I don't blame him. It's all opinion. I've been completely turned away from entire brands before because of a couple of consecutive problems (rather major ones).
Case-in-point, I will NEVER by Dell again because my last two purchases were utter garbage. Does this mean that Dell sux? No, they're probably one of the better PC manufacturers out there. I'm sure my experiences were in the small minority. But that doesn't change the fact that they've lost me as a customer forever.
It doesn't take much for a company to permanently leave a bad impression on one's mind. And a person shouldn't be blamed for haiting a company that's given them a bad experience, more than one.
I use Windows XP Pro and Office XP Std at home. I may be in the minority, but my system only crashes once every few months. Sure, a game may quit to the desktop or whatever, but nothing major.
And in case you say "then you don't use you're system that much" I'll write what I do. Maybe I'm just lucky.
DAILY STUFF - System is on 24/7 - Write Visual C++ ApplicationS to interface with a seperate Oracle 9i server. - Experiment with C# - Write java applets to interface with Oracle 9i server. - Write Scientific applications (C++, Java, VBA)for high-throughput-testing and other devices, as well as perform various transformations on resulting equations. - Play a LOT of video games!!! (Quake 3, Counter-strike, Starcraft, NOLF2, etc). - Browse internet, read mail, etc.
Yet my PC hardly ever crashes. Sure, I have friends whose PC's act like their possessed by the Devil, but I also have some friends that are in the same boat as me.
Agreed, but they didn't give Futurama a change. After the first season, it kept being pre-empted by NFL games. After a while, even I stopped trying to watch it because instead there would be a post-game interview or something. When a station does something like that, there's no way a show can get good ratings. Because it's either not on when it's supposed to be, or people give up trying to watch it.
Best Buy is pretty good too. To be honest, I've been finding my local Best Buy has often has hardware in stock that my local CompUSA doesn't. And their staff (at least in the one right by me) is pretty knowledgable.
Then again, their Computer dept is just that, a dept, whereas CompUSA has essentially the entire store dedicated to it.
That sucks man. I can't even imagine what it's like for you now.
But not all of us are like that. Heck, I was still attending school at NJIT (which has LARGE population of students of middle-eastern descent). And while I would hear of some jerks harassing a guy from time to time afterwards, it was a rare thing that died off quickly. Nobody I knew had the hate attitude you are descriping. And I was friends with people of all nationalities.
I will admit, we (the US) aren't perfect. Heck, when my parents immigrated here they were literally SPAT on for being "COMMUNIST PIGS," when in fact they fled to the US to flee communism. There are A LOT of jerks in the US, but not everyone.
Again, I can't imagine what you must be feeling after reading your post. But you can't say we're all bad.
And as for the 3000 people, they weren't just "white folk." In my opinion, it was because it happened to Americans on American soil. Had someone manage to single out 3000 Americans of middle-easten descent and kill them in one horrible act, we would have been just as appalled and angry at whoever had done it.
I may be mistaken, but I THINK while a book that describes how to make a bomb might be legal, combining it with ideas on how to use it in a crime is probably not, ESPECIALLY when the theme of said literature focusing more on how to use against a group of people.
Case-in-point, Book A says "this is how you build a bomb. It is dangerous and should not be used as a weapon."
Book B says "Damn those , I think they should all die. I think someone should bomb the cr@p out of them. And PS, here's how you could do it."
Then Book B is AT LEAST on the thin line of legal free speech and crime. However, if a person read the book, and decided to bomb whichever group by making a bomb using the directions in the book, then the author would probably be in hot water as far as the law was concered.
Then again, I'm just a programmer and I'm really tired of this article. In the end, this guy only got a year in jail, doing something he must have known was probably not the wisest thing to post now-a-days.
GOd, I don't want to start/partake in an argument. But here:
As mentioned in my original post (if you read it), I mention that I do not feel that him simply advocating the overthrow of a goverment was legally wrong. But he also posted links to instructions on building bombs. He might as well have said (here is where you can get a great deal on an AK47, no questions asked). Sure, the individual would have to go buy the ak47, but he would be aiding in an illegal act by knowingly helping him obtain weapons for crime.
Sure, ultimately it is the actual person who decided to build the bomb and kill people that is guilty. But you can't tell me that legally and morally, the guy who told him how to build them bomb, and possibly encited the idea/rage to trigger him into doing it isn't AT LEAST SOMEWHAT responsible.
And as for personal responsibility, I feel that too many people use the "I was beaten as a child" or whatever excuse they have to get away with a crime. However, in the end had soemone bombed innocents because of this guys website, he should be held accountable on at least some level, even if it were negligent homicide or grave indifference.
Yes, and those responsible were viewed as criminals by the British during the time. Should we treat killers differently if they kill civilians because they feel they have a reason? If someone shot a bunch of people and said he did so because he felt the company they worked for was "evil" and a blight on society, should we let them walk? No. They are criminals, plain and simple/
That guy should be lucky that nobody used his website to kill people. Otherwise, he'd be on death row (or get life imprisonment) instead of a year.
BTW, when I say advocating the overthrow of a government is free speech, I mean some guy suggesting it on a soap box/website.
Personally, I'm against it, but a person is allowed to believe what he/she wants.
Also, remember we have the rights to "Life, Liberty, and the persuit of Happiness." Notice how Life is mentioned first. This guy's website was advocating violence, plain and simple, which violates other people's right to live.
Re:seriously screwed up action
on
Linking Dangerously
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I think simply advocating the overthowing of the government is under free speech. And if that was all, then I'd be greatly offended at this act.
However, if you're advocating the overthrow of a government AND posting links about how to make bombs, then that's another matter. Then you're saying "Let's overthrow the goverment and kill people, here's how...!"
Sure, the author might not have been saying "let's blow up a bunch of congressman's houses), but people could have taken it that way.
Enciting violence is iffy, but enciting violence and purposely providing the means to do such violence (such as handing out guns or describing how to make bombs to kill people) is another matter.
They are claiming for all commercial uses. Since Linux is mostly used commercially for servers, this would be comparing Linux 699 for Microsoft's Windows Server (ver 2003 is currently 600 for full server). So the difference is rather small.
However, SOME businesses do use Linux commercially, as desktops and workstations. In which case they'd also have to shell out that obscene amt of money.
Man, I though Microsoft was evil. Compared to these guys, Billy-G is a playground bully.
In my "Mathematics of Finance" class in college, we all showed up with our calculators for the midterm. Un-beknownst to us, the professor was waiting at the door to the classroom with a pin. In order for us to take the exam, we had to let him reset our calculator.
Now, I admit... I had a couple of equations pre-programmed in there. They were things I knoew how to do, but had them in there as a time saverm so I didn't care about that.
BUT!!! I also had a lot of class-legal stuff in there for my various other classes. For example, a physics program I wrote to perform the next 4 labs. Our prof for that class let us write programs and functions if it would help us with our lab stuff. Heck, he encouraged it.
And I didn't have any of it backed up!!!
I raised a big stink and said I would delete everything but that one program and said I would let him read each line of the program if he wanted. After a couple of minutes he caved and let me and everyone behind me walk in without resetting. But those that were in front of me were SOL.
Like many people, you are mis-informed. The users the RIAA hunts down are being served civil papers. Meaning, they will be sued. As much as the RIAA would like to be, they are not a sanctioned governmental agency. Therefore, while you may have to pay the RIAA part of your paycheck until the day you die, you won't be going to prison.
It's sort of like GM deciding to sue people for buying car-parts at a small shop and fixing their GM cars themselves, instead of paying inflating prices at a dealership. Granted, the RIAA has at least an iota of legal basis to sue, while GM has none.
I think so, but only if it was related to terrorism (ie, a nosey neighbor heard you talking about playing counterstrike and told the feds she thinks you're a terrorist).
Then again, I blieve they recently started labelling hackers as potential terrorist threats.
Don't get me wrong, I think open source is great, and usually results in better-quality software. Heck, I'm posting this on Mozilla Firebird (recently permanently switched from Opera).
But what's the big deal if it's not open source. As someone already mentioned, in the case of the limited window of voting, security through obscurity shoud work fine.
If the project leaders of some product decide to go Open Source, I say GREAT!!! Everyone wins!!!
But just because a product is NOT open source, should it be criticized?
And besides, most politicians don't no cr@p about PC tech, let alone have any clue as to what open source is. Unless a politician sees it in their best interest (like their researchers say teens and the PC oriented don't like them) I doubt they would push for anything like this. Remember, most of them come from old-school big businesses (or old money) and still see the world through old-school capitalistic glasses.
That was only a small part of Superman III. Of all of them, THAT ONE WAS THE WORST.
Then again, I only like the 1st one (and the evil chick from the second one ).
A leech is typically someone that just downloads a lot, but gives very little back to the network. This can be done by limiting or eliminating uploads, letting a person upload at the max speed of a 24.4 modem, etc.
Prolific sharers are those that have a sizeable library, and let the flood-gates open; allowing anyone access to all of their songs.
These are the ones that (in all fairness) should watch out for the RIAA. Because they're technically doing the most damage.
Then again, I'm sure the RIAA is just swining around their lawyer-stick, and suring anyone it hits.
Yes, I know. However, I didn't make up the term China Syndrome or the definition. I think their idea was that it would simply melt down following the flow of gravity (in otherwards, towards what little kids think they're gonna do when they dig a deep hole "to china.") But in the end, would just make it to the core and stop.
Either way, it doesn't matter, such a thing would mess things up royaly in the surrounding area.
And by the way, both use the exact same model of case with the same number (and model) of case fans. Essentially the exact same setups, except the motherboard and CPU (HD, CD, Video card, etc are the same).
ACtually, last time I looked, AMD's produced more watts of energy (ie, heat) per clock cycle. Granted, they've gotten better over the years, but Intel still runs cooler. Part of this is due to the way Intel handles being idle.
Sure, when both AMD and Intel are running at 100% for a long time, the difference isn't THAT great. But idling there is still a big difference.
Case-in-point. My Athlon XP 2200+ idles at 54 degrees Celsius with a big-fat 80mm heat sink/fan.
My Intel 2.4 GHz idles at 35 degrees Celsius. The result is my room is a LOT cooler with my Intel running than my AMD.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't blame him. It's all opinion. I've been completely turned away from entire brands before because of a couple of consecutive problems (rather major ones).
Case-in-point, I will NEVER by Dell again because my last two purchases were utter garbage. Does this mean that Dell sux? No, they're probably one of the better PC manufacturers out there. I'm sure my experiences were in the small minority. But that doesn't change the fact that they've lost me as a customer forever.
It doesn't take much for a company to permanently leave a bad impression on one's mind. And a person shouldn't be blamed for haiting a company that's given them a bad experience, more than one.
I stand corrected. Good memoey :)
But from what I remember, Bender has like no Iron in him. He has Zinc, Titanium, and some other stuff. But I've never heard him mention iron.
Then again, his face gets all rusty when he's sober.
While I can't speek for the grandparent...
I use Windows XP Pro and Office XP Std at home. I may be in the minority, but my system only crashes once every few months. Sure, a game may quit to the desktop or whatever, but nothing major.
And in case you say "then you don't use you're system that much" I'll write what I do. Maybe I'm just lucky.
DAILY STUFF
- System is on 24/7
- Write Visual C++ ApplicationS to interface with a seperate Oracle 9i server.
- Experiment with C#
- Write java applets to interface with Oracle 9i server.
- Write Scientific applications (C++, Java, VBA)for high-throughput-testing and other devices, as well as perform various transformations on resulting equations.
- Play a LOT of video games!!! (Quake 3, Counter-strike, Starcraft, NOLF2, etc).
- Browse internet, read mail, etc.
Yet my PC hardly ever crashes. Sure, I have friends whose PC's act like their possessed by the Devil, but I also have some friends that are in the same boat as me.
Agreed, but they didn't give Futurama a change. After the first season, it kept being pre-empted by NFL games. After a while, even I stopped trying to watch it because instead there would be a post-game interview or something. When a station does something like that, there's no way a show can get good ratings. Because it's either not on when it's supposed to be, or people give up trying to watch it.
Best Buy is pretty good too. To be honest, I've been finding my local Best Buy has often has hardware in stock that my local CompUSA doesn't. And their staff (at least in the one right by me) is pretty knowledgable. Then again, their Computer dept is just that, a dept, whereas CompUSA has essentially the entire store dedicated to it.
You are correct. People from around the globe were in the twin towers. For example, I recall that a large number of Britons died that day as well.
That sucks man. I can't even imagine what it's like for you now.
But not all of us are like that. Heck, I was still attending school at NJIT (which has LARGE population of students of middle-eastern descent). And while I would hear of some jerks harassing a guy from time to time afterwards, it was a rare thing that died off quickly. Nobody I knew had the hate attitude you are descriping. And I was friends with people of all nationalities.
I will admit, we (the US) aren't perfect. Heck, when my parents immigrated here they were literally SPAT on for being "COMMUNIST PIGS," when in fact they fled to the US to flee communism. There are A LOT of jerks in the US, but not everyone.
Again, I can't imagine what you must be feeling after reading your post. But you can't say we're all bad.
And as for the 3000 people, they weren't just "white folk." In my opinion, it was because it happened to Americans on American soil. Had someone manage to single out 3000 Americans of middle-easten descent and kill them in one horrible act, we would have been just as appalled and angry at whoever had done it.
I may be mistaken, but I THINK while a book that describes how to make a bomb might be legal, combining it with ideas on how to use it in a crime is probably not, ESPECIALLY when the theme of said literature focusing more on how to use against a group of people.
Case-in-point, Book A says "this is how you build a bomb. It is dangerous and should not be used as a weapon."
Book B says "Damn those , I think they should all die. I think someone should bomb the cr@p out of them. And PS, here's how you could do it."
Then Book B is AT LEAST on the thin line of legal free speech and crime. However, if a person read the book, and decided to bomb whichever group by making a bomb using the directions in the book, then the author would probably be in hot water as far as the law was concered.
Then again, I'm just a programmer and I'm really tired of this article. In the end, this guy only got a year in jail, doing something he must have known was probably not the wisest thing to post now-a-days.
GOd, I don't want to start/partake in an argument. But here:
As mentioned in my original post (if you read it), I mention that I do not feel that him simply advocating the overthrow of a goverment was legally wrong. But he also posted links to instructions on building bombs. He might as well have said (here is where you can get a great deal on an AK47, no questions asked). Sure, the individual would have to go buy the ak47, but he would be aiding in an illegal act by knowingly helping him obtain weapons for crime.
Sure, ultimately it is the actual person who decided to build the bomb and kill people that is guilty. But you can't tell me that legally and morally, the guy who told him how to build them bomb, and possibly encited the idea/rage to trigger him into doing it isn't AT LEAST SOMEWHAT responsible.
And as for personal responsibility, I feel that too many people use the "I was beaten as a child" or whatever excuse they have to get away with a crime. However, in the end had soemone bombed innocents because of this guys website, he should be held accountable on at least some level, even if it were negligent homicide or grave indifference.
Yes, and those responsible were viewed as criminals by the British during the time. Should we treat killers differently if they kill civilians because they feel they have a reason? If someone shot a bunch of people and said he did so because he felt the company they worked for was "evil" and a blight on society, should we let them walk? No. They are criminals, plain and simple/
That guy should be lucky that nobody used his website to kill people. Otherwise, he'd be on death row (or get life imprisonment) instead of a year.
BTW, when I say advocating the overthrow of a government is free speech, I mean some guy suggesting it on a soap box/website.
Personally, I'm against it, but a person is allowed to believe what he/she wants.
Also, remember we have the rights to "Life, Liberty, and the persuit of Happiness." Notice how Life is mentioned first. This guy's website was advocating violence, plain and simple, which violates other people's right to live.
I think simply advocating the overthowing of the government is under free speech. And if that was all, then I'd be greatly offended at this act. However, if you're advocating the overthrow of a government AND posting links about how to make bombs, then that's another matter. Then you're saying "Let's overthrow the goverment and kill people, here's how...!" Sure, the author might not have been saying "let's blow up a bunch of congressman's houses), but people could have taken it that way. Enciting violence is iffy, but enciting violence and purposely providing the means to do such violence (such as handing out guns or describing how to make bombs to kill people) is another matter.
Sorta wrong comparison...
They are claiming for all commercial uses. Since Linux is mostly used commercially for servers, this would be comparing Linux 699 for Microsoft's Windows Server (ver 2003 is currently 600 for full server). So the difference is rather small.
However, SOME businesses do use Linux commercially, as desktops and workstations. In which case they'd also have to shell out that obscene amt of money.
Man, I though Microsoft was evil. Compared to these guys, Billy-G is a playground bully.
In my "Mathematics of Finance" class in college, we all showed up with our calculators for the midterm. Un-beknownst to us, the professor was waiting at the door to the classroom with a pin. In order for us to take the exam, we had to let him reset our calculator. Now, I admit... I had a couple of equations pre-programmed in there. They were things I knoew how to do, but had them in there as a time saverm so I didn't care about that. BUT!!! I also had a lot of class-legal stuff in there for my various other classes. For example, a physics program I wrote to perform the next 4 labs. Our prof for that class let us write programs and functions if it would help us with our lab stuff. Heck, he encouraged it. And I didn't have any of it backed up!!! I raised a big stink and said I would delete everything but that one program and said I would let him read each line of the program if he wanted. After a couple of minutes he caved and let me and everyone behind me walk in without resetting. But those that were in front of me were SOL.
However, it's still funny ;)
Like many people, you are mis-informed. The users the RIAA hunts down are being served civil papers. Meaning, they will be sued. As much as the RIAA would like to be, they are not a sanctioned governmental agency. Therefore, while you may have to pay the RIAA part of your paycheck until the day you die, you won't be going to prison. It's sort of like GM deciding to sue people for buying car-parts at a small shop and fixing their GM cars themselves, instead of paying inflating prices at a dealership. Granted, the RIAA has at least an iota of legal basis to sue, while GM has none.
But Sir, I misplaced it. Honest. I can't find it anywhere. You can tear through my apartment if you want.
I'd probably thank you if you found it. Otherwise I'll never be able to listen to my emm-pee... I mean, do stuff for work on it ever again!
I think so, but only if it was related to terrorism (ie, a nosey neighbor heard you talking about playing counterstrike and told the feds she thinks you're a terrorist).
Then again, I blieve they recently started labelling hackers as potential terrorist threats.
But take that with a grain of salt.
Don't get me wrong, I think open source is great, and usually results in better-quality software. Heck, I'm posting this on Mozilla Firebird (recently permanently switched from Opera).
But what's the big deal if it's not open source. As someone already mentioned, in the case of the limited window of voting, security through obscurity shoud work fine.
If the project leaders of some product decide to go Open Source, I say GREAT!!! Everyone wins!!!
But just because a product is NOT open source, should it be criticized?
And besides, most politicians don't no cr@p about PC tech, let alone have any clue as to what open source is. Unless a politician sees it in their best interest (like their researchers say teens and the PC oriented don't like them) I doubt they would push for anything like this. Remember, most of them come from old-school big businesses (or old money) and still see the world through old-school capitalistic glasses.
That was only a small part of Superman III. Of all of them, THAT ONE WAS THE WORST. Then again, I only like the 1st one (and the evil chick from the second one ).
A leech is typically someone that just downloads a lot, but gives very little back to the network. This can be done by limiting or eliminating uploads, letting a person upload at the max speed of a 24.4 modem, etc.
Prolific sharers are those that have a sizeable library, and let the flood-gates open; allowing anyone access to all of their songs.
These are the ones that (in all fairness) should watch out for the RIAA. Because they're technically doing the most damage.
Then again, I'm sure the RIAA is just swining around their lawyer-stick, and suring anyone it hits.
Yes, I know. However, I didn't make up the term China Syndrome or the definition. I think their idea was that it would simply melt down following the flow of gravity (in otherwards, towards what little kids think they're gonna do when they dig a deep hole "to china.") But in the end, would just make it to the core and stop.
Either way, it doesn't matter, such a thing would mess things up royaly in the surrounding area.
And by the way, both use the exact same model of case with the same number (and model) of case fans. Essentially the exact same setups, except the motherboard and CPU (HD, CD, Video card, etc are the same).
ACtually, last time I looked, AMD's produced more watts of energy (ie, heat) per clock cycle. Granted, they've gotten better over the years, but Intel still runs cooler. Part of this is due to the way Intel handles being idle.
Sure, when both AMD and Intel are running at 100% for a long time, the difference isn't THAT great. But idling there is still a big difference.
Case-in-point. My Athlon XP 2200+ idles at 54 degrees Celsius with a big-fat 80mm heat sink/fan.
My Intel 2.4 GHz idles at 35 degrees Celsius. The result is my room is a LOT cooler with my Intel running than my AMD.