did happen again the person who did it will be dealt accordingly and punished correctly. If didn't know it happened how could we do anything about it?
It's our responsibility as a people to make sure whomever does these things pay for what they did. If you just go along your daily life and ignore it will continue to happen. Which is in a sense means were all just accepting what's happening.
While the majority of us still do have a few freedoms left over it is our responsibility to use those freedoms so that we don't loose them. If you don't use them, you loose them, very simple. Which is why I believe it's a good thing we discuss this and as a people take care of the problems that exist so we don't loose what little rights we have left.
- lakdjfalkdj cus all the good nicks were taken.:)
"Yeah, so all those people who are telling others about linux are bad for the OS"
I think he may have ment the way some Linux users go about telling others to use the Linux OS. Like some people flamming artical writters to no end with abusive langauge and things of that nature or how some people wrote abusive e-mail to Mindcraft.
Things like that really shouldn't be happening. What it comes down to, is it seems to me it's a bunch of 12 year olds running around spouting off how great Linux is. I mean, honestly, the things these people spout off makes you wonder if they really ARE 12 years old. Yeah... That really shows a great image for Linux.
If I never would have started using Linux when it first came out I probably would totally write it off by the constent remarks I see everyday from the 12 year old Linux users.
It's just things like that, that disgust me about the small(I hope) percentage of the community.
I think all of the halfway decent people in the Linux community need to remember that the few of these 12 year olds really do stick out.
So please keep that in mind next time you're telling someone to use Linux.:)
"Now go and tell us what elements of Linux sucks and try to do something about it YOURSELF!"
You also have to remember not EVERYONE can go and do it themselves either. Not everyone is a programmer. Sometimes you have Administrators, Network Admins, and just plain old users who can't write programs. What are these people supposed to do when you tell them, "Go do it yourself" ? If it was me I'd say, "Well Microsoft has this product that seems to work so so, and well in Linux, it's just none exsitant or it sucks"
"for even if the government takes great action against Microsoft, what other platforms are out there to run programs? And who would want to run one of them?"
Lets see other OS' other than an GNU OS or BeOS? Lets see, there is: IBM-DOS, PC-DOS, Novell-DOS, Caldera OpenDOS, Sun Solaris 7, Novell Netware, SCO Unix, and OS/2 just to name a few.
There's 8 there plus you add in GNU OS's that comes out to be 12 OS's(That I can think of at the moment) that run on an Intel x86 CPU arch.
To answer your question, "Who would want to run them?" Not to many people, that's why MS is where they are. It's plain and simple, people want an MS OS, if they didn't they could just go choose those other 12 OSes. There's a reason why people choose a MS OS. It's very easy to get rid of MS, just go and have everyone install OS2 on their machine and by-by MS. Just for SOME reason people choose a MS OS over OS2 or any of the other 12 OSes. When there was MS Windows 3.1 and there was OS2 people STILL choose Win.31 over OS2 and OS2 was a surpior OS. If more people would have switched to OS2 maybe MS wouldn't be where it is today.
Just put it this way, You don't like MS? Then go use one of the other 12 OSes and shutup.
They still can't take away the right for having a gun though, which would be unconsitutional see 2nd Amendment.:)
The whole idea was originally put there so no one group of people would be stronger than the other or the goverment becoming more powerful than the people. The 2nd Amendment like the first 10 Amendments is an unalienable right, which is a right that can not be taken away. So the day the goverment says you can't own a gun is the day every US citizen looses all their rights listed in the constitution since if they can take take the 2nd Amendment out then there's nothing stopping them from taking any of the others out. You can't even amend the second amendment out. Which is why I think it pisses the gun control advocates off, having gun control is like having Speech control, or like the police being able to search your house without a warrent, or any of your unalienable rights.
Which is why I say the same thing others say: you can take my gun away when you pry it from my cold dead fingers.
This is a very simplistic issue I really can't see why there is so much debate about it. The right of owning a gun is the same right you have to free speech, or anything else listed in the Constitution.
Ooops, my Bad, according to Sec. 311 which can be found at: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/311.html
the 'self' militia is really called an unorganized militia.
So anyhow for the Federal milita Bill Clinton is currently the commander of the Federal Milita. Then the state militia's which is now called the National Guard I guess is commanded by the Govener? Then for an unorginized militia's I think the memebers of the milita vote for the commanding officers. So you could go join your local state unorgnized milita then vote for the commanding officers. I'm really not sure how a lot of that works(seeing as I'm not a member of an unorginized militia), just search for "militia" and I'm sure you'll get a whole slew of information on it. I'm sure there's even an unorgnized militia in your state that would be more than happy to accept members.
Anyhow stanard weapons for the Federal milita is things like Air Craft carriers, Atomic Bombs, M-16's, TOW missels, Apache choppers, F-16's things like that, then I guess the National Guard has the same things? Then for unorgnized militas it's whatever is in common use. So I'd imagin if everyone owned a F-16 to get to and from work it'd be considered common use? Realasticly I guess these days common use is any type of firearm.
"2) At Fry's, Circuit City, and etc., the "tech" don't usually know JACK $HIT:) "
I totally agree with you on that one. I was at Best Buy the other day. Some woman and her kid were talking to one of the 'Computer Experts' there about a problem they had with burning songs on a CD. Anyhow after totally explaining the problem to them correctly what the sales person didn't seem be able to do right the woman informed me that she paid Best Buy 5 hours worth of work to install their new EIDE CDRW. She said it took them three hours to install the CDRW at $50.00/hour, then while installing the CDRW they fucked her PC up so she had to pay them another 2 hours worth of work at $50.00/hr to fix what *THEY* screwed up. It never ceases to amaze me how compeatly *STUPID* these people who work at the Best Buy/Circuit City places.
What *REALLY* pissed me off was, from what I understood the kid was about 9/10 yrs old spent all the money he saved on the CDRW, then Best Buy goes and screws his mother over for trying to get the thing work for their computer then on top of it fucks her again after they screw the computer up.
I still couldn't understand what the hell they did to their computer to take 5 hours worth of work to get a freaking CDRW to work in their PC I'm at the point to belive that Best Buy just did 1 hour worth of work watched Star Wars for another 2 hrs or something then charged her 3 hours for installing the CDRW. I can't belive that the people there are *THAT* freaking *STUPID*.
Oh well... Stupid places, then someone halfway decent trys setting up shop no one wants to business with them because they don't screw the people. It always seems to end up that way.:)
"It's 3/4, and *BOY* am I glad that it's difficult!"
Actually, if I remember correctly(I could be all wet on this) We did come pretty close to having a constitutional convention. If I remember correctly it was passing "hidden" then it got relized and it ended there.
"The problem is getting the government to live up to the constitution, not how to replace it!"
See, that's why I like the second amendment so much. It gives us the ability to tell the goverment to stop reaming us in the ass if we so choose at a later date.:) Really in our current state it's the PEOPLE who are the problem NOT the goverment. We all have to remember all our goverment officals that make laws are elected(last I checked) So since while we still do have the ability to vote and go practice shooting goverment offices it is our DUTY to vote for someone who will uphold the constitution and not try to take things out. It is also our DUTY as people to ream goverment officals in the a$$ when they do NOT obay the law, else we get rid of the people are supposed to ream the ones who don't obay the law. We still have the ability to vote, it just seems no one uses that right to the fullest. I guess the way things are headed it's what people want, else they'd be exercising the little rights they have left or I guess they just don't care perhaps?
It's stuff like that, that makes me so upset about the BS with the whole 2nd Amendment issue, you have to be blind, deaf, and dumb to not understand that it means that We have the right to own a gun. Who else could it be there for? I'm at a loss as to understand why it would be in there in the first place if it wasn't for the right of the people to own guns?
Anyhow the problem isn't getting the goverment to live up to the constitution it's getting the people to use their power to force the goverment to live up to the constitution. Were not at the point(yet) Where we have to do anything more than vote to get our rights back.
Let me just leave with this though, they'll have to pry my gun from my cold dead fingers before they take that right away, because that's the beggining of the end. I'm sure there's plenty of other people who belive close to the same thing too.
"After reading the article, I think the thing that hit me the most was the number of brains studied. While I understand they don't have thousands of brains sitting aroung, a study that uses only 35 brains as comparison seems ludicrous. Even saying that his brain structure/size might be a factor is vastly speculative given the number they considered. There are so many possible factors here that they seem to be ignoring - it sounds like another example of researchers with their own agenda to serve."
I too thought the amount of brains they studied was a bit low. However, the number is 91 brains not 35 brains. Using 91 brains as any type of comparsion is stupid considering there's ~6 billion people in the world? To me that's like finding an orange that tastes good, then comparing it with 91 other oranges then noticing that inside the good tasting orange the color is slightly diffrent so maybe that's why it tastes better.
As for your "hidden agenda" I would find that hard to belive since from reading this artical it apears that the Doctor was female.
If you read in one paragraph:
"Dr. Witelson theorized that the partial absence of the groove in Einstein's brain may be the key"
Then shortly under it says:
"She said it is likely that the groove was always absent in that part of Einstein's brain, rather than shrinking away as a result of his intelligence"
Notice the SHE, so unless the artical REALLY screwed up I would assume that the Doctor that was doing this study is female. So under that assumption I would imagin she would be as impartial as could be with no agenda saying "Men have bigger brains there for are smarter" Which your "hidden agenda" statement implied. The only possiable conclusion one could come up with for a reason why she may have contiuned on a biased study was because she was forced to or because she got money for the study thus to get this money was told to make it apear "Men have bigger brains there for are smater" If that is the case, which again you SEEMED to be implying then this woman has no credablity what so ever in my book because she continued in a biased study so how can I trust any of her findings in the first place?
All and all this artical seems like it's a bunch of BS, someone studies 91 brains and it seems that they think they have some sort of clue of what made Einstein so smart in his feild. People need to relize that EVERYONE *IS* DIFFRENT I don't care what anyone says in this sense because everyone is. Even men and women *ARE* diffrent, it's quiet obvious that men and women ARE diffrent and it seems to be the standard thing to say that women can do everything men can do which isn't true, because it's like me saying that I can do everything Joe Blow can do of the same sex which isn't true at all. There's obviously going to be something that I can do that he can't, and something that I can do that he can't. Which is why trying to make any type of comparasion between people past what the average person SHOULD be able to do is stupid. Sorta like average people by the age of 18 SHOULD be able to add and subtract or read their high school diploma:)
So with that all said, I really wish people would get a clue and stop this stupidty. Everyone should have at lest half of a clue to understand that we all are diffrent in some way and not two people are a like. As for using the brain size or anything like that(I'm no brain scientist here) for basing any sort of conclusion to me seems stupid because there is so much about the brain we do not understand and there could be any possable number of reasons why Einstein was the way he was. Maybe his brain was more active in the math part of the brain just because... and had no corolation with how the brain formed? Who knows... 91 dead brains isn't telling me anything what so ever. Other than Einstein's brain was diffrent than the 91 other ones. Maybe there's a lot of other people with brains like that but are utterly poor at math? Who knows, at this point in the game they just looked at 91 brains..... Big deal...
Oh well... just seems like a poor stupid artical in my book.
- lakdjfalkdj Because all the good nicks were taken!
"courts don't have a problem with locking up (for years, sometimes) somebody withholding subpoenaed evidence (e.g. crypto key passphrase); that's called contempt of court at the *least*, and possible obstruction of justice."
You seem to be missing the Orginal poster's point, and also this person's comment and a few other posters comments.
"But because he wouldn't have bought it anyway, it's okay for him to steal it so he can use it?"
No, it isn't ok for him to STEAL the software, because it is stealing. Stealing is wrong everyone should know that by age 6, same with killing.:)
"So it's useful enough for him to want to break the law and steal the software, but not useful enough for him to buy it legally?"
From reading this guys comments, he has no money to buy the software so for him buying it legally isn't an option, I'm assuming he can't afford the software. I would *HOPE* that if he had the money he would pay for it.
"So in other words, if you want something but don't actually need it, you can do whatever the hell you want to get a hold of it, because ethically and morally you're in the right?"
No, if you want something, ethically and morally you should pay for it. You ARE using something that took someone's time to produce and give a good product.
So since we have that all sorted out, Is it ok to claim a LOSS of X amount of dollars since this guy wouldn't have paid for it in the first place? That is the REAL question. See when someone steals an object no one else but the person who stole this object can use it. So say I take a candy bar from the store. No one else can BUY that candy bar because well I stole it. So thus you have a loss because now the manufactor must reproduce another candy bar so they can actually sell it. So now it cost the manufactor 2 times the orginal cost to make this candy bar. They're now X amount of dollars in the hole.
Now say my buddy has this really cool game on a CD, it costs $50.00. I'm a 12yr old lamer and mommy wont buy me this game, but my buddy is a real rich guy and he has a CD-Writer. So I ask him, "Hey would you copy this CD for me?" So he goes and copies this CD and I go play it for the rest of the summer. Now, did my buddy coping this CD take away the right for someone else to purchase this software? Did the game manufactor have to reproduce this product to sell to someone else? Did this guy coping this CD take away money from the manufactor because I would have purchased it anyway? The answers are No and No and No.
So how much money did the Game Company loose? I'd pretty much say nothing since they didn't loose a sale that would have never taken place in the first place.
The whole argument here is the Software company assumes X amount of dollars lost because of the assumtion that there would have been a sale in the first place.
To use the car analogy everyone likes to use so much it goes something like this: I buy a car from a car dealer drive it home replicate it and give it to my friend.
Now on the flip side where I work were things are usually tight for money sometimes. There was someone who needed some software to do their work. Now since just installing the software on their PC would be stealing I told them that it's not within the budget to purchase another license to install it on their PC. So I didn't buy a license. I also didn't install the software. So now the software company didn't gain any money since well I didn't purchase another license. So now if I would have installed the software on their PC it's considered LOOSING money! That's the logic I can not understand. The correct logic to me would be, "The software company didn't gain X amount of dollars nor did they loose X amount of dollars".
It's like having only one company car, I need to run to the store but someone else needs to use it too, so I go and replicate it, now Ford says they lost $16,000.00 because I copied it. I really don't see how Ford is loosing $16k because I could have just ridden with the other guy, but hey it's just nicer to drive by myself, and if I couldn't have copied it I wouldn't have done it in the first place nor would I have bought another car I would have just ridden with the other guy.
So again, I can't see the logic considering it a LOSS! It should be "Ford didn't gain $16,000.00 nor did they loose $16,000.00"
Honestly, I wonder how everything will be handled when you can actually replicate objects the same you can with software.:)
I was thinking just a few seconds before I read the comments that Rob's logo actually looked pretty nice. So I found it ironic that you mentioned the same.
The logo that is now the offical seems nice. I actually have a nuteral position on the current one(and I'm a Debian user).
I read the other comments of others with their comments of that the Rob's logo is "just a name", but the thing is, is that Debian is "just a name" as well. It came about from from the Debian's creators names. It's not like MS Windows where they can put a picture of a Window for the Logo.
If you look at a lot of computer companies their logo's are really just their name, they don't have a picture of some animal or something with it. So honestly what's wrong with just saying "Debian" that looks really neat?
I think in the end, when someone is in a Store looking at an Operating System to buy they aren't going to go, "Hey look honey, this 'Debian' thing has this really neat swirl for this logo lets BUY it!" then the wife says, "Well hone, I think this thing with the Windows logo is better lets buy that!" Honestly, you don't buy software for their logo without any clue what it is in the first place so why make so much out of a logo in the first place? Rob's looks fine, I don't see anything wrong with it being "just a name".
I remember a few friends and mine found someone on a cable modem who had Back Orfice running on their machine. We were able to access every single detail of them. They had cridet card #'s, personal information of every type on their machine. They had so much information you could have pretty much stolen every dime they had. We ended up calling them and walking them through unistalling it because we felt so sorry for the poor fool.
Second, with Windows NT default installs, some lamers don't have usernames or passwords for the Admin login, you can easily do whatever you want that way too.
Third, with Windows 9x some lamer could share his drives, and you can do some damage there too.
Point is, is that your whole point is mute just because you're running Linux, if someone is that stupid having so many wide open wholes in Linux, they're probably just as stupid to do it under Windows NT or Windows 9x.
To start off with I have a Dual Pentium II 350Mhz system that is *NOT* Overclocked which I use for my main system running Windows NT Workstation. The reason why it's not my OC'd system is a long story and does not apply here.
Then come to this cowards defense.......
1) I would ASSUME most of us who overclock aren't over clocking our servers at work(At lest I don't).
2) Who cares if you void your warrenty on a $72.00 CPU. I could make that $72.00 up pretty quick working a Micky D's(I got them a few months ago they're *REALLY* cheap now).
3) I have a dual Celeron 300A system. I got two PPGA's, got the slocket converter, solderd the wiring on it to make it work in dual. I've been running this machine since Late Feb or early March and running rc5 24/7 just for giggles. I also have 5 Cheetah's running in RAID5 with Linux's software RAID. I also use the machine for my home LAN with samba which is my file server for HOME use.
4) *If* the CPU's fried right now at this instence It would cost me a grand total of $109.00 to replace both CPU's with Intel Celeron 300A's(which probably wont be able to be OC'd to 450Mhz). So I would have a useable dual Celeron 300MHz system for $109.00. Not bad, you include the price I paid for the other two CPU's it comes out to be a grand total of $254.00. Right now at this instance without checking around I can get PII-450's for $265.50/ea so you figure $531 total for both. I'm still at half the price by doing it the "cool" or "cheap" way and I had about 4 months use of a *DUAL* 450MHz system at *HALF* the cost. Now on the flip side I could replace those fried 300A's with Celeron 400's for 95.50/ea which comes out to be $191.00 total. Now add in the price I paid for those 300A's and I come out to be at grand total of $336.00. Still I saved myself $195.00 without buying real PII-450MHz CPU's, I got the speed of 450MHz CPU's for about 4 months. Ok, so I have two fried CPU's and they're replaced with 400's that can't be OC'd(AFAIK). Intel Celeron 400MHz CPU's are slighly slower than what I got, but hey I paid $195.00 less than you did(assuming you have Dual 450's), so nah! nah!:-). *PLUS* That's using prices of 450's *TODAY* not 3 or 4 months ago when I'm sure they cost more than $265.50(~$450.00/ea then?).
So the point I'm trying making here is, Who *REALLY* gives a flying flip if you fry your Celeron CPU's? So what?! You still spent less than you did if you bought the real deal. Second, who cares if they're unreliable? If it's unreliable don't overclock your CPUs then! It's THAT simple. If your friend needs to run his CPU with the window open and a fan on it, Then so what! It doesn't bother him, he still paid less than the real deal and if he really cared he could just not OC it or go out and buy a real PII-450 provided he has the money.
Another point I would like to make is that this artical makes one belive that I could go out and buy an Intel Celeron 300A machine at Best Buy do a quick "thingie" and I thus have a 450Mhz machine. I'm willing to bet those machines aren't even OCable or the MB's on them don't OC very well anyway.
Second this artical makes one belive that I could just go call up my local CPU dealer and get a Celeron 300A do a quick "thingie" and now I have a 450MHz CPU. AFAIK OCable 300A CPU's are hard to find. This artical seems as if though it should have been written 6 or 8 months ago and not now.
Also I use the term "thingie" because this artical is out of the Chicago Tribune and they make it sound so easy. I say they make it sound so "easy" because the people it seems to be targeting is people who probably have no clue what it looks like inside their computer in the first place. All of us who know how to OC a machine know it's easy, but we knew about OCing since we all had a computer in our home. Plus they make it sound like everyone is doing it out of spite which isn't true.
Just to make this really long message short, the whole piece sucked and should have never been written in the first place. Its not like anyone with half a clue didn't know how to do this in the first place and anyone who doesn't, shouldn't be OCing in the first place.
- lakdjfalkdj - Cus all the good nicks were taken!
Slashdot Mirror
"If some FBI clerk wants to tape my conversations with my girlfriend in which I spout off against the President, the NSA, and then start talking dirty."
Hmm, be ready to go to jail for that then. Espically on the part about sputing off against the president....
I had a simlar situation. Although I never got abused(well endlessly verbly abused if that counts) or had to live in a FHA house. My mother divorced my father, she remarried a drunk, who stole *MY* child support money to buy wastful things, all I had was food and cloths. Then when got older I moved in with my Dad, and he was so poor all he could do was feed, cloth, and give me a warm place to live in the winter. Then when I was about 12 years old I wanted a computer but there was no money for it. So I decided to go out and get a paper route. I worked my ass off, I remember one winter we had about 6 or 7 inches of snow, and I had to carry 100 news papers in the snow on a sled to have them delivered just to make $15.00 that day. Any how I saved all my pennys and bought myself a brand new 286 computer. Then the 386's came out and well no money for that, so I waited and bought myself a 486 a year or two later. By then I knew enough about computers and got some lame computer job, earned more money, put myself through technical school, got a better job, earned more money and now I'm making $50,000/yr. Now when I look at computer prices you can pick yourself up a Pentium machine for around $200.00 geez, when I did it, I had to pay $1,500 it took me quiet awhile to save up for that 286. Now if you can't come up with $200.00 these days you're just a lazy fool and deserve to be a janitor.
Actually if 99% of the population had half a clue, then maybe halfway decent people could get elected. It's not that we don't have more than two or three people to choose from, it's just those two or three people are good at getting the morons to vote for them in the first place. Take Clinton for instance: he's lied so much to the American people that his nose is as long as a telephone wire and people STILL like him. It would be very easy for a halfway decent person to get elected president it's just that the people who vote for them seem to like the liars and fall for it so thus they don't get elected because they're a good person, with good morals, good character, and would make a good president.
:)
Oh well, hopefully I'll die before everything gets really bad... I hope so...
As other posters said, I think a Library is a perfect place for poor people or ANYONE for that matter to use the Internet. The ones that say Library's don't have enough information as the Internet? Well a lot of Library's are getting Internet connections. In my little town of 85,000 people our Library has connections to other Library's in the state, even to other colleges. They got some weird name for it, but any how, say you're looking for a certain magazine or book and the library you're at doesn't have it, but the one 300 miles away has it, they'll ship it to the library local to you. It takes about a day or two for it to happen but you get it. PLUS you get the additive bonus of having Internet access as well.
:)
Some Library's don't have Internet connections yet, I know this, but do you expect this to happen over night? I'm sure if we look ahead 5 years from now Internet connections in Libraries will be quite common. I believe it'll be as common as books are too.
So honestly I really don't see an issue here at all. If you're someone who doesn't know anything about computers, why not take a class at a local Technical College? They offer them here pretty cheap, like $100.00 a semester plus about $50.00 in books. If that costs too much for the person then they can apply for finical aid.
This whole issue to me is bogus, since if you really WANT to use the Internet you can do it. It's just a matter of whether you want to or not. Perhaps these people feel like there's no point in them buying a computer and using the Internet? Perhaps these people just don't want to use the Internet. Perhaps these people have better things to do. Perhaps these low-income families are too busy working and raising their kids to use the Internet. Either way you look at it, it isn't because they're stupid and surely isn't because of racism.
According to that article 133 million Americans will have Internet access soon. Just a few years ago it was something like 20 million or 30 million or so? So say we have 133 million people using the Internet, that means about half the United States population will still be Internet less in their home. Maybe the reason why they don't have Internet access is because half the US population doesn't have it either? Everyone's still catching up with this whole thing. I think it's a bit absurd to start throwing racism or because they're poor or anything out right now. Just think 10 years ago hardly anyone used the Internet. Now 10 years later half of the people in the United States have Internet access. Pretty good for a 10-year surge don't you think?
So really I don't see a problem here, wait see how things go, and honestly I really don't give a fling flip if someone isn't using the Internet. It's really up to them and there is nothing holding them back from using it, whether you're poor, black, white, green, pink, purple, gray, yellow, Klingon, Romulan, or all those other aliens you see on TV but never really see.
- lakdjfalkdj - cuz all the good nicks were taken:)
"THUS, they are truley engaging in predatory pricing and should be boycotted. Thank you."
Ok, I totally don't understand this predatory pricing from Intel. Lets take a look here at prices, shall we?
In QTY's of 1,000
AMD 600MHz costs ~$699
AMD 550MHz costs ~$479
AMD 500MHz costs ~$324
(prices taken from the url posted)
Intel 550MHz will cost ~$646
Intel 500MHz will cost ~$415
Intel 450MHz will cost ~$226
Ok, so say I want to buy a new CPU, I could go out and buy an AMD 600MHz CPU which is faster than an Intel 550 for $53.00 more. Looking at the bench marks recently posted about the K7 The AMD 600MHz blows the Intel 550 out of the water in a lot of cases. So unless you're really stupid, you'd spend the $53.00 more and get an AMD. AMD has a BETTER CPU than Intel and it isn't much more expensive. So I don't see where the problem is.
The thing I don't get, is *WHY* should Intel charge around $730.00 for a P3-550MHz when AMD is offering a 600MHz CPU for $699 which is BETTER. Intel would be stupid NOT to drop their prices. Intel would probably loose a ton of money if they don't since everyone would buy a better CPU at a cheaper price. What is wrong with a better CPU costing slightly more than a CPU that isn't quite as good?
Actually I was thinking of buying an AMD CPU because the prices looked good for what the CPU is offering, Intel dropped their prices and AMD still is the winner for price and speed.
Now if Intel was selling a P3-550MHz CPU for like $200.00 then a P3-450MHz for $80.00 then maybe you'd a point
While reading your comment I personally never had any trouble with any of the 5 things you listed, which is a good thing, however, the whole reason why were talking about this is so it DOESN'T happen to the majority of the people. I personally love being able to go to my local place of worship, being able to have a peaceful protest, not being denied freedom of speech, etc and quiet frankly I like the idea YOU can do it too.
:)
We had a lot of people die to give us the freedoms we have I think the least we could do is keep those freedoms so they didn't die in vain, because if we allow our rights to dwindle away, then what did they die for?
I read the other posters comments below yours the one about the guy who got a broom stick shoved up his butt, the thing with that, is it did happen and did the cops who did it not get in trouble for it? Does the fact that we KNOW about it and COULD do something about it being denied in anyway? I'm sure if everyone got together we could take care of whoever did it very quickly and make sure if any time something like it did happen again the person who did it will be dealt accordingly and punished correctly. If didn't know it happened how could we do anything about it?
It's our responsibility as a people to make sure whomever does these things pay for what they did. If you just go along your daily life and ignore it will continue to happen. Which is in a sense means were all just accepting what's happening.
While the majority of us still do have a few freedoms left over it is our responsibility to use those freedoms so that we don't loose them. If you don't use them, you loose them, very simple. Which is why I believe it's a good thing we discuss this and as a people take care of the problems that exist so we don't loose what little rights we have left.
- lakdjfalkdj cus all the good nicks were taken.
While reading your comment I personally never had any trouble with any of the 5 things you listed, which is a good thing, however, the whole reason why were talking about this is so it DOESN'T happen to the majority of the people. I personally love being able to go to my local place of worship, being able to have a peaceful protest, not being denied freedom of speech, etc and quiet frankly I like the idea YOU can do it too.
:)
We had a lot of people die to give us the freedoms we have I think the least we could do is keep those freedoms so they didn't die in vain, because if we allow our rights to dwindle away, then what did they die for?
I read the other posters comments below yours the one about the guy who got a broom stick shoved up his butt, the thing with that, is it did happen and did the cops who did it not get in trouble for it? Does the fact that we KNOW about it and COULD do something about it being denied in anyway? I'm sure if everyone got together we could take care of whoever did it very quickly and make sure if any time something like it did happen again the person who did it will be dealt accordingly and punished correctly. If didn't know it happened how could we do anything about it?
It's our responsibility as a people to make sure whomever does these things pay for what they did. If you just go along your daily life and ignore it will continue to happen. Which is in a sense means were all just accepting what's happening.
While the majority of us still do have a few freedoms left over it is our responsibility to use those freedoms so that we don't loose them. If you don't use them, you loose them, very simple. Which is why I believe it's a good thing we discuss this and as a people take care of the problems that exist so we don't loose what little rights we have left.
- lakdjfalkdj cus all the good nicks were taken.
"Yeah, so all those people who are telling others about linux are bad for the OS"
:)
:)
I think he may have ment the way some Linux users go about telling others to use the Linux OS. Like some people flamming artical writters to no end with abusive langauge and things of that nature or how some people wrote abusive e-mail to Mindcraft.
Things like that really shouldn't be happening. What it comes down to, is it seems to me it's a bunch of 12 year olds running around spouting off how great Linux is. I mean, honestly, the things these people spout off makes you wonder if they really ARE 12 years old. Yeah... That really shows a great image for Linux.
If I never would have started using Linux when it first came out I probably would totally write it off by the constent remarks I see everyday from the 12 year old Linux users.
It's just things like that, that disgust me about the small(I hope) percentage of the community.
I think all of the halfway decent people in the Linux community need to remember that the few of these 12 year olds really do stick out.
So please keep that in mind next time you're telling someone to use Linux.
"Now go and tell us what elements of Linux sucks and try to do something about it YOURSELF!"
You also have to remember not EVERYONE can go and do it themselves either. Not everyone is a programmer. Sometimes you have Administrators, Network Admins, and just plain old users who can't write programs. What are these people supposed to do when you tell them, "Go do it yourself" ? If it was me I'd say, "Well Microsoft has this product that seems to work so so, and well in Linux, it's just none exsitant or it sucks"
So remember that next time too.
"for even if the government takes great action against Microsoft, what other platforms are out there to run programs? And who would want to run one of them?"
Lets see other OS' other than an GNU OS or BeOS? Lets see, there is: IBM-DOS, PC-DOS, Novell-DOS, Caldera OpenDOS, Sun Solaris 7, Novell Netware, SCO Unix, and OS/2 just to name a few.
There's 8 there plus you add in GNU OS's that comes out to be 12 OS's(That I can think of at the moment) that run on an Intel x86 CPU arch.
To answer your question, "Who would want to run them?" Not to many people, that's why MS is where they are. It's plain and simple, people want an MS OS, if they didn't they could just go choose those other 12 OSes. There's a reason why people choose a MS OS. It's very easy to get rid of MS, just go and have everyone install OS2 on their machine and by-by MS. Just for SOME reason people choose a MS OS over OS2 or any of the other 12 OSes. When there was MS Windows 3.1 and there was OS2 people STILL choose Win.31 over OS2 and OS2 was a surpior OS. If more people would have switched to OS2 maybe MS wouldn't be where it is today.
Just put it this way, You don't like MS? Then go use one of the other 12 OSes and shutup.
They still can't take away the right for having a gun though, which would be unconsitutional see 2nd Amendment. :)
The whole idea was originally put there so no one group of people would be stronger than the other or the goverment becoming more powerful than the people. The 2nd Amendment like the first 10 Amendments is an unalienable right, which is a right that can not be taken away. So the day the goverment says you can't own a gun is the day every US citizen looses all their rights listed in the constitution since if they can take take the 2nd Amendment out then there's nothing stopping them from taking any of the others out. You can't even amend the second amendment out. Which is why I think it pisses the gun control advocates off, having gun control is like having Speech control, or like the police being able to search your house without a warrent, or any of your unalienable rights.
Which is why I say the same thing others say: you can take my gun away when you pry it from my cold dead fingers.
This is a very simplistic issue I really can't see why there is so much debate about it. The right of owning a gun is the same right you have to free speech, or anything else listed in the Constitution.
Ooops, my Bad, according to Sec. 311 which can be found at: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/311.html
the 'self' militia is really called an unorganized militia.
So anyhow for the Federal milita Bill Clinton is currently the commander of the Federal Milita. Then the state militia's which is now called the National Guard I guess is commanded by the Govener? Then for an unorginized militia's I think the memebers of the milita vote for the commanding officers. So you could go join your local state unorgnized milita then vote for the commanding officers. I'm really not sure how a lot of that works(seeing as I'm not a member of an unorginized militia), just search for "militia" and I'm sure you'll get a whole slew of information on it. I'm sure there's even an unorgnized militia in your state that would be more than happy to accept members.
Anyhow stanard weapons for the Federal milita is things like Air Craft carriers, Atomic Bombs, M-16's, TOW missels, Apache choppers, F-16's things like that, then I guess the National Guard has the same things? Then for unorgnized militas it's whatever is in common use. So I'd imagin if everyone owned a F-16 to get to and from work it'd be considered common use? Realasticly I guess these days common use is any type of firearm.
Well it depends if it's a Federal, State, or 'self' commissioned miltia. :) Nothing illegal about having either of the 3 militas. :)
"2) At Fry's, Circuit City, and etc., the "tech" don't usually know JACK $HIT :) "
:)
I totally agree with you on that one. I was at Best Buy the other day. Some woman and her kid were talking to one of the 'Computer Experts' there about a problem they had with burning songs on a CD. Anyhow after totally explaining the problem to them correctly what the sales person didn't seem be able to do right the woman informed me that she paid Best Buy 5 hours worth of work to install their new EIDE CDRW. She said it took them three hours to install the CDRW at $50.00/hour, then while installing the CDRW they fucked her PC up so she had to pay them another 2 hours worth of work at $50.00/hr to fix what *THEY* screwed up. It never ceases to amaze me how compeatly *STUPID* these people who work at the Best Buy/Circuit City places.
What *REALLY* pissed me off was, from what I understood the kid was about 9/10 yrs old spent all the money he saved on the CDRW, then Best Buy goes and screws his mother over for trying to get the thing work for their computer then on top of it fucks her again after they screw the computer up.
I still couldn't understand what the hell they did to their computer to take 5 hours worth of work to get a freaking CDRW to work in their PC I'm at the point to belive that Best Buy just did 1 hour worth of work watched Star Wars for another 2 hrs or something then charged her 3 hours for installing the CDRW. I can't belive that the people there are *THAT* freaking *STUPID*.
Oh well... Stupid places, then someone halfway decent trys setting up shop no one wants to business with them because they don't screw the people. It always seems to end up that way.
- lakdjfalkdj Cus all the good nicks were taken!
"It's 3/4, and *BOY* am I glad that it's difficult!"
:) Really in our current state it's the PEOPLE who are the problem NOT the goverment. We all have to remember all our goverment officals that make laws are elected(last I checked) So since while we still do have the ability to vote and go practice shooting goverment offices it is our DUTY to vote for someone who will uphold the constitution and not try to take things out. It is also our DUTY as people to ream goverment officals in the a$$ when they do NOT obay the law, else we get rid of the people are supposed to ream the ones who don't obay the law. We still have the ability to vote, it just seems no one uses that right to the fullest. I guess the way things are headed it's what people want, else they'd be exercising the little rights they have left or I guess they just don't care perhaps?
Actually, if I remember correctly(I could be all wet on this) We did come pretty close to having a constitutional convention. If I remember correctly it was passing "hidden" then it got relized and it ended there.
"The problem is getting the government to live up to the constitution, not how to replace it!"
See, that's why I like the second amendment so much. It gives us the ability to tell the goverment to stop reaming us in the ass if we so choose at a later date.
It's stuff like that, that makes me so upset about the BS with the whole 2nd Amendment issue, you have to be blind, deaf, and dumb to not understand that it means that We have the right to own a gun. Who else could it be there for? I'm at a loss as to understand why it would be in there in the first place if it wasn't for the right of the people to own guns?
Anyhow the problem isn't getting the goverment to live up to the constitution it's getting the people to use their power to force the goverment to live up to the constitution. Were not at the point(yet) Where we have to do anything more than vote to get our rights back.
Let me just leave with this though, they'll have to pry my gun from my cold dead fingers before they take that right away, because that's the beggining of the end. I'm sure there's plenty of other people who belive close to the same thing too.
"After reading the article, I think the thing that hit me the most was the number of brains studied. While I understand they don't have thousands of brains sitting aroung, a study that uses only 35 brains as comparison seems ludicrous. Even saying that his brain structure/size might be a factor is vastly speculative given the number they considered. There are so many possible factors here that they seem to be ignoring - it sounds like another example of researchers with their own agenda to serve."
:)
I too thought the amount of brains they studied was a bit low. However, the number is 91 brains not 35 brains. Using 91 brains as any type of comparsion is stupid considering there's ~6 billion people in the world? To me that's like finding an orange that tastes good, then comparing it with 91 other oranges then noticing that inside the good tasting orange the color is slightly diffrent so maybe that's why it tastes better.
As for your "hidden agenda" I would find that hard to belive since from reading this artical it apears that the Doctor was female.
If you read in one paragraph:
"Dr. Witelson theorized that the partial absence of the groove in Einstein's brain may be the key"
Then shortly under it says:
"She said it is likely that the groove was always absent in that part of Einstein's brain, rather than shrinking away as a result of his intelligence"
Notice the SHE, so unless the artical REALLY screwed up I would assume that the Doctor that was doing this study is female. So under that assumption I would imagin she would be as impartial as could be with no agenda saying "Men have bigger brains there for are smarter" Which your "hidden agenda" statement implied. The only possiable conclusion one could come up with for a reason why she may have contiuned on a biased study was because she was forced to or because she got money for the study thus to get this money was told to make it apear "Men have bigger brains there for are smater" If that is the case, which again you SEEMED to be implying then this woman has no credablity what so ever in my book because she continued in a biased study so how can I trust any of her findings in the first place?
All and all this artical seems like it's a bunch of BS, someone studies 91 brains and it seems that they think they have some sort of clue of what made Einstein so smart in his feild. People need to relize that EVERYONE *IS* DIFFRENT I don't care what anyone says in this sense because everyone is. Even men and women *ARE* diffrent, it's quiet obvious that men and women ARE diffrent and it seems to be the standard thing to say that women can do everything men can do which isn't true, because it's like me saying that I can do everything Joe Blow can do of the same sex which isn't true at all. There's obviously going to be something that I can do that he can't, and something that I can do that he can't. Which is why trying to make any type of comparasion between people past what the average person SHOULD be able to do is stupid. Sorta like average people by the age of 18 SHOULD be able to add and subtract or read their high school diploma
So with that all said, I really wish people would get a clue and stop this stupidty. Everyone should have at lest half of a clue to understand that we all are diffrent in some way and not two people are a like. As for using the brain size or anything like that(I'm no brain scientist here) for basing any sort of conclusion to me seems stupid because there is so much about the brain we do not understand and there could be any possable number of reasons why Einstein was the way he was. Maybe his brain was more active in the math part of the brain just because... and had no corolation with how the brain formed? Who knows... 91 dead brains isn't telling me anything what so ever. Other than Einstein's brain was diffrent than the 91 other ones. Maybe there's a lot of other people with brains like that but are utterly poor at math? Who knows, at this point in the game they just looked at 91 brains..... Big deal...
Oh well... just seems like a poor stupid artical in my book.
- lakdjfalkdj Because all the good nicks were taken!
"courts don't have a problem with locking up
(for years, sometimes) somebody withholding
subpoenaed evidence (e.g. crypto key passphrase);
that's called contempt of court at the *least*,
and possible obstruction of justice."
I'm not with holding my key I can't remember it.
Worked for Clinton, must work for us.
You seem to be missing the Orginal poster's point, and also this person's comment and a few other posters comments.
:)
:)
"But because he wouldn't have bought it anyway, it's okay for him to steal it so he can use it?"
No, it isn't ok for him to STEAL the software, because it is stealing. Stealing is wrong everyone should know that by age 6, same with killing.
"So it's useful enough for him to want to break the law and steal the software, but not useful enough for him to buy it legally?"
From reading this guys comments, he has no money to buy the software so for him buying it legally isn't an option, I'm assuming he can't afford the software. I would *HOPE* that if he had the money he would pay for it.
"So in other words, if you want something but don't actually need it, you can do whatever the hell you want to get a hold of it, because ethically and morally you're in the right?"
No, if you want something, ethically and morally you should pay for it. You ARE using something that took someone's time to produce and give a good product.
So since we have that all sorted out, Is it ok to claim a LOSS of X amount of dollars since this guy wouldn't have paid for it in the first place? That is the REAL question. See when someone steals an object no one else but the person who stole this object can use it. So say I take a candy bar from the store. No one else can BUY that candy bar because well I stole it. So thus you have a loss because now the manufactor must reproduce another candy bar so they can actually sell it. So now it cost the manufactor 2 times the orginal cost to make this candy bar. They're now X amount of dollars in the hole.
Now say my buddy has this really cool game on a CD, it costs $50.00. I'm a 12yr old lamer and mommy wont buy me this game, but my buddy is a real rich guy and he has a CD-Writer. So I ask him, "Hey would you copy this CD for me?" So he goes and copies this CD and I go play it for the rest of the summer. Now, did my buddy coping this CD take away the right for someone else to purchase this software? Did the game manufactor have to reproduce this product to sell to someone else? Did this guy coping this CD take away money from the manufactor because I would have purchased it anyway? The answers are No and No and No.
So how much money did the Game Company loose? I'd pretty much say nothing since they didn't loose a sale that would have never taken place in the first place.
The whole argument here is the Software company assumes X amount of dollars lost because of the assumtion that there would have been a sale in the first place.
To use the car analogy everyone likes to use so much it goes something like this: I buy a car from a car dealer drive it home replicate it and give it to my friend.
Now on the flip side where I work were things are usually tight for money sometimes. There was someone who needed some software to do their work. Now since just installing the software on their PC would be stealing I told them that it's not within the budget to purchase another license to install it on their PC. So I didn't buy a license. I also didn't install the software. So now the software company didn't gain any money since well I didn't purchase another license. So now if I would have installed the software on their PC it's considered LOOSING money! That's the logic I can not understand. The correct logic to me would be, "The software company didn't gain X amount of dollars nor did they loose X amount of dollars".
It's like having only one company car, I need to run to the store but someone else needs to use it too, so I go and replicate it, now Ford says they lost $16,000.00 because I copied it. I really don't see how Ford is loosing $16k because I could have just ridden with the other guy, but hey it's just nicer to drive by myself, and if I couldn't have copied it I wouldn't have done it in the first place nor would I have bought another car I would have just ridden with the other guy.
So again, I can't see the logic considering it a LOSS! It should be "Ford didn't gain $16,000.00 nor did they loose $16,000.00"
Honestly, I wonder how everything will be handled when you can actually replicate objects the same you can with software.
I was thinking just a few seconds before I read the comments that Rob's logo actually looked pretty nice. So I found it ironic that you mentioned the same.
The logo that is now the offical seems nice. I actually have a nuteral position on the current one(and I'm a Debian user).
I read the other comments of others with their comments of that the Rob's logo is "just a name", but the thing is, is that Debian is "just a name" as well. It came about from from the Debian's creators names. It's not like MS Windows where they can put a picture of a Window for the Logo.
If you look at a lot of computer companies their logo's are really just their name, they don't have a picture of some animal or something with it. So honestly what's wrong with just saying "Debian" that looks really neat?
I think in the end, when someone is in a Store looking at an Operating System to buy they aren't going to go, "Hey look honey, this 'Debian' thing has this really neat swirl for this logo lets BUY it!" then the wife says, "Well hone, I think this thing with the Windows logo is better lets buy that!" Honestly, you don't buy software for their logo without any clue what it is in the first place so why make so much out of a logo in the first place? Rob's looks fine, I don't see anything wrong with it being "just a name".
- My 2 cents.
Actually this argument is lame.
I remember a few friends and mine found someone on a cable modem who had Back Orfice running on their machine. We were able to access every single detail of them. They had cridet card #'s, personal information of every type on their machine. They had so much information you could have pretty much stolen every dime they had. We ended up calling them and walking them through unistalling it because we felt so sorry for the poor fool.
Second, with Windows NT default installs, some lamers don't have usernames or passwords for the Admin login, you can easily do whatever you want that way too.
Third, with Windows 9x some lamer could share his drives, and you can do some damage there too.
Point is, is that your whole point is mute just because you're running Linux, if someone is that stupid having so many wide open wholes in Linux, they're probably just as stupid to do it under Windows NT or Windows 9x.
To start off with I have a Dual Pentium II 350Mhz system that is *NOT* Overclocked which I use for my main system running Windows NT Workstation. The reason why it's not my OC'd system is a long story and does not apply here.
:-). *PLUS* That's using prices of 450's *TODAY* not 3 or 4 months ago when I'm sure they cost more than $265.50(~$450.00/ea then?).
Then come to this cowards defense.......
1) I would ASSUME most of us who overclock aren't over clocking our servers at work(At lest I don't).
2) Who cares if you void your warrenty on a $72.00 CPU. I could make that $72.00 up pretty quick working a Micky D's(I got them a few months ago they're *REALLY* cheap now).
3) I have a dual Celeron 300A system. I got two PPGA's, got the slocket converter, solderd the wiring on it to make it work in dual. I've been running this machine since Late Feb or early March and running rc5 24/7 just for giggles. I also have 5 Cheetah's running in RAID5 with Linux's software RAID. I also use the machine for my home LAN with samba which is my file server for HOME use.
4) *If* the CPU's fried right now at this instence It would cost me a grand total of $109.00 to replace both CPU's with Intel Celeron 300A's(which probably wont be able to be OC'd to 450Mhz). So I would have a useable dual Celeron 300MHz system for $109.00. Not bad, you include the price I paid for the other two CPU's it comes out to be a grand total of $254.00. Right now at this instance without checking around I can get PII-450's for $265.50/ea so you figure $531 total for both. I'm still at half the price by doing it the "cool" or "cheap" way and I had about 4 months use of a *DUAL* 450MHz system at *HALF* the cost. Now on the flip side I could replace those fried 300A's with Celeron 400's for 95.50/ea which comes out to be $191.00 total. Now add in the price I paid for those 300A's and I come out to be at grand total of $336.00. Still I saved myself $195.00 without buying real PII-450MHz CPU's, I got the speed of 450MHz CPU's for about 4 months. Ok, so I have two fried CPU's and they're replaced with 400's that can't be OC'd(AFAIK). Intel Celeron 400MHz CPU's are slighly slower than what I got, but hey I paid $195.00 less than you did(assuming you have Dual 450's), so nah! nah!
So the point I'm trying making here is, Who *REALLY* gives a flying flip if you fry your Celeron CPU's? So what?! You still spent less than you did if you bought the real deal. Second, who cares if they're unreliable? If it's unreliable don't overclock your CPUs then! It's THAT simple. If your friend needs to run his CPU with the window open and a fan on it, Then so what! It doesn't bother him, he still paid less than the real deal and if he really cared he could just not OC it or go out and buy a real PII-450 provided he has the money.
Another point I would like to make is that this artical makes one belive that I could go out and buy an Intel Celeron 300A machine at Best Buy do a quick "thingie" and I thus have a 450Mhz machine. I'm willing to bet those machines aren't even OCable or the MB's on them don't OC very well anyway.
Second this artical makes one belive that I could just go call up my local CPU dealer and get a Celeron 300A do a quick "thingie" and now I have a 450MHz CPU. AFAIK OCable 300A CPU's are hard to find. This artical seems as if though it should have been written 6 or 8 months ago and not now.
Also I use the term "thingie" because this artical is out of the Chicago Tribune and they make it sound so easy. I say they make it sound so "easy" because the people it seems to be targeting is people who probably have no clue what it looks like inside their computer in the first place. All of us who know how to OC a machine know it's easy, but we knew about OCing since we all had a computer in our home. Plus they make it sound like everyone is doing it out of spite which isn't true.
Just to make this really long message short, the whole piece sucked and should have never been written in the first place. Its not like anyone with half a clue didn't know how to do this in the first place and anyone who doesn't, shouldn't be OCing in the first place.
- lakdjfalkdj - Cus all the good nicks were taken!