"While I am no fan of judicial activism, the 14th amendment does give the Federal government vastly greater power over the affairs of states than was originally enumerated in the Constitution."
Indeed it does. However, the scope of the 14th is limited, and so long as you're not discriminating based on characteristics of a person like race or gender (though many instances of the latter are allowed), you're pretty much fine as per the simple and to-the-point wording of the 14th. Gays are allowed to enter into the marriage contract; just not necessarily with whom they want. If I want to marry my cell phone, the state does not allow that either. Why? Because my cell phone lies outside the legal standard for entering into this particular contract. Either the state may set the standards for the contract, or it may not.
There's no concern with the 14th Amendment here. I'm not gay, but I'm not allowed to marry another man any more than a homosexual man would be. This isn't a case where gays are forced to do anything differently than heterosexuals. There are no separate bathrooms for gays, separate water fountains, separate schools, or anything along those lines. Gays are treated no differently by marriage laws than straights - they just don't like the options they're given by the law.
I don't think Terry Shiavo's parents were particularly thrilled with the options given to them by the law either, but they did accept them and worked within the law to try to get their way (which is more than I can say for Congress and the President in that case). People these days seem to be under the impression that they have a right to be made happy by the government. It's this sense of entitlement that's drained the desire to better ourselves and which has put us at the mercy of the Federal government. If gays want to get married under the state-sanction contract, then they need to work within the law to get legislatures to pass laws, or people to pass state constitution amendments allowing them to do so. This end-run around the legal system with the help of judges who shouldn't even be sitting on the bench is BS. No one is entitled by the US Constitution to do whatever the hell makes them happy at the moment.
"even though none of them can enter into legal contracts?"
There's the problem with your argument right there - either the state has the power to define who and what can enter into contracts, or it cannot. Not a single state in the union has, thus far, decided that two same-sex people can enter into this particular contract. Either the state has the right to determine who may and may not legally enter into a contract or it does not.
Even if you're going to try to limit it just to adults over 18, (which is just a simple modification of law rather than a 'civil rights' struggle) then you're left with the situation in Utah where you'll have 20 of them looking to jam themselves into the same contract. Are you ready to defend polygamy to get what you want?
"These dual core chips are PERFECT for high performance NON-GAMER Linux systems, and yet these guys disregard the most mature and stable 64 bit platform to run game benchmarks on 32 bit windows."
That could, perhaps, be due to the fact that 90%+ of their readers are only interested in benchmarks performed on a platform they run with applications they run.
If you're convinced there's a market out there for a site that does benchmarking with non-gamer linux systems, feel free to start your own site and do your own benchmarking. Until then, it does you no good to complain about the articles and reviews of successful sites not covering your small corner of the world.
"It strikes me odd that AMD is pricing their Athlon x2's between $500-$1000."
Why? This is typical of the high-end processor line.
"This seems particularly high when compared to the prices expected for Intel's offerings."
You're judging AMD's pricing scheme against processors Intel hasn't even delivered yet? Aside from that, you're comparing apples and paint. AMD didn't go el-cheapo by strapping a second core on their CPUs using aluminum foil and a 'bungie' cord. While it may seem 'cool' to have McGuyver rigging processors for your multi-billion dollar a year company, the massive thermal envelope on those space-heaters is anything but.
"The Pentium D's are supposed to be between $250-$500."
Sorry, what's the pricing on those "dual core" EEs again, please?
"I cannot see AMD getting that much higher of a price for similar processors."
Similar in what way? I mean, I suppose if you boil it down to the subatomic level, they're virtually identical. That said, AMD's dual-core solution is a ground-up design intended to bring the best possible performance using existing boards within a reasonable thermal envelope. Intel's design is a rigged, last-minute rush job that spews heat and chews power like nothing you've ever seen. Coupled with the fact that the performance we've seen from their "dual core" "solution" has been less than stellar thus far, it's pretty obvious that AMD's planning (from 1998) is really starting to pay off.
It's looking like Intel's going to play another year of catch-up to AMD. If this trend continues, Intel may one day continue to exist only to serv as a warning to others.
"If you are heterosexual, and fall in love with a member of the opposite sex and want to marry him/her, then those rules are perfectly fine for you. But if you're homosexual, and fall in love with a member of your own gender and want to marry him/her, you're just out of luck. Why should only heterosexuals be able to marry the ones they love?"
I'm in love with my Geforce 6800 Ultra, yet I cannot marry it. Why should only human-lovers be able to marry who/what they love? Seriously though, there are always going to be standards to definitions that exclude someone. Gays just want to bring it but so far and then stop it from there. I doubt many gays would support people marrying pets or children. Why do they support some exclusions and not others?
Besides, much of what gays seek through legal, state-sanctioned marriage can be accomplished via contract. Personally, I'd be just as happy to see government get its nose out of the marriage business altogether. Allow states to define supercontracts that any two consenting adults can enter into and let the Federal government decide what it will and will not deal with. Of course, that won't be enough for some people.
"State constitutions are not beyond reach of SCOTUS."
That's debatable at best. Article III Sec 2 enumerates the jurisdiction of the judicial branch of the Federal government. It specifically mentions the Federal courts (including the SCOTUS) as having jurisdiction over cases involving two states or citizens of two states, but never mentions cases between a citizen and their own state.
Of course, that won't matter to those who enjoy filling in lots of extra words in the Constitution so that it sings and dances and says/does whatever they want it to, but the fact remains that Constitution never gives the SCOTUS the authority to lay a hand on internal state matters.
"Likewise, all military projects, whether they are weapons systems or communications systems, are intended to further military goals, which basically involve killing people. What level the involvement is at is irrelevent, if you want to be idealistic and take a complete no-war stance."
Why not take it one step further? You paying taxes this year?
"Oussama Bin Laden! the world needs you more than ever. Get your marbles together, and with a bit of imagination, you can cut the whole oil supply to the United States of America, and either bring those stupid yankees down on their knees, or make them adopt a much less ruinous way of life that is more respectful of the planet. Go, Oussama! Go sink those oil tankers plying the sea! Go sever that thin lifeline that keeps those stupid yankees alive! The planet will be eternally grateful once you bring those fuckers down. "
"My mom bought a Dell and a neighbor has had to clean the thing 3 times in the past 6 months!"
Your mother broke her computer through misuse and ignorance, so you're angry at Microsoft? Granted, Microsoft could do more to secure Windows from such threats, but don't blame Microsoft for your mother's habit of clicking on and installing anything and everything that pops up.
If I buy a car then drive it off the road into a tree because I can't comprehend how to operate this "steering wheel" thingy, I don't get mad at Toyota. If this were purely a Microsoft problem, then every single person running Windows would be in the same situation as your mother. Funny, last time I ran ad-aware/spybot/spy sweeper/giant anti-spyware, they found a grand total of about a dozen things (mostly cookies) combined. Why? I don't click on every damn thing I see, and I don't install 300 "free" applications that promise to put smiley faces in my email/desktop/mouse cursor/etc or purple monkeys jumping around.
"I have owned a couple AMD K7 classics, all of which fried in the past."
I see about 7 or 8 chips total die in a given year. This is out of, roughly, 800 - 900 repairs I do on PCs in a year. Roughly the same number of AMD and Intel chips will die in that time. At least two or three will come in with enough thermal compound caked on to kill a small mammal. The others are generally due to power problems (lightening, power surge, bad PSU). Maybe once or twice a year I'll see a real-life actually-bad processor.
In other words, in my experience, those who have multiple CPU failures are
A) blaming the failure of another component on the CPU without properly testing
B) overclocking or otherwise misusing/abusing the processor
C) experiencing the result of serious power issues which will continue frying processors indefinitely until it's resolved
D) not providing appropriate cooling for the processor (which sort of falls under B)
"then finish your story with the other things you actually HAVE to do to keep it running without "problems" like a router with a stateful packet filter, an application-level software firewall, an IDS, and multiple anti-virus/anti-trojan scanners. Yeah, I can see how good W2K is now, thanks for clearing that up."
First of all, you pretentious and cowardly little anonymous prick, I don't have to do any of those things. I do those things because I'm paranoid about security (the smart thing to be, in my opinion), and because I don't want to deal with problems such as intrusions. Windows 2000 isn't bullet-proof 100% secure. No software ever-before written is 100% secure. My current setup isn't 100% secure. By doing the things I do, I approach 100% security. Just what OS is it that you're using that doesn't require any additional security precautions? Can it do half of what mine does? I'm the first to blast M$ for the stupid/illegal/immoral things they do, but they did a pretty decent job with Win2k.
"is there real any technical reason you puposely avoid applying the MS patches in a timely manner"
Three reasons. First of all, most of the patches are unnecessary, as they're not remotely exploitable on my current setup with the additional precautions I've already taken. Secondly, some patches cause major problems, like Service Pack 2 for Windows XP. I'd rather wait to hear about problems other people have had, rather than dealing with the problems myself. Thirdly, it's inconvenient. I work with computers all day long solving problems. The last damn thing I want to do when I get home at the end of the day (or early the next day) is to troubleshoot the sudden bizarre behaviors exhibited by my computer because some 0day patch from Microsoft is buggy'd all to hell. I also don't want to sit there waiting for patches to download and install, and then have to restart, and then restart all the programs I run 24/7, and then make sure everything's working as it should. When I get home, everything's up and running and waiting for me. That's how I want it.
"then to come to/. and brag about not having to shut the system down?"
I see; so when a Linux user laughs at how Windows users supposedly have to reboot 73 times an hour, but his computer's been up 24/7 for the past 8 years, that's "cool". When a Win2k user talks about his personal experiences with Win2k being positive, that's just silly bragging.
"My computer only takes about 2 minutes to shut down and reboot, seems logical to me it would not disrupt you very much."
You pretentiously assume that the world for others is identical to your perspective. Sorry to deflate your little ego, but other people actually do have different setups. Personally, between downloading and installing patches, then restarting, I'm looking at probably 3 - 5 minutes. For starting up all the things I start up, getting them all set up the way that I need them set up, and then checking to make sure they're all running properly, I'm looking at upwards of 30 minutes or more.
I run patches when I do hardware maintenance. If that means I run a few months behind the latest and 'greatest' Microsoft patches, so be it. I run a router with a stateful packet filter, an application-level software firewall, an IDS, and multiple anti-virus/anti-trojan scanners. If someone manages to get into my system and stay there, they deserve it.
Indeed. I use Win2k Pro at home, myself, and I must say that ECC memory has really completed the system in terms of stability. The last time it went down was about a month ago when my Antec TruePower 550 crapped out. (ugh, almost brand new!) The last time it had been rebooted prior to that was back in May when I took some hard drives out of it for use in another machine that I was putting together just for storage, and put in that damned Truepower PSU. Before that, I couldn't tell you the last time it went down for anything. I can say with confidence that it's been at least a year since I've brought it down for software issues (or from an OS crash). I couldn't put my finger on exactly when because it's been so long that I don't remember. I abuse the hell out of it and leave it running 24/7, but it never lets me down. Mozilla and Freenet are my two biggest resource hogs.
"and I thought bots killing me in Quake2 were annoying!"
I used those bastards for target practice back in the day. Toss in a hundred ms of delay and your bot doesn't stand a chance. Bots can only hit what they can see.;)
I know that I shouldn't feel the trolls, but there are times when I just can't help myself.
"AMD is still having quiality control problems and there doesn't seem to be any end in sight."
Oh? I don't remember seeing anything about AMD having problems with their CPUs. I do, however, remember compiling a short list of problems Intel has had. Let's see if I can find it. Oh look, there it is! Intel churns out problem-ridden products just like anyone else. It's so funny to watch the fanboys go down in flames.
I find myself both frightened and disturbed by the incredible amounts of knowledge both had and openly displayed by numerous individuals posting to this story regarding the components and inner workings of nuclear weapons.
Perhaps more disturbing is that whenever someone gets the description of the anatomy and physiology almost right - but not quite right - (as if they're still working on it), someone else comes along to merrily correct them. I'm curious now - given the materials necessary, how many slashdotters could construct a working nuclear weapon?
"You have no idea what you are talking right? France has actually a very right wing government."
UDP and UMP lost majority this year to the collectively left-wing Socialist Party, Communist Party, and the Greens and Radicals Party. Chirac's party, the UMP, formed in 2002 to unite the right-wing factions, couldn't get more than 1/6th of the vote in the March '04 elections; which had a ~65% voter turnout.
But you're right, I have no idea what I'm talking about.
"The average Parisian lost 20kg during the Nazi occupation."
Ok, now take into account the entirity of France and put that up against the entirity of Germany. Everyone suffers during time of war, especially those on whose soil the war is fought. So don't talk to me about the plight of the poor French. Perhaps if they'd put up resistance instead of greeting and helping the Nazis (and later putting up anti-American signs throughout the country following WWII), they'd have suffered a little less in a long run.
"I'm, to the contrary, opposed to jingoist who act as though this was somehow a French thing."
Purging the existence of the Nazis from the collective memories of their people is primarily done by the Germans and the French. All meaningful discussion and debate is squelched, and the official account of events is the only one legally allowed to be believed.
"Whereas we are talking about a law that only applies to, surprise surprise, France."
They're trying to extend their purge to a company which exists - beyond its control - throughout the world. The only way for Yahoo to "follow" this law the way the French want them to is if they either remove everything from their auctions and websites worldwide that may fall foul of French law, or convince every ISP providing service to French citizens to block its content. France wants a "Great Firewall" like China's, but they don't want to shell out the cash to implement it. Their idea of an alternative is to enforce their will upon the rest of the world by forcing Yahoo to cease any business throughout the world of which France does not approve.
"Your justification of your hatred of all things French is what I oppose."
I have no hatred of all things French, and you have no evidence or reason to believe otherwise. What I do hate is the mind-control attempted by governments - especially when it's so open and blatant. what I hate even more is when one nation decides that its laws override those of the rest of the world and then decide to enforce those laws on companies simply providing a service. I was just as pissed at the US trying to go after Elcomsoft.
"this is about you jerks attacking a whole country, a whole people and culture, and acting as though you were justified, as if this were right."
I'm just one jerk, thanks. I'm not attacking the people, but I am attacking the culture that leads to laws in places like France, Germany, China, etc that seek to control the minds of the citizenry. That the French citizens choose to live under such an incredible set of freedom-crushing laws is appalling to me, but they're welcome to continue living under those laws. What they are not welcome to do is push those laws on me. If I were to decide to be a WWII collector, French laws, German laws, and anyone else's laws aside from those of the United States should have no bearing on what's available for me to purchase from my home in the United States from a company based in the United States.
"Its as though, you know, they want a company doing is business in their own country to obey the law of the land,"
Yahoo isn't doing business in France - their business is simply accessible to French citizens.
"and the company was responding by having the court of another country try to impose its own laws to a sovereign nation."
Yahoo responded by asking a court of the US - under whose laws Yahoo, the company, operates - whether they are forced to follow the least common denominator. What Yahoo wants is for a court in the US to say that they are subject to - and only to - the laws of the US so long as they operate within the borders of the US.
"Because, of course, laws affecting content on the internet are only passed in inferior countries, the Almighty, divine United States of America are above, amongst other things, passing such laws."
I'm as quick to call the US on laws I see as bad as I am anyone else. Your red herring aside, this isn't about what laws there are in the US.
"Its not like they were ever, you know, invaded and occupied by Nazis or anything, right? I'm surprised that years of deprivation under Nazi occupation could leave any stigma like that...who'd have thought?"
Considering the fact that southern France was collaberating with the Nazis, I should think that they'd have not been that much more deprived than citizens of Germany during the war.
Aside from that, you seem to be supportive of France's attempt at purging "bad thoughts" from the minds of everyone on planet Earth via legislation and jail. State-sponsored reprogramming isn't the answer to any problem. Prosecution of thoughtcrime used to be something free peoples fought against.
Yahoo cannot possibly block all French citizens from accessing their other sites. Thus, if they can't fight this off with the help of the ACLU, they're going to have problems regardless of what they do with the.fr site. With any luck, American courts and lawmakers will come to Yahoo's rescue and put the pompous French beaurocrats right back on their socialist asses. Otherwise, we may well see the content of the internet reduced to the lowest common denominator of PC-filtered non-offensive non-confrontational child-safe mind-numbing drool.
Re:On the Subject of Warrants and the Patriot Act
on
Blackhat/Defcon Report
·
· Score: 1
I was the one who pointed out that the FISA court has only denied a single request for a warrant since its inception, and that the denial was overturned in the only time the FISA appeals court has ever had to meet.
Now let me ask you this: you mention that there is potentially recourse against the government for those who've had an ill-gotten warrant issued against them - what is the recourse if you're never told that the warrant was issued, and if it is "served" while you're at work, in secret, without your consent or knowledge? What is the recourse against a National Security Letter, whose very existence must be kept from you by the communications provider who receives it, even though it compels them to release a boatload of information about your communications through them? What is the recourse for those who've been hit with certain provisions of the PATRIOT Act when any precedent in their favor is automatically kept secret by virtue of the fact that all cases brought against the act are sealed, with no party being legally allowed to reveal who brought the suit, why they brought the suit, what the facts are in the case, or that there are facts in the case?
You can't fight what you can't see. You can't challenge what doesn't "exist".
"The FBI representative asserted that just because the act had been passed didn't mean they had carte blanche to surveil anyone they wanted, that judges still had approve their requests. That reasoning only flew so far, however, as the questioner pointed out that such requests by the FBI are always approved, never denied."[Emphasis mine, statement mine:-) ]
Actually, I didn't ask the original question, merely responded to the FBI guy's bullshit answer about them not being able to march right up and get warrants for whatever they want in terrorism cases (or rather cases they claim are related to a terrorism investigation - which means anything and everything they want it to mean). I threw my hand up about halfway through his answer (which he bumbled through briefly before resorting to more bullshit) to mention that an FBI agent had been barred from appearing before the FISA court ever again because he was blatantly lying to the court, and to talk a bit about National Security Letters (NSLs), which require 0 judicial oversight and which get a whole lot of non-content information from communications providers (like ISPs). Unfortunately for me, and fortunately for the poor FBI guy, they never called on me again after that. (It was a fed who was deciding who to call on).
If anyone saw who I am, forget who you saw - I don't exist.;)
Slashdot Mirror
"While I am no fan of judicial activism, the 14th amendment does give the Federal government vastly greater power over the affairs of states than was originally enumerated in the Constitution."
Indeed it does. However, the scope of the 14th is limited, and so long as you're not discriminating based on characteristics of a person like race or gender (though many instances of the latter are allowed), you're pretty much fine as per the simple and to-the-point wording of the 14th. Gays are allowed to enter into the marriage contract; just not necessarily with whom they want. If I want to marry my cell phone, the state does not allow that either. Why? Because my cell phone lies outside the legal standard for entering into this particular contract. Either the state may set the standards for the contract, or it may not.
There's no concern with the 14th Amendment here. I'm not gay, but I'm not allowed to marry another man any more than a homosexual man would be. This isn't a case where gays are forced to do anything differently than heterosexuals. There are no separate bathrooms for gays, separate water fountains, separate schools, or anything along those lines. Gays are treated no differently by marriage laws than straights - they just don't like the options they're given by the law.
I don't think Terry Shiavo's parents were particularly thrilled with the options given to them by the law either, but they did accept them and worked within the law to try to get their way (which is more than I can say for Congress and the President in that case). People these days seem to be under the impression that they have a right to be made happy by the government. It's this sense of entitlement that's drained the desire to better ourselves and which has put us at the mercy of the Federal government. If gays want to get married under the state-sanction contract, then they need to work within the law to get legislatures to pass laws, or people to pass state constitution amendments allowing them to do so. This end-run around the legal system with the help of judges who shouldn't even be sitting on the bench is BS. No one is entitled by the US Constitution to do whatever the hell makes them happy at the moment.
"even though none of them can enter into legal contracts?"
There's the problem with your argument right there - either the state has the power to define who and what can enter into contracts, or it cannot. Not a single state in the union has, thus far, decided that two same-sex people can enter into this particular contract. Either the state has the right to determine who may and may not legally enter into a contract or it does not.
Even if you're going to try to limit it just to adults over 18, (which is just a simple modification of law rather than a 'civil rights' struggle) then you're left with the situation in Utah where you'll have 20 of them looking to jam themselves into the same contract. Are you ready to defend polygamy to get what you want?
"These dual core chips are PERFECT for high performance NON-GAMER Linux systems, and yet these guys disregard the most mature and stable 64 bit platform to run game benchmarks on 32 bit windows."
That could, perhaps, be due to the fact that 90%+ of their readers are only interested in benchmarks performed on a platform they run with applications they run.
If you're convinced there's a market out there for a site that does benchmarking with non-gamer linux systems, feel free to start your own site and do your own benchmarking. Until then, it does you no good to complain about the articles and reviews of successful sites not covering your small corner of the world.
"It strikes me odd that AMD is pricing their Athlon x2's between $500-$1000."
Why? This is typical of the high-end processor line.
"This seems particularly high when compared to the prices expected for Intel's offerings."
You're judging AMD's pricing scheme against processors Intel hasn't even delivered yet? Aside from that, you're comparing apples and paint. AMD didn't go el-cheapo by strapping a second core on their CPUs using aluminum foil and a 'bungie' cord. While it may seem 'cool' to have McGuyver rigging processors for your multi-billion dollar a year company, the massive thermal envelope on those space-heaters is anything but.
"The Pentium D's are supposed to be between $250-$500."
Sorry, what's the pricing on those "dual core" EEs again, please?
"I cannot see AMD getting that much higher of a price for similar processors."
Similar in what way? I mean, I suppose if you boil it down to the subatomic level, they're virtually identical. That said, AMD's dual-core solution is a ground-up design intended to bring the best possible performance using existing boards within a reasonable thermal envelope. Intel's design is a rigged, last-minute rush job that spews heat and chews power like nothing you've ever seen. Coupled with the fact that the performance we've seen from their "dual core" "solution" has been less than stellar thus far, it's pretty obvious that AMD's planning (from 1998) is really starting to pay off.
It's looking like Intel's going to play another year of catch-up to AMD. If this trend continues, Intel may one day continue to exist only to serv as a warning to others.
"If you are heterosexual, and fall in love with a member of the opposite sex and want to marry him/her, then those rules are perfectly fine for you. But if you're homosexual, and fall in love with a member of your own gender and want to marry him/her, you're just out of luck. Why should only heterosexuals be able to marry the ones they love?"
I'm in love with my Geforce 6800 Ultra, yet I cannot marry it. Why should only human-lovers be able to marry who/what they love? Seriously though, there are always going to be standards to definitions that exclude someone. Gays just want to bring it but so far and then stop it from there. I doubt many gays would support people marrying pets or children. Why do they support some exclusions and not others?
Besides, much of what gays seek through legal, state-sanctioned marriage can be accomplished via contract. Personally, I'd be just as happy to see government get its nose out of the marriage business altogether. Allow states to define supercontracts that any two consenting adults can enter into and let the Federal government decide what it will and will not deal with. Of course, that won't be enough for some people.
"State constitutions are not beyond reach of SCOTUS."
That's debatable at best. Article III Sec 2 enumerates the jurisdiction of the judicial branch of the Federal government. It specifically mentions the Federal courts (including the SCOTUS) as having jurisdiction over cases involving two states or citizens of two states, but never mentions cases between a citizen and their own state.
Of course, that won't matter to those who enjoy filling in lots of extra words in the Constitution so that it sings and dances and says/does whatever they want it to, but the fact remains that Constitution never gives the SCOTUS the authority to lay a hand on internal state matters.
"Likewise, all military projects, whether they are weapons systems or communications systems, are intended to further military goals, which basically involve killing people. What level the involvement is at is irrelevent, if you want to be idealistic and take a complete no-war stance."
:)
Why not take it one step further? You paying taxes this year?
Murderer...
"unless you count the d00med itaniums."
A great many of which were never sold, but rather given to Big Tin customers in the hopes that they'd purchase some.
"Oussama Bin Laden!
the world needs you more than ever. Get your marbles together, and with a bit of imagination, you can cut the whole oil supply to the United States of America, and either bring those stupid yankees down on their knees, or make them adopt a much less ruinous way of life that is more respectful of the planet.
Go, Oussama! Go sink those oil tankers plying the sea!
Go sever that thin lifeline that keeps those stupid yankees alive!
The planet will be eternally grateful once you bring those fuckers down. "
Is this supposed to be some sort of a joke?
"My mom bought a Dell and a neighbor has had to clean the thing 3 times in the past 6 months!"
Your mother broke her computer through misuse and ignorance, so you're angry at Microsoft? Granted, Microsoft could do more to secure Windows from such threats, but don't blame Microsoft for your mother's habit of clicking on and installing anything and everything that pops up.
If I buy a car then drive it off the road into a tree because I can't comprehend how to operate this "steering wheel" thingy, I don't get mad at Toyota. If this were purely a Microsoft problem, then every single person running Windows would be in the same situation as your mother. Funny, last time I ran ad-aware/spybot/spy sweeper/giant anti-spyware, they found a grand total of about a dozen things (mostly cookies) combined. Why? I don't click on every damn thing I see, and I don't install 300 "free" applications that promise to put smiley faces in my email/desktop/mouse cursor/etc or purple monkeys jumping around.
I see about 7 or 8 chips total die in a given year. This is out of, roughly, 800 - 900 repairs I do on PCs in a year. Roughly the same number of AMD and Intel chips will die in that time. At least two or three will come in with enough thermal compound caked on to kill a small mammal. The others are generally due to power problems (lightening, power surge, bad PSU). Maybe once or twice a year I'll see a real-life actually-bad processor.
In other words, in my experience, those who have multiple CPU failures are
A) blaming the failure of another component on the CPU without properly testing
B) overclocking or otherwise misusing/abusing the processor
C) experiencing the result of serious power issues which will continue frying processors indefinitely until it's resolved
D) not providing appropriate cooling for the processor (which sort of falls under B)
For a bit of irony, try http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/11/14/ 1813223
"then finish your story with the other things you actually HAVE to do to keep it running without "problems" like a router with a stateful packet filter, an application-level software firewall, an IDS, and multiple anti-virus/anti-trojan scanners. Yeah, I can see how good W2K is now, thanks for clearing that up."
/. and brag about not having to shut the system down?"
First of all, you pretentious and cowardly little anonymous prick, I don't have to do any of those things. I do those things because I'm paranoid about security (the smart thing to be, in my opinion), and because I don't want to deal with problems such as intrusions. Windows 2000 isn't bullet-proof 100% secure. No software ever-before written is 100% secure. My current setup isn't 100% secure. By doing the things I do, I approach 100% security. Just what OS is it that you're using that doesn't require any additional security precautions? Can it do half of what mine does? I'm the first to blast M$ for the stupid/illegal/immoral things they do, but they did a pretty decent job with Win2k.
"is there real any technical reason you puposely avoid applying the MS patches in a timely manner"
Three reasons. First of all, most of the patches are unnecessary, as they're not remotely exploitable on my current setup with the additional precautions I've already taken. Secondly, some patches cause major problems, like Service Pack 2 for Windows XP. I'd rather wait to hear about problems other people have had, rather than dealing with the problems myself. Thirdly, it's inconvenient. I work with computers all day long solving problems. The last damn thing I want to do when I get home at the end of the day (or early the next day) is to troubleshoot the sudden bizarre behaviors exhibited by my computer because some 0day patch from Microsoft is buggy'd all to hell. I also don't want to sit there waiting for patches to download and install, and then have to restart, and then restart all the programs I run 24/7, and then make sure everything's working as it should. When I get home, everything's up and running and waiting for me. That's how I want it.
"then to come to
I see; so when a Linux user laughs at how Windows users supposedly have to reboot 73 times an hour, but his computer's been up 24/7 for the past 8 years, that's "cool". When a Win2k user talks about his personal experiences with Win2k being positive, that's just silly bragging.
"My computer only takes about 2 minutes to shut down and reboot, seems logical to me it would not disrupt you very much."
You pretentiously assume that the world for others is identical to your perspective. Sorry to deflate your little ego, but other people actually do have different setups. Personally, between downloading and installing patches, then restarting, I'm looking at probably 3 - 5 minutes. For starting up all the things I start up, getting them all set up the way that I need them set up, and then checking to make sure they're all running properly, I'm looking at upwards of 30 minutes or more.
I run patches when I do hardware maintenance. If that means I run a few months behind the latest and 'greatest' Microsoft patches, so be it. I run a router with a stateful packet filter, an application-level software firewall, an IDS, and multiple anti-virus/anti-trojan scanners. If someone manages to get into my system and stay there, they deserve it.
Indeed. I use Win2k Pro at home, myself, and I must say that ECC memory has really completed the system in terms of stability. The last time it went down was about a month ago when my Antec TruePower 550 crapped out. (ugh, almost brand new!) The last time it had been rebooted prior to that was back in May when I took some hard drives out of it for use in another machine that I was putting together just for storage, and put in that damned Truepower PSU. Before that, I couldn't tell you the last time it went down for anything. I can say with confidence that it's been at least a year since I've brought it down for software issues (or from an OS crash). I couldn't put my finger on exactly when because it's been so long that I don't remember. I abuse the hell out of it and leave it running 24/7, but it never lets me down. Mozilla and Freenet are my two biggest resource hogs.
"and I thought bots killing me in Quake2 were annoying!"
;)
I used those bastards for target practice back in the day. Toss in a hundred ms of delay and your bot doesn't stand a chance. Bots can only hit what they can see.
I know that I shouldn't feel the trolls, but there are times when I just can't help myself.
"AMD is still having quiality control problems and there doesn't seem to be any end in sight."
Oh? I don't remember seeing anything about AMD having problems with their CPUs. I do, however, remember compiling a short list of problems Intel has had. Let's see if I can find it. Oh look, there it is! Intel churns out problem-ridden products just like anyone else. It's so funny to watch the fanboys go down in flames.
I find myself both frightened and disturbed by the incredible amounts of knowledge both had and openly displayed by numerous individuals posting to this story regarding the components and inner workings of nuclear weapons.
Perhaps more disturbing is that whenever someone gets the description of the anatomy and physiology almost right - but not quite right - (as if they're still working on it), someone else comes along to merrily correct them. I'm curious now - given the materials necessary, how many slashdotters could construct a working nuclear weapon?
Complete and utter troll, obviously, but this:
"hodgepodge shit-show of amateur code"
made me laugh my ass off. Thank you, dear troll.
"The Itanium architecture will survive, but it will be relegated to a high-performance graphics engine."
Funny, I said that would be the case some time last year. I was laughed at for saying that.
"You have no idea what you are talking right? France has actually a very right wing government."
UDP and UMP lost majority this year to the collectively left-wing Socialist Party, Communist Party, and the Greens and Radicals Party. Chirac's party, the UMP, formed in 2002 to unite the right-wing factions, couldn't get more than 1/6th of the vote in the March '04 elections; which had a ~65% voter turnout.
But you're right, I have no idea what I'm talking about.
"The average Parisian lost 20kg during the Nazi occupation."
Ok, now take into account the entirity of France and put that up against the entirity of Germany. Everyone suffers during time of war, especially those on whose soil the war is fought. So don't talk to me about the plight of the poor French. Perhaps if they'd put up resistance instead of greeting and helping the Nazis (and later putting up anti-American signs throughout the country following WWII), they'd have suffered a little less in a long run.
"I'm, to the contrary, opposed to jingoist who act as though this was somehow a French thing."
Purging the existence of the Nazis from the collective memories of their people is primarily done by the Germans and the French. All meaningful discussion and debate is squelched, and the official account of events is the only one legally allowed to be believed.
"Whereas we are talking about a law that only applies to, surprise surprise, France."
They're trying to extend their purge to a company which exists - beyond its control - throughout the world. The only way for Yahoo to "follow" this law the way the French want them to is if they either remove everything from their auctions and websites worldwide that may fall foul of French law, or convince every ISP providing service to French citizens to block its content. France wants a "Great Firewall" like China's, but they don't want to shell out the cash to implement it. Their idea of an alternative is to enforce their will upon the rest of the world by forcing Yahoo to cease any business throughout the world of which France does not approve.
"Your justification of your hatred of all things French is what I oppose."
I have no hatred of all things French, and you have no evidence or reason to believe otherwise. What I do hate is the mind-control attempted by governments - especially when it's so open and blatant. what I hate even more is when one nation decides that its laws override those of the rest of the world and then decide to enforce those laws on companies simply providing a service. I was just as pissed at the US trying to go after Elcomsoft.
"this is about you jerks attacking a whole country, a whole people and culture, and acting as though you were justified, as if this were right."
I'm just one jerk, thanks. I'm not attacking the people, but I am attacking the culture that leads to laws in places like France, Germany, China, etc that seek to control the minds of the citizenry. That the French citizens choose to live under such an incredible set of freedom-crushing laws is appalling to me, but they're welcome to continue living under those laws. What they are not welcome to do is push those laws on me. If I were to decide to be a WWII collector, French laws, German laws, and anyone else's laws aside from those of the United States should have no bearing on what's available for me to purchase from my home in the United States from a company based in the United States.
"Its as though, you know, they want a company doing is business in their own country to obey the law of the land,"
Yahoo isn't doing business in France - their business is simply accessible to French citizens.
"and the company was responding by having the court of another country try to impose its own laws to a sovereign nation."
Yahoo responded by asking a court of the US - under whose laws Yahoo, the company, operates - whether they are forced to follow the least common denominator. What Yahoo wants is for a court in the US to say that they are subject to - and only to - the laws of the US so long as they operate within the borders of the US.
"Because, of course, laws affecting content on the internet are only passed in inferior countries, the Almighty, divine United States of America are above, amongst other things, passing such laws."
I'm as quick to call the US on laws I see as bad as I am anyone else. Your red herring aside, this isn't about what laws there are in the US.
"Its not like they were ever, you know, invaded and occupied by Nazis or anything, right?
.fr site. With any luck, American courts and lawmakers will come to Yahoo's rescue and put the pompous French beaurocrats right back on their socialist asses. Otherwise, we may well see the content of the internet reduced to the lowest common denominator of PC-filtered non-offensive non-confrontational child-safe mind-numbing drool.
I'm surprised that years of deprivation under Nazi occupation could leave any stigma like that...who'd have thought?"
Considering the fact that southern France was collaberating with the Nazis, I should think that they'd have not been that much more deprived than citizens of Germany during the war.
Aside from that, you seem to be supportive of France's attempt at purging "bad thoughts" from the minds of everyone on planet Earth via legislation and jail. State-sponsored reprogramming isn't the answer to any problem. Prosecution of thoughtcrime used to be something free peoples fought against.
Yahoo cannot possibly block all French citizens from accessing their other sites. Thus, if they can't fight this off with the help of the ACLU, they're going to have problems regardless of what they do with the
I was the one who pointed out that the FISA court has only denied a single request for a warrant since its inception, and that the denial was overturned in the only time the FISA appeals court has ever had to meet.
Now let me ask you this: you mention that there is potentially recourse against the government for those who've had an ill-gotten warrant issued against them - what is the recourse if you're never told that the warrant was issued, and if it is "served" while you're at work, in secret, without your consent or knowledge? What is the recourse against a National Security Letter, whose very existence must be kept from you by the communications provider who receives it, even though it compels them to release a boatload of information about your communications through them? What is the recourse for those who've been hit with certain provisions of the PATRIOT Act when any precedent in their favor is automatically kept secret by virtue of the fact that all cases brought against the act are sealed, with no party being legally allowed to reveal who brought the suit, why they brought the suit, what the facts are in the case, or that there are facts in the case?
You can't fight what you can't see. You can't challenge what doesn't "exist".
"The FBI representative asserted that just because the act had been passed didn't mean they had carte blanche to surveil anyone they wanted, that judges still had approve their requests. That reasoning only flew so far, however, as the questioner pointed out that such requests by the FBI are always approved, never denied."[Emphasis mine, statement mine :-) ]
;)
Actually, I didn't ask the original question, merely responded to the FBI guy's bullshit answer about them not being able to march right up and get warrants for whatever they want in terrorism cases (or rather cases they claim are related to a terrorism investigation - which means anything and everything they want it to mean). I threw my hand up about halfway through his answer (which he bumbled through briefly before resorting to more bullshit) to mention that an FBI agent had been barred from appearing before the FISA court ever again because he was blatantly lying to the court, and to talk a bit about National Security Letters (NSLs), which require 0 judicial oversight and which get a whole lot of non-content information from communications providers (like ISPs). Unfortunately for me, and fortunately for the poor FBI guy, they never called on me again after that. (It was a fed who was deciding who to call on).
If anyone saw who I am, forget who you saw - I don't exist.