" a 400 Mz P2," " the AMD chips are not nearly as capable as Intel chips, even today."
Interesting how the poster talks about modern CPU capabilities, then proceeds to tell us a delightful story about how he had problems using a pair of 5 year old processors.
As for benchmarks being only good for producing reproducable numbers, this is in fact the case for synthetic benchmarks. Most hardware sites now test using actual games, reporting the average framerate received, and test how long it takes to render a given image or sequence, reporting the time taken to do so. Now, what part of "you get 40 frames per second while playing this game if you use this CPU, or 30 frames per second if you use this other CPU." is not "indicative of actual performance based on real usage"?
I think you can run into a bad experience with just about any retailer, but I'm with you in that one especially bad experience with a company is enough to make me swear them off for good.
So far, I've not had anything but good experiences with newegg. They can sometimes be a little bit cheaper than my usual suppliers (TechData and D&H) and are sometimes the only suppliers for certain parts, especially high-end memory. I can't say that I've had any problems with them, other than the fact that I had an order delayed because their merchant services was not correctly verifying the billing address. That being said, it was a couple thousand dollar order, so I'd rather they err on the side of caution. When I'm looking to point out something to people, I generally link to newegg because they're cheap and simple, and it's easy for me to find things on their website.
As for talking with knowledgable people, that's one of the reasons I stick with Asus mainboards. If I have any sort of odd issue I can't hammer out on my own, I can call up their 800 number, press a couple of buttons, and immediately get in touch with someone who knows at least as much as I do. I have no idea how good their usual tech support is, but as a reseller, I can't possibly register a complaint. Rather than dumping me off the phone with a BS excuse, they actually work through the problem, even if their board isn't actually at fault. I recently ran into a situation where a system I built with an Asus A7V8X-MX board was taking a minute and a half to boot with a fresh installation of Windows XP. I was using the latest BIOS and drivers and ran bootvis on there to see what the hell the problem was. Bootvis told me that disk initialization was taking just over a minute each and every boot. I tried a number of different things including looking online for possible solutions before calling them. They walked me through a few things and we no longer encountered the problem after I unplugged the IDE cable for the CD-rom, an LG 52x drive that we'd been using for years. Rather than tell me to use a different drive and dump me off the phone, he actually sat on the phone while we tried a few reasonable steps to work around whatever the hell the issue was. It turned out that unless the drive was set to cable select (of all things), it would add more than a minute to boot times. It wasn't until we had a fully-working setup in place that the guy was ready to let me go. Another time, a different tech helped me work through an odd memory timing issue on the brand new nForce 2 chipset on a different Asus board. He called the chipset 'crap', and said it was pretty 'flaky' whenever it wasn't used with the exact specific memory that was qualified with it. I think I was using some Crucial memory, which he agreed should work fine, as it's high quality RAM. After adjusting the timings a few times, we got everything working perfectly, to my satisfaction. I couldn't possibly complain about their tech support, as it's probably the best I've ever worked with. And no, we have no support contract with them whatsoever.
" the AthlonFX-51 runs at a clock-speed of 2.2ghz can this really compete with a p4 chip running at 3.2ghz?"
Clock speed doesn't really matter for CPUs of different architectures. The best thing to do is to check out the benchmarks for yourself to see which one performs better at the tasks you most often use. Some hardware sites with benchmarks are:
Take all benchmark results with a grain of salt. Many things can influence the results, and some sites like Tom's have long been known to be quite biased. If you read enough sites though, you tend to get a much better overall picture of how things really are.
I would tend to look elsewhere for the stability issues you're seeing. While no product is ever 100% perfect by any stretch of the imagination, the AMD chips, in my experience, don't have any more problems than Intel chips since the Athlons. If you could tell me which configurations you've had problems with, then perhaps I could shed some light on where things are going awry.
Generally speaking, I find that using a name-brand power supply, such as Antec, with a Gigabyte or Asus mainboard, and crucial memory solves virtually all stability issues. You can actually put together a pretty nice system for around $450 - $500 using high quality components. The problem with buying a system that's pre-built is that you have no idea who's making the parts. For the cheaper pre-built systems, it's often an ECS (aka PC Chips) board with generic RAM and a generic power supply. It may work well for a while, but you'll invariably run into problems. Personally, when it comes to servers, I want something that I can just build then sit in a customer's office for a few years without any necessary maintenance. I've had success with both AMD and Intel in this area, and I'm now leaning much more towards the AMDs now that the Athlon64s and Opterons are available.
I may actually have a customer who'll put out the money for a really nice dual Opteron system. I'm very much looking forward to building that, as it'll be sitting on a freshly-built gigabit network when it's completed.
" This is only modded interesting cause the Athlon64 got its ass handed to it in the benchmarks he posted."
Tom's has long since been known to skew results to please their advertising Masters, whoever they may be at any given time. The choice of benchmarks and the particular machine setup account for many of the results yielded. To prove this, I can show you a review in which the P4s get their asses handed to them in gaming benchmarks by the slowest Athlon64. From that link:
"As you can see, Athlon 64 won eight of the nine benchmarks, and one of them by 27%. For those who need superior gaming performance than a 3.2 GHz P4, but at less cost, these benchmarks indicate that the Athlon 64 3000+ is the way to go."
Thus, thine conclusion is predicated upon a prejudicial generalization.
When you're done looking up all those words, go away.
"I DO judge the articles by themselves, and the articles on Tom's site generally leave a LOT to be desired. The article linked from this story seems to be mostly fluff with a few benchmarks requiring the standard (ie very large) grain of salt."
If you'll look often, you'll note that the articles on Tom's tend to slant toward whoever is advertising on their site at the time the article is published. When AMD is advertising on Tom's, the benchmarks slant AMD's way and Intel is nothing more than a monopolistic money-whore bent on selling overpriced junk. When Intel's advertising on their site, the benchmarks are all in favor of the P4s and AMD is nothing more than an irrelevant offbrand trying to ride Intel's coatails with a fraudulent model system.
All this just goes to show that you can manipulate the numbers simply by your choice of benchmarks and system setups. I can make a Pinto seem faster than a 2003 Mustang if the Mustang is climbing a mountain while the Pinto is on its way down.
If you have infinite money to spend? Go with an AthlonFX-51. It's the single fastest solution available, but it's at a premium price. The boards are around $200, and 1GB of memory will cost you around $350 because you have to buy Registered ECC memory. The upside of all this is that you're buying components rated for server operation, so you're looking at very high stability. I just built a $4300 computer system for a customer based on the FX-51. I was expecting some problems here and there because it's all such brand new technology, but was pleasantly surprised at the unbelievable stability. Word to the wise: if you're going high end on everything else, go with a high end power supply. A True Power 380 or 430 from Antec is a smart choice. For reference, I went with an Asus SK8N for the mainboard in this case. Also, make sure you get the recommended memory from Asus (listed at the bottom of their website's page for the board). It'll cost you more money, but it's worth it to not have to worry about stability.
If you don't want to spend quite that much, an Athlon64 3200+ is also a good value. Intel has confirmed, accidentally, that it's got a 64-bit desktop CPU in the works in case the AMD64 platform takes off, so you can bet your bottom dollar that we'll probably see a bunch of 64-bit applications available in the next year and a half.
"A few other popular sources of information include:"
Not to mention Ace's if you're really into all the nitty gritty details of things. They do outstanding reviews and technical articles, but can get pretty heavy on the technical details. So far, Ace's is the only place I've found that actually goes over my head from time to time. I do enjoy the challenge.;)
"This guy is a former gang member and was arrested while entering the country on his way back from Pakistan."
In which part of the Constitution is it stated that former gang members who travel internationally are no longer provided the protections afforded by the US Constitution? In which part of international law is it stated that a human being may be jailed indefinitely without a trial?
"In times of war the President is allowed to detain citizens as "military combatants" for the duration of the conflict."
In times of war, the military is allowed to detain combatants for the duration of combat as prisoners of war. Said prisoners may also be tried for war crimes, if their situation warrants. This, however, is not a war. War may only be declared by the United States Congress, which must pass an open declaration of war which specifically describes the zone of combat, the enemy being fought, and the expected duration of said combat. None of this has come to pass. To provide for emergency circumstances, the President may wage war for 30 days without Congressional approval. This is provided under the War Powers Act. In addition to this, prisoners of war held by the military who were detained in an active combat zone are still entitled to certain protections under the Geneva Conventions. The 660 prisoners held in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba have not been afforded those protections according to the USDOD. This is in violation of US and international law, as per the recent decision by the 9th Circut. What makes this particular situation so terribly dire is the fact that the "conflict" will probably last forever. This is a bit like the "War on Drugs", which we have been "fighting" for the past 20 years or so. We will never rid the world of terrorism, just like we will never rid the world of drugs. Thus, in an indefinite war, the "duration of the conflict" makes a detention for the remainder thereof inherently inhumane.
"This policy is not new and goes back to the founding of our country. "
This policy is part of what began the revolution against the crown in this country. Under British rule, indefinite detentions without trial were quite common. Those who founded this nation knew all too well of fellow citizens being deprived of rights such as that of a trial. The founders of this nation began this nation not with a Constitution, but with a list of complaints regarding actions of the crown which were felt to be unjust to all men. From the US Declaration of Independence, I quote:
"
For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies: "
"FDR did it during WWII,"
This action has been blasted time and time again by Supreme Court justices, Presidents, and others. The Civil Liberties Act of 1988 gave a Presidential apology to all those affected and went so far as to provide reparations. From this site:
"Civil Liberties Act of 1988, signed by President Reagan and passed by Congress, provides for a Presidential apology and appropriates $1.25 billion for reparations of $20,000 to most internees, evacuees, and others of Japanese ancestry who lost liberty or property because of discriminatory wartime actions by the government. Civil Liberties Public Education Fund created to help teach the public about the internment period."
The Executive Order authorizing the internment camps was rescinded by President Ford in 1976 with Proclamation 4417, ti
"But then you all are taking it further and making and argument that infringement is a lesser infraction (or in the extreme, a non-offense).
Help me again here. I don't see where that pecking order comes from. Is that a legal thing or just a/. thing."
From a legal standpoint, theft is a criminal offense (jail time, fines, etc), while non-commercial copyright infringement is entirely a civil matter (one party sues another). From a legal standpoint, copyright infringement sits on the level of a speeding ticket. Theft is, of course, far more serious.
As for it being brought even further into realm of being a non-offense, that is an opinion shared by a number of folks, mostly those who have been doing it for quite some time. My personal argument revolves around the RIAA being a corrupt organization as defined under the Federal RICO statute. If the RIAA (and member companies) are found to be corrupt organizations by a court, they would likely be unable to enforce their copyrights (hence, all lawsuits invalid). The copyrights would then, as I understand it, fall back into the hands of the original artists. I think a lot of this would be up to the judge in the particular cases concerned. My opinion, and the opinions of others here who complain that copyright infringement is a non-offense, have not been proven in any US court that I'm aware. I believe my opinion is legally sound, but would require enormous legal resources to execute, and would probably become the largest case is US history in terms of man-hours and expenses on both sides.
In other words, if Bill Gates wanted to dump his last dime into killing the RIAA, he probably would have a decent shot of doing it within 20 years or so. That being said, the individual artists would still retain the authority under US copyright law to sue those infringing upon their particular copyrights.
" Ok, thanks for clearing that up for me. I don't my poor word choice has much bearing on my original point."
While there's no problem with a poor choice of words, this is a situation where the use of the word "steal is often intentional. The RIAA is quite famous for using inflammatory language and hyperbole to make copyright infringers seems like Satan's spawn. The few supports of the RIAA on this site tend to adopt their (mis)use of language in a feeble attempt to justify their position. The gist of the problem is that when you call infringers thieves and call infringing theft or stealing, then it becomes far easier to convince the average ignorant Joe that they should be sued/jailed/killed or what have you. Most who use the words in that way tend to vehemetly defend their (mis)use, despite the ample evidence that the US legal system makes every possible distinction there is between theft and copyright infringement. The word 'theft' or 'steal' is not used once within US copyright law to the best of my knowledge. If it is, it's yet to have been pointed out to me.
In other words, it's not a big deal so long as you're not intentially misleading people through word choice, but it's always best to use more accurate language whenever possible. Just remember that there are goofballs on here who still think that copyright infringement == theft. It's a bit like watching a guy grab some woman's purse and then screaming "MURDERER!! MURDERER!!" as he runs off so that a group of citizens tackle and beat the hell out of him.
"The RIAA wanted to get their names in order to prosecute them individually (which is what Slashdotters used to say they should do back when they were suing Napster)."
The RIAA doesn't need their names in order to sue (not prosecute) them individually. What the RIAA must do is file 'John Doe' lawsuits against each individual, then find out that person's name via the courts.
"What was wrong with the RIAA going after people infringing on their copyrights again?"
The problem was not what they were doing it, but how they were doing it. The RIAA must follow an established legal procedure to sue those infringing its copyrights. The RIAA can not do what it's been doing any more than it can send thugs to infringers' houses to beat the hell out of anyone living there.
"It seems like no matter what they do, Slashdotters are against them preventing piracy of their works."
If the RIAA has 'works' which float on the high seas, then I would certainly be all for them preventing piracy. Heck, I'd even call up the Coast Guard to help them stave off the pirates. Getting back to them going after copyright infringers, though, I'd have to say that those Slashdotters who understand a bit of law would simply like to see the RIAA follow it. Nevermind the illegal activities perpetrated by the RIAA's members over the past 50 years, I'm speaking more to their more recent actions. First of all, the RIAA sued several software companies because uses of said software were trading RIAA-controlled intellectual property in violation of the terms of service set forth by said various software vendors. The RIAA's first mistake was suing the wrong target. After a couple of software companies managed to stay in business under the financial strain of massive RIAA lawsuits long enough to get a decision, it was made all too clear that the RIAA was barking up the wrong tree. Thus, the RIAA turned its sights to the correct target - infringers. Unfortunately, the RIAA then bypassed numerous judicial procedures in their mad rush to attack the infringers and, in-so-doing, violated the due process of the individuals and violated the DMCA's protection of ISPs.
Your complaint seems to revolve around the fact that every time the RIAA breaks the law, someone complains until they're stopped. Sorry, this isn't Soviet Russia; we have laws here that aren't always sold to the highest bidder. If, and when, the RIAA follows the law instead of trying to rewrite it, then I'll start support them. (By that, I mean that they should cease all illegal activities, from price-fixing to anti-trust/anti-competition violations.)
" Again, you ignore the real people who are deprived of money when you don't pay for their music."
Blatantly copied from one of my previous comments, but it's certainly relevant to this discussion.
Quote me:
If you really want to see how the artist is deprived of money, you should check into how much the record industry takes (as a matter of general practice) out of the artist's cut of album sales to cover the cost of broken records using a model which was created when vinyl records were sold. Nevermind the fact that the percentage of CDs broken during shipping is a mere fraction of the number of vinyl records that were broken; they're taking the same cut. Or perhaps you could look at how the industry manipulates artists' contracts using high-powered lawyers to ensure that artists are locked into a single company for eternity without even the option of going out on their own. When an artist is contracted to produce 5 albums, the recording company will often ignore albums that don't sell well, keeping the artist locked into a perpetual contract that actually hinders their ability to create new content. The record company makes a bunch of money from the first album, but gives the artist next to nothing from it, citing "recording, studio, manufacturing, shipping, marketing, promotional costs, etc", then shelves the next 5 or 6 albums when it becomes clear they're not selling as well as the first, but then tells the artist that they've only created one album. And don't go thinking that this only happens rarely, or to small artists. The Dixie Chicks just recently had to sue their label to get more than $4million that was owed to them. If memory serves, they recorded an album that went platinum, for which their label refused to pay them. Talk about real theft.
The "I'm just demoing it" argument has always been a bit weak, though not entirely inaccurate. While there are some folks who really do buy more music when they download, I'm certain that, at least a majority, do not. That being said, I think the real problem is that when people look at a CD, they're thinking less about an artist making it, and more about a multi-national conglomerate mega-corp that produced it and is trying to sell it to them at extremely inflated prices. My personal argument in this whole thing is that I will not put my money into the hands of corrupt organizations that should have been broken up decades ago, with their top brass jailed on RICO violations. They've now grown so bold as to demand to be exempt from all anti-trust lawsuits. This is like the mafia demanding to be exempt from murder prosecutions. I suppose the logic is, "we've been breaking these laws for so long, why don't you just stop bugging us about it?". I do buy CDs, T-shirts, concert tickets, etc from non-RIAA affiliated bands that I like. That is how I show my support. If Metallica wants another dollar from me (I've bought their stuff in the past), they'd best get away from their RIAA whore of a label and stop treating their fans like garbage. I absolutely support the rights of artists and others to make a profit from their intellectual property. What I do not support in any way are corrupt organizations (as defined under US Federal RICO statutes). I will not pay them money, and I will not support them in any way, shape, or form. I believe my argument holds very good water, as the evidence against the major music companies is plain and out in the open. Over the past 50 some-odd years, the entertainment industry has conspired to violate the laws of this country, the sanctity of the American judicial and legislative branchs, and the trust of the American public. This is not to say that they behave better in other places, I just don't have the background information to accuse them of wrongdoing in, say, France that I do for the US.
"Are you suggesting that the amendment was not properly ratified? That it has been superseded by a later amendment? That the amendment itself has been misinterpreted?"
I'm suggesting that the constitutionality of an amendment can be challenged when said amendment violates the spirit of the Constitution as a whole. As to whether or not an amendment can be struck down, I couldn't say. In fact, I seriously doubt you'll find anyone within the realm of US law who would be able to honestly say one way or another whether an amendment can or cannot be challenged in court. To believe that an amendment is beyond challenge is both naive and ridiculous. We have precedent for the US Congress repealing an amendment. Prior to that, no amendment (to my knowledge) had ever been passed, then later reversed. It then follows that if the Congress can reverse an amendment, so must the Supreme Court be able to review it.
To illustrate my point, why don't we move to an extreme example in which the US Congress and a large number state legislatures are infiltrated by a group of people belonging to an extremist group. When I say 'infiltrated', I mean that they run for election without disclosing their membership in the extremist group, nor their true reasons for running for office. With a sufficient number of elected officials in the Congress and state legislatures, they move to introduce a constitutional amendment which requires that any woman in public be dressed a certain 'proper' way under punishment of on-the-spot beating by police or 'concerned citizens'. Having sufficient numbers to propose and then ratify the new amendment, it then becomes law in the United States to brutally beat women who are not 'properly' dressed.
Now, if we assume that the only course of action to correct this situation is to get another amendment through the congress and legislatures to repeal this amendment, then we're basically stuck with this as part of our law for the next several years. The President most certainly cannot defy the Constitution, nor any of its amendments (please, no comments about the current administration doing just that). If, however, we wish to rectify the situation more quickly, the Supreme Court seems the most logical place to look. If a law is subject to Judicial Review regarding its potential conflicts with the spirit of the Constitution, then it may also follow that amendments themselves may be reviewed by the court. I would certainly argue that the Court has no place interfering with amendments except in extreme circumstances, but I must also argue that the Court has every right and responsibility to ensure that all laws in our country fit within the boundaries set forth by the founders of this nation.
"Or do you just not have a clue what you're talking about?"
I could put the standard IANAL here, but considering the fact that 100% of lawyers are proven wrong 50% of the time, I would argue that IANAL is all but meaningless. I will say that I'm one who follows Supreme Court cases and decisions quite closely, and I've always had a hard-on (if you'll pardon the expression) for the US Constitution. I find it to be an extraordinary document that's centered more on the ideals of great men, rather than a practical roadmap. I like the fact that the Constitution gives us something to work for; something to strive for; something to fight for - every single day. I like the impossible challenge it sets forth, and I like watching the Supremes look for better ways to get us closer.
"But then again, your title (not to mention the content) makes it clear which way you lean (and I quote):
Let the knee-jerk, left-wing responses begin! "
Speaking from a centrist point of view myself, I can most certainly see how this statement could be completely unbiased. I would add, however, that it is incomplete. While there is certainly a far-left kneejerk reaction to news such as this, there is also a far-right kneejerk reaction to it. On the far left, the capture of Saddam is meaningless. On the far right, the capture of Saddam provides justification for all the costs (in terms of lives and money) of the entire war in Iraq, and indeed the entire war on terrorism (which is only linked in the mind of the ignorant and the waaayyy right-leaning folks like Ann Coulter. Wait, I take that back, Ann Coulter isn't a conservative, she's merely anti-liberal. Having no intelligent thoughts of her own, she seeks only to criticize a group of individuals as a group, justifying her own existence as a couter-balance to all things left of extremely-right. It's a sad person who feels the need to justify their own existence in such a destructive way.).
Truth be told, there are extremists on both sides. An extreme lefty will blow up a chemical plant, releasing an unimaginable amount of poisons into the air, to protest the plant's release of poisons into the air. An extreme righty will blow up an abortion clinic (killing everyone inside it, including the pregnant women) in order to stop them from killing. The moral of the story is that extremes always produce the same results, and they're virtually never good. Moderation in all things in life, including love (a homocidal stalker really, REALLY loves their victim), is a lesson the people of this world really need to learn before we can make progress.
"Face it, Bush is a liberal. He is just fumbling around with no idea what he is doing, and spending way too much money."
Richard M Nixon, my ass, you're Ann Coulter, aren't you!
Jokes aside, I do find it amusing (from a centrist point of view) that so many "Republicans/Conservatives" are currently advocating the exact opposite of what they used to. Nation-building, fiscally irresponsible, government-growing, clear foreign policy-lacking, privacy-invading fools was the title that used to be reserved for liberals by die-hard conservatives. I suppose it's just more proof that we're dealing with what someone above termed, 'two puppets being controlled by the same person' (referring to the two major parties).
Out of curiosity, what are the chances of you voting for Howard Dean, assuming he gets the Dems' nod? Personally, I don't agree with a lot of Dean's positions, but I can't help noticing that he's not just more of the same in terms of politicians.
Bush is the first president to make me greatful we have term limits codified in law. I'll argue against their constitutionality, but only after Bush is out of office by either election or law. Personally, I don't think this country can handle another 4 years of Bush presidency. Hell, it might even drive us all mad enough to vote Hilary into office. [shudder]
" You can't do everything at once. That's kind of like saying to a police squad "why did you stop THAT bank robber? there have been plenty of banks that have been robbed where you haven't interviened" I think going to war with Iraq was a good thing, but i don't like how Bush justified it (WMDs that have yet to surface)."
My question is, "why didn't he go after the 'bank robber' who actually has nuclear weapons and is developing the means to deliver them to the shores of the United States?"
Iraq didn't have any long-range weapons. Iraq didn't have any nuclear weapons. Iraq may or may not have had biological or chemical weapons. The situation changes when we look at North Korea. North Korea most certainly does have nuclear weapons. We've detected evidence (gases consistent with nuclear weapons production, as I recall) that they've got them, they've openly admitted to having them, the CIA says they're pretty sure they've got a handfull, and they're technically still at war with the United States. We have 37,000 US soldiers sitting on the boarder between North and South Korea who would be steamrolled by the 1 million-man+ North Korean regular army. What's more, North Korea has missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads to remote parts of the US (parts of Alaska, I believe). The CIA believes these weapons are pretty inaccurate, but who's to say what they could or couldn't hit? Their next project is developing a long-range weapon that could travel up to 15,000 miles. This would allow them to hit any target from Los Angeles to Washington DC.
The war in Iraq has diverted troops, money, munitions, and international support away from the most dangerous country on the face of the Earth. When we tried using diplomacy to rid ourselves of this threat during Clinton's years, we were rewarded with a secretive nuclear program which continued to function under the noses of the UN inspectors. When we tried to work things out with them before, they used that time to develop the most destructive weapons the world has ever seen. Now, because we have neither the manpower, nor the weaponry to confront this menace once and for all, the Bush administration is doing exactly what it said it would never do: negotiate terms with North Korea. It was the policy of this administration that North Korea disarms first, and we talk about giving them food and fuel later. Now, with it becoming more and more clear every day just how thinly stretched our military personnel and budgets are, we're forced to come crawling to one of the few world leaders who's as cruel to his own people as Saddam was, and beg him to dismantle the world's deadliest devices.
The great USA begging the dictator of a third-world nation to 'please do as we humbly ask' - still happy about us going to war in Iraq?
The worst part about this whole thing is that with US troops stuck in Iraq for the next two or three years (along with billions each month pouring into the effort), we won't have the men or the money to do anything about North Korea before 2006 or even 2007. By that time, North Korea will have more than enough nuclear weapons to ensure that any US assault would have to be a nuclear assault. By that time, North Korea may well be able to respond in kind with weapons capable of reaching any city in the US mainland.
A nuclear-armed North Korea that we can't do anything about? Thanks Bush. Your hard-on for Iraq has really done your nation's security well. We now have a nuclear-armed country with whom we're (still) at war, who has plenty of time to build missiles to blow us all to hell.
"Dear pedantic Slashbots: If cable theft is stealing, why is MP3 downloading "infringement?""
Because (at least for USians) that's what the law says.
Theft of 'telecommunications services', such as cable, are defined and punished under USC Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter V-A, Part IV, Sec. 553. That section can be found here.
USC Title 17, Chapter 5 covers copyright infringement, which is an entirely different animal. You may view this section of the USC here.
If reading legalize hurts your head (as it does mine), then try reading here instead. That link leads to a far easier-to-digest version of the laws in play.
If you live in a foreign country where copyright infringement equals theft, then please let us all know where this enlightened utopia is. If you live in the US, then your sig is nothing more than the butt-end of a joke played upon the American public by a group of criminals running a group of corrupt organizations (as defined under Federal RICO statues) which should have been shut down years ago, with their board members imprisoned for their crimes.
I find it amusing that so many voice their support for the rule of law by defending a group of companies and individuals (whose collective criminal activities over the past 50 some-odd years could result in massive (as in Trillions) government-imposed fines and a slew of life sentences (for execs)) from small children and teenagers who, at worst, are commiting a civil offense.
The worst problem with Intel and boards is that if you do have a problem, they make you jump through more hoops than a circus animal to get anything done about it. Once you finally do get an RMA approved, the average turn-around time is a whopping 30 days! from when they receive the board. When you add it all up, you figure a day or two to narrow it down to being a mainboard issue, about a week of haggling with Intel to get an RMA number (I'm a reseller and still had to go through hell to get it done), three to five business days for shipping each way (depending on where you're located), thirty days for them to fix or replace it, and finally three to five business days to ship it back to you. To put this in perspective, let's assume the machine dies on Saturday:
2 + 5 + 5 + 30 + 5 + 8 (4 weekends) = 55 days for worst-case scenario.
It took somewhere along the lines of 4 weeks in my particular case. That was 4 weeks that my customer was without the computer which I had repaired only a few weeks prior by replacing the mainboard and CPU with brand new ones. This was about a year and a half ago, and I've yet to buy another board from Intel. I also steer customers, friends, family, etc away from all Intel products. It really only takes one or two really, really bad experiences to kill my confidence in a company. According to the folks I spoke with at Intel, what I went through was standard operating procedure. I will never use, nor recommend an Intel product again.
Just to get my word in, an Athlon64 3000+ based system would be cheaper, and much faster for gaming. They must be pretty good chips, as even Intel is buying the AMD64 boxes.
"I'm looking forward to a full Intel^3 (cpu/chipset/board) solution for ultimate stability."
I've had too many problems with Intel boards to touch them ever again. If I were you, I'd definitely go with an Asus setup. The quality is better, and the tech support is excellent. Then again, I'm a reseller, so I don't know what the end user tech support is like. Anyway, don't think that just because Intel makes lots of ads that they're somehow super-duper stable by any measure. Just as any other tech company, they have plenty of problems with their products.
Slashdot Mirror
Site will return as soon as our advertisers tell us which products are going to win our first round of reviews.
I want to meet the loan officers who are actually approving these loans.
"Hi, I'd like to take out a home equity loan to support my burgeoning cocaine addiction?"
-
Application:
*APPROVED*
27% Yes
40% Not now, but maybe soon
Fucking idiots. That's about all I can really say in response to this. I'm just too disgusted for words.
" a 400 Mz P2,"
" the AMD chips are not nearly as capable as Intel chips, even today."
Interesting how the poster talks about modern CPU capabilities, then proceeds to tell us a delightful story about how he had problems using a pair of 5 year old processors.
As for benchmarks being only good for producing reproducable numbers, this is in fact the case for synthetic benchmarks. Most hardware sites now test using actual games, reporting the average framerate received, and test how long it takes to render a given image or sequence, reporting the time taken to do so. Now, what part of "you get 40 frames per second while playing this game if you use this CPU, or 30 frames per second if you use this other CPU." is not "indicative of actual performance based on real usage"?
I think you can run into a bad experience with just about any retailer, but I'm with you in that one especially bad experience with a company is enough to make me swear them off for good.
So far, I've not had anything but good experiences with newegg. They can sometimes be a little bit cheaper than my usual suppliers (TechData and D&H) and are sometimes the only suppliers for certain parts, especially high-end memory. I can't say that I've had any problems with them, other than the fact that I had an order delayed because their merchant services was not correctly verifying the billing address. That being said, it was a couple thousand dollar order, so I'd rather they err on the side of caution. When I'm looking to point out something to people, I generally link to newegg because they're cheap and simple, and it's easy for me to find things on their website.
As for talking with knowledgable people, that's one of the reasons I stick with Asus mainboards. If I have any sort of odd issue I can't hammer out on my own, I can call up their 800 number, press a couple of buttons, and immediately get in touch with someone who knows at least as much as I do. I have no idea how good their usual tech support is, but as a reseller, I can't possibly register a complaint. Rather than dumping me off the phone with a BS excuse, they actually work through the problem, even if their board isn't actually at fault. I recently ran into a situation where a system I built with an Asus A7V8X-MX board was taking a minute and a half to boot with a fresh installation of Windows XP. I was using the latest BIOS and drivers and ran bootvis on there to see what the hell the problem was. Bootvis told me that disk initialization was taking just over a minute each and every boot. I tried a number of different things including looking online for possible solutions before calling them. They walked me through a few things and we no longer encountered the problem after I unplugged the IDE cable for the CD-rom, an LG 52x drive that we'd been using for years. Rather than tell me to use a different drive and dump me off the phone, he actually sat on the phone while we tried a few reasonable steps to work around whatever the hell the issue was. It turned out that unless the drive was set to cable select (of all things), it would add more than a minute to boot times. It wasn't until we had a fully-working setup in place that the guy was ready to let me go. Another time, a different tech helped me work through an odd memory timing issue on the brand new nForce 2 chipset on a different Asus board. He called the chipset 'crap', and said it was pretty 'flaky' whenever it wasn't used with the exact specific memory that was qualified with it. I think I was using some Crucial memory, which he agreed should work fine, as it's high quality RAM. After adjusting the timings a few times, we got everything working perfectly, to my satisfaction. I couldn't possibly complain about their tech support, as it's probably the best I've ever worked with. And no, we have no support contract with them whatsoever.
Clock speed doesn't really matter for CPUs of different architectures. The best thing to do is to check out the benchmarks for yourself to see which one performs better at the tasks you most often use. Some hardware sites with benchmarks are:
Ace's (Recommended)
Ars
HardOCP
Tom's
Anandtech (Recommended)
Take all benchmark results with a grain of salt. Many things can influence the results, and some sites like Tom's have long been known to be quite biased. If you read enough sites though, you tend to get a much better overall picture of how things really are.
I would tend to look elsewhere for the stability issues you're seeing. While no product is ever 100% perfect by any stretch of the imagination, the AMD chips, in my experience, don't have any more problems than Intel chips since the Athlons. If you could tell me which configurations you've had problems with, then perhaps I could shed some light on where things are going awry.
Generally speaking, I find that using a name-brand power supply, such as Antec, with a Gigabyte or Asus mainboard, and crucial memory solves virtually all stability issues. You can actually put together a pretty nice system for around $450 - $500 using high quality components. The problem with buying a system that's pre-built is that you have no idea who's making the parts. For the cheaper pre-built systems, it's often an ECS (aka PC Chips) board with generic RAM and a generic power supply. It may work well for a while, but you'll invariably run into problems. Personally, when it comes to servers, I want something that I can just build then sit in a customer's office for a few years without any necessary maintenance. I've had success with both AMD and Intel in this area, and I'm now leaning much more towards the AMDs now that the Athlon64s and Opterons are available.
I may actually have a customer who'll put out the money for a really nice dual Opteron system. I'm very much looking forward to building that, as it'll be sitting on a freshly-built gigabit network when it's completed.
" This is only modded interesting cause the Athlon64 got its ass handed to it in the benchmarks he posted."
Tom's has long since been known to skew results to please their advertising Masters, whoever they may be at any given time. The choice of benchmarks and the particular machine setup account for many of the results yielded. To prove this, I can show you a review in which the P4s get their asses handed to them in gaming benchmarks by the slowest Athlon64. From that link:
"As you can see, Athlon 64 won eight of the nine benchmarks, and one of them by 27%. For those who need superior gaming performance than a 3.2 GHz P4, but at less cost, these benchmarks indicate that the Athlon 64 3000+ is the way to go."
Thus, thine conclusion is predicated upon a prejudicial generalization.
When you're done looking up all those words, go away.
"I DO judge the articles by themselves, and the articles on Tom's site generally leave a LOT to be desired. The article linked from this story seems to be mostly fluff with a few benchmarks requiring the standard (ie very large) grain of salt."
If you'll look often, you'll note that the articles on Tom's tend to slant toward whoever is advertising on their site at the time the article is published. When AMD is advertising on Tom's, the benchmarks slant AMD's way and Intel is nothing more than a monopolistic money-whore bent on selling overpriced junk. When Intel's advertising on their site, the benchmarks are all in favor of the P4s and AMD is nothing more than an irrelevant offbrand trying to ride Intel's coatails with a fraudulent model system.
All this just goes to show that you can manipulate the numbers simply by your choice of benchmarks and system setups. I can make a Pinto seem faster than a 2003 Mustang if the Mustang is climbing a mountain while the Pinto is on its way down.
" so what exactly then is the fastest solution?"
If you have infinite money to spend? Go with an AthlonFX-51. It's the single fastest solution available, but it's at a premium price. The boards are around $200, and 1GB of memory will cost you around $350 because you have to buy Registered ECC memory. The upside of all this is that you're buying components rated for server operation, so you're looking at very high stability. I just built a $4300 computer system for a customer based on the FX-51. I was expecting some problems here and there because it's all such brand new technology, but was pleasantly surprised at the unbelievable stability. Word to the wise: if you're going high end on everything else, go with a high end power supply. A True Power 380 or 430 from Antec is a smart choice. For reference, I went with an Asus SK8N for the mainboard in this case. Also, make sure you get the recommended memory from Asus (listed at the bottom of their website's page for the board). It'll cost you more money, but it's worth it to not have to worry about stability.
If you don't want to spend quite that much, an Athlon64 3200+ is also a good value. Intel has confirmed, accidentally, that it's got a 64-bit desktop CPU in the works in case the AMD64 platform takes off, so you can bet your bottom dollar that we'll probably see a bunch of 64-bit applications available in the next year and a half.
"A few other popular sources of information include:"
;)
Not to mention Ace's if you're really into all the nitty gritty details of things. They do outstanding reviews and technical articles, but can get pretty heavy on the technical details. So far, Ace's is the only place I've found that actually goes over my head from time to time. I do enjoy the challenge.
"what's a NORAD to do?"
Considering their apparent excess in personnel, budget, and equipment, I'd say their talents could be put to better use elsewhere.
We can't find Osama, but at least we can locate Santa.
Glad to see our priorities are in order.
In which part of the Constitution is it stated that former gang members who travel internationally are no longer provided the protections afforded by the US Constitution? In which part of international law is it stated that a human being may be jailed indefinitely without a trial?
"In times of war the President is allowed to detain citizens as "military combatants" for the duration of the conflict."
In times of war, the military is allowed to detain combatants for the duration of combat as prisoners of war. Said prisoners may also be tried for war crimes, if their situation warrants. This, however, is not a war. War may only be declared by the United States Congress, which must pass an open declaration of war which specifically describes the zone of combat, the enemy being fought, and the expected duration of said combat. None of this has come to pass. To provide for emergency circumstances, the President may wage war for 30 days without Congressional approval. This is provided under the War Powers Act. In addition to this, prisoners of war held by the military who were detained in an active combat zone are still entitled to certain protections under the Geneva Conventions. The 660 prisoners held in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba have not been afforded those protections according to the USDOD. This is in violation of US and international law, as per the recent decision by the 9th Circut. What makes this particular situation so terribly dire is the fact that the "conflict" will probably last forever. This is a bit like the "War on Drugs", which we have been "fighting" for the past 20 years or so. We will never rid the world of terrorism, just like we will never rid the world of drugs. Thus, in an indefinite war, the "duration of the conflict" makes a detention for the remainder thereof inherently inhumane.
"This policy is not new and goes back to the founding of our country. "
This policy is part of what began the revolution against the crown in this country. Under British rule, indefinite detentions without trial were quite common. Those who founded this nation knew all too well of fellow citizens being deprived of rights such as that of a trial. The founders of this nation began this nation not with a Constitution, but with a list of complaints regarding actions of the crown which were felt to be unjust to all men. From the US Declaration of Independence, I quote:
"
For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies: "
"FDR did it during WWII,"
This action has been blasted time and time again by Supreme Court justices, Presidents, and others. The Civil Liberties Act of 1988 gave a Presidential apology to all those affected and went so far as to provide reparations. From this site:
"Civil Liberties Act of 1988, signed by President Reagan and passed by Congress, provides for a Presidential apology and appropriates $1.25 billion for reparations of $20,000 to most internees, evacuees, and others of Japanese ancestry who lost liberty or property because of discriminatory wartime actions by the government. Civil Liberties Public Education Fund created to help teach the public about the internment period."
The Executive Order authorizing the internment camps was rescinded by President Ford in 1976 with Proclamation 4417, ti
"But then you all are taking it further and making and argument that infringement is a lesser infraction (or in the extreme, a non-offense).
/. thing."
Help me again here. I don't see where that pecking order comes from. Is that a legal thing or just a
From a legal standpoint, theft is a criminal offense (jail time, fines, etc), while non-commercial copyright infringement is entirely a civil matter (one party sues another). From a legal standpoint, copyright infringement sits on the level of a speeding ticket. Theft is, of course, far more serious.
As for it being brought even further into realm of being a non-offense, that is an opinion shared by a number of folks, mostly those who have been doing it for quite some time. My personal argument revolves around the RIAA being a corrupt organization as defined under the Federal RICO statute. If the RIAA (and member companies) are found to be corrupt organizations by a court, they would likely be unable to enforce their copyrights (hence, all lawsuits invalid). The copyrights would then, as I understand it, fall back into the hands of the original artists. I think a lot of this would be up to the judge in the particular cases concerned. My opinion, and the opinions of others here who complain that copyright infringement is a non-offense, have not been proven in any US court that I'm aware. I believe my opinion is legally sound, but would require enormous legal resources to execute, and would probably become the largest case is US history in terms of man-hours and expenses on both sides.
In other words, if Bill Gates wanted to dump his last dime into killing the RIAA, he probably would have a decent shot of doing it within 20 years or so. That being said, the individual artists would still retain the authority under US copyright law to sue those infringing upon their particular copyrights.
" Ok, thanks for clearing that up for me. I don't my poor word choice has much bearing on my original point."
While there's no problem with a poor choice of words, this is a situation where the use of the word "steal is often intentional. The RIAA is quite famous for using inflammatory language and hyperbole to make copyright infringers seems like Satan's spawn. The few supports of the RIAA on this site tend to adopt their (mis)use of language in a feeble attempt to justify their position. The gist of the problem is that when you call infringers thieves and call infringing theft or stealing, then it becomes far easier to convince the average ignorant Joe that they should be sued/jailed/killed or what have you. Most who use the words in that way tend to vehemetly defend their (mis)use, despite the ample evidence that the US legal system makes every possible distinction there is between theft and copyright infringement. The word 'theft' or 'steal' is not used once within US copyright law to the best of my knowledge. If it is, it's yet to have been pointed out to me.
In other words, it's not a big deal so long as you're not intentially misleading people through word choice, but it's always best to use more accurate language whenever possible. Just remember that there are goofballs on here who still think that copyright infringement == theft. It's a bit like watching a guy grab some woman's purse and then screaming "MURDERER!! MURDERER!!" as he runs off so that a group of citizens tackle and beat the hell out of him.
"The RIAA wanted to get their names in order to prosecute them individually (which is what Slashdotters used to say they should do back when they were suing Napster)."
The RIAA doesn't need their names in order to sue (not prosecute) them individually. What the RIAA must do is file 'John Doe' lawsuits against each individual, then find out that person's name via the courts.
"What was wrong with the RIAA going after people infringing on their copyrights again?"
The problem was not what they were doing it, but how they were doing it. The RIAA must follow an established legal procedure to sue those infringing its copyrights. The RIAA can not do what it's been doing any more than it can send thugs to infringers' houses to beat the hell out of anyone living there.
"It seems like no matter what they do, Slashdotters are against them preventing piracy of their works."
If the RIAA has 'works' which float on the high seas, then I would certainly be all for them preventing piracy. Heck, I'd even call up the Coast Guard to help them stave off the pirates. Getting back to them going after copyright infringers, though, I'd have to say that those Slashdotters who understand a bit of law would simply like to see the RIAA follow it. Nevermind the illegal activities perpetrated by the RIAA's members over the past 50 years, I'm speaking more to their more recent actions. First of all, the RIAA sued several software companies because uses of said software were trading RIAA-controlled intellectual property in violation of the terms of service set forth by said various software vendors. The RIAA's first mistake was suing the wrong target. After a couple of software companies managed to stay in business under the financial strain of massive RIAA lawsuits long enough to get a decision, it was made all too clear that the RIAA was barking up the wrong tree. Thus, the RIAA turned its sights to the correct target - infringers. Unfortunately, the RIAA then bypassed numerous judicial procedures in their mad rush to attack the infringers and, in-so-doing, violated the due process of the individuals and violated the DMCA's protection of ISPs.
Your complaint seems to revolve around the fact that every time the RIAA breaks the law, someone complains until they're stopped. Sorry, this isn't Soviet Russia; we have laws here that aren't always sold to the highest bidder. If, and when, the RIAA follows the law instead of trying to rewrite it, then I'll start support them. (By that, I mean that they should cease all illegal activities, from price-fixing to anti-trust/anti-competition violations.)
" Again, you ignore the real people who are deprived of money when you don't pay for their music."
Blatantly copied from one of my previous comments, but it's certainly relevant to this discussion.
Quote me:
If you really want to see how the artist is deprived of money, you should check into how much the record industry takes (as a matter of general practice) out of the artist's cut of album sales to cover the cost of broken records using a model which was created when vinyl records were sold. Nevermind the fact that the percentage of CDs broken during shipping is a mere fraction of the number of vinyl records that were broken; they're taking the same cut. Or perhaps you could look at how the industry manipulates artists' contracts using high-powered lawyers to ensure that artists are locked into a single company for eternity without even the option of going out on their own. When an artist is contracted to produce 5 albums, the recording company will often ignore albums that don't sell well, keeping the artist locked into a perpetual contract that actually hinders their ability to create new content. The record company makes a bunch of money from the first album, but gives the artist next to nothing from it, citing "recording, studio, manufacturing, shipping, marketing, promotional costs, etc", then shelves the next 5 or 6 albums when it becomes clear they're not selling as well as the first, but then tells the artist that they've only created one album. And don't go thinking that this only happens rarely, or to small artists. The Dixie Chicks just recently had to sue their label to get more than $4million that was owed to them. If memory serves, they recorded an album that went platinum, for which their label refused to pay them. Talk about real theft.
The "I'm just demoing it" argument has always been a bit weak, though not entirely inaccurate. While there are some folks who really do buy more music when they download, I'm certain that, at least a majority, do not. That being said, I think the real problem is that when people look at a CD, they're thinking less about an artist making it, and more about a multi-national conglomerate mega-corp that produced it and is trying to sell it to them at extremely inflated prices. My personal argument in this whole thing is that I will not put my money into the hands of corrupt organizations that should have been broken up decades ago, with their top brass jailed on RICO violations. They've now grown so bold as to demand to be exempt from all anti-trust lawsuits. This is like the mafia demanding to be exempt from murder prosecutions. I suppose the logic is, "we've been breaking these laws for so long, why don't you just stop bugging us about it?". I do buy CDs, T-shirts, concert tickets, etc from non-RIAA affiliated bands that I like. That is how I show my support. If Metallica wants another dollar from me (I've bought their stuff in the past), they'd best get away from their RIAA whore of a label and stop treating their fans like garbage. I absolutely support the rights of artists and others to make a profit from their intellectual property. What I do not support in any way are corrupt organizations (as defined under US Federal RICO statutes). I will not pay them money, and I will not support them in any way, shape, or form. I believe my argument holds very good water, as the evidence against the major music companies is plain and out in the open. Over the past 50 some-odd years, the entertainment industry has conspired to violate the laws of this country, the sanctity of the American judicial and legislative branchs, and the trust of the American public. This is not to say that they behave better in other places, I just don't have the background information to accuse them of wrongdoing in, say, France that I do for the US.
And from another brilliant comment of mine:
I find it amus
"Are you suggesting that the amendment was not properly ratified? That it has been superseded by a later amendment? That the amendment itself has been misinterpreted?"
I'm suggesting that the constitutionality of an amendment can be challenged when said amendment violates the spirit of the Constitution as a whole. As to whether or not an amendment can be struck down, I couldn't say. In fact, I seriously doubt you'll find anyone within the realm of US law who would be able to honestly say one way or another whether an amendment can or cannot be challenged in court. To believe that an amendment is beyond challenge is both naive and ridiculous. We have precedent for the US Congress repealing an amendment. Prior to that, no amendment (to my knowledge) had ever been passed, then later reversed. It then follows that if the Congress can reverse an amendment, so must the Supreme Court be able to review it.
To illustrate my point, why don't we move to an extreme example in which the US Congress and a large number state legislatures are infiltrated by a group of people belonging to an extremist group. When I say 'infiltrated', I mean that they run for election without disclosing their membership in the extremist group, nor their true reasons for running for office. With a sufficient number of elected officials in the Congress and state legislatures, they move to introduce a constitutional amendment which requires that any woman in public be dressed a certain 'proper' way under punishment of on-the-spot beating by police or 'concerned citizens'. Having sufficient numbers to propose and then ratify the new amendment, it then becomes law in the United States to brutally beat women who are not 'properly' dressed.
Now, if we assume that the only course of action to correct this situation is to get another amendment through the congress and legislatures to repeal this amendment, then we're basically stuck with this as part of our law for the next several years. The President most certainly cannot defy the Constitution, nor any of its amendments (please, no comments about the current administration doing just that). If, however, we wish to rectify the situation more quickly, the Supreme Court seems the most logical place to look. If a law is subject to Judicial Review regarding its potential conflicts with the spirit of the Constitution, then it may also follow that amendments themselves may be reviewed by the court. I would certainly argue that the Court has no place interfering with amendments except in extreme circumstances, but I must also argue that the Court has every right and responsibility to ensure that all laws in our country fit within the boundaries set forth by the founders of this nation.
"Or do you just not have a clue what you're talking about?"
I could put the standard IANAL here, but considering the fact that 100% of lawyers are proven wrong 50% of the time, I would argue that IANAL is all but meaningless. I will say that I'm one who follows Supreme Court cases and decisions quite closely, and I've always had a hard-on (if you'll pardon the expression) for the US Constitution. I find it to be an extraordinary document that's centered more on the ideals of great men, rather than a practical roadmap. I like the fact that the Constitution gives us something to work for; something to strive for; something to fight for - every single day. I like the impossible challenge it sets forth, and I like watching the Supremes look for better ways to get us closer.
"But then again, your title (not to mention the content) makes it clear which way you lean (and I quote):
Let the knee-jerk, left-wing responses begin! "
Speaking from a centrist point of view myself, I can most certainly see how this statement could be completely unbiased. I would add, however, that it is incomplete. While there is certainly a far-left kneejerk reaction to news such as this, there is also a far-right kneejerk reaction to it. On the far left, the capture of Saddam is meaningless. On the far right, the capture of Saddam provides justification for all the costs (in terms of lives and money) of the entire war in Iraq, and indeed the entire war on terrorism (which is only linked in the mind of the ignorant and the waaayyy right-leaning folks like Ann Coulter. Wait, I take that back, Ann Coulter isn't a conservative, she's merely anti-liberal. Having no intelligent thoughts of her own, she seeks only to criticize a group of individuals as a group, justifying her own existence as a couter-balance to all things left of extremely-right. It's a sad person who feels the need to justify their own existence in such a destructive way.).
Truth be told, there are extremists on both sides. An extreme lefty will blow up a chemical plant, releasing an unimaginable amount of poisons into the air, to protest the plant's release of poisons into the air. An extreme righty will blow up an abortion clinic (killing everyone inside it, including the pregnant women) in order to stop them from killing. The moral of the story is that extremes always produce the same results, and they're virtually never good. Moderation in all things in life, including love (a homocidal stalker really, REALLY loves their victim), is a lesson the people of this world really need to learn before we can make progress.
"Face it, Bush is a liberal. He is just fumbling around with no idea what he is doing, and spending way too much money."
Richard M Nixon, my ass, you're Ann Coulter, aren't you!
Jokes aside, I do find it amusing (from a centrist point of view) that so many "Republicans/Conservatives" are currently advocating the exact opposite of what they used to. Nation-building, fiscally irresponsible, government-growing, clear foreign policy-lacking, privacy-invading fools was the title that used to be reserved for liberals by die-hard conservatives. I suppose it's just more proof that we're dealing with what someone above termed, 'two puppets being controlled by the same person' (referring to the two major parties).
Out of curiosity, what are the chances of you voting for Howard Dean, assuming he gets the Dems' nod? Personally, I don't agree with a lot of Dean's positions, but I can't help noticing that he's not just more of the same in terms of politicians.
Bush is the first president to make me greatful we have term limits codified in law. I'll argue against their constitutionality, but only after Bush is out of office by either election or law. Personally, I don't think this country can handle another 4 years of Bush presidency. Hell, it might even drive us all mad enough to vote Hilary into office. [shudder]
" You can't do everything at once. That's kind of like saying to a police squad "why did you stop THAT bank robber? there have been plenty of banks that have been robbed where you haven't interviened" I think going to war with Iraq was a good thing, but i don't like how Bush justified it (WMDs that have yet to surface)."
My question is, "why didn't he go after the 'bank robber' who actually has nuclear weapons and is developing the means to deliver them to the shores of the United States?"
Iraq didn't have any long-range weapons. Iraq didn't have any nuclear weapons. Iraq may or may not have had biological or chemical weapons. The situation changes when we look at North Korea. North Korea most certainly does have nuclear weapons. We've detected evidence (gases consistent with nuclear weapons production, as I recall) that they've got them, they've openly admitted to having them, the CIA says they're pretty sure they've got a handfull, and they're technically still at war with the United States. We have 37,000 US soldiers sitting on the boarder between North and South Korea who would be steamrolled by the 1 million-man+ North Korean regular army. What's more, North Korea has missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads to remote parts of the US (parts of Alaska, I believe). The CIA believes these weapons are pretty inaccurate, but who's to say what they could or couldn't hit? Their next project is developing a long-range weapon that could travel up to 15,000 miles. This would allow them to hit any target from Los Angeles to Washington DC.
The war in Iraq has diverted troops, money, munitions, and international support away from the most dangerous country on the face of the Earth. When we tried using diplomacy to rid ourselves of this threat during Clinton's years, we were rewarded with a secretive nuclear program which continued to function under the noses of the UN inspectors. When we tried to work things out with them before, they used that time to develop the most destructive weapons the world has ever seen. Now, because we have neither the manpower, nor the weaponry to confront this menace once and for all, the Bush administration is doing exactly what it said it would never do: negotiate terms with North Korea. It was the policy of this administration that North Korea disarms first, and we talk about giving them food and fuel later. Now, with it becoming more and more clear every day just how thinly stretched our military personnel and budgets are, we're forced to come crawling to one of the few world leaders who's as cruel to his own people as Saddam was, and beg him to dismantle the world's deadliest devices.
The great USA begging the dictator of a third-world nation to 'please do as we humbly ask' - still happy about us going to war in Iraq?
The worst part about this whole thing is that with US troops stuck in Iraq for the next two or three years (along with billions each month pouring into the effort), we won't have the men or the money to do anything about North Korea before 2006 or even 2007. By that time, North Korea will have more than enough nuclear weapons to ensure that any US assault would have to be a nuclear assault. By that time, North Korea may well be able to respond in kind with weapons capable of reaching any city in the US mainland.
A nuclear-armed North Korea that we can't do anything about? Thanks Bush. Your hard-on for Iraq has really done your nation's security well. We now have a nuclear-armed country with whom we're (still) at war, who has plenty of time to build missiles to blow us all to hell.
Thanks.
"Dear pedantic Slashbots: If cable theft is stealing, why is MP3 downloading "infringement?""
Because (at least for USians) that's what the law says.
Theft of 'telecommunications services', such as cable, are defined and punished under USC Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter V-A, Part IV, Sec. 553. That section can be found here.
USC Title 17, Chapter 5 covers copyright infringement, which is an entirely different animal. You may view this section of the USC here.
If reading legalize hurts your head (as it does mine), then try reading here instead. That link leads to a far easier-to-digest version of the laws in play.
If you live in a foreign country where copyright infringement equals theft, then please let us all know where this enlightened utopia is. If you live in the US, then your sig is nothing more than the butt-end of a joke played upon the American public by a group of criminals running a group of corrupt organizations (as defined under Federal RICO statues) which should have been shut down years ago, with their board members imprisoned for their crimes.
I find it amusing that so many voice their support for the rule of law by defending a group of companies and individuals (whose collective criminal activities over the past 50 some-odd years could result in massive (as in Trillions) government-imposed fines and a slew of life sentences (for execs)) from small children and teenagers who, at worst, are commiting a civil offense.
Please change your sig.
The worst problem with Intel and boards is that if you do have a problem, they make you jump through more hoops than a circus animal to get anything done about it. Once you finally do get an RMA approved, the average turn-around time is a whopping 30 days! from when they receive the board. When you add it all up, you figure a day or two to narrow it down to being a mainboard issue, about a week of haggling with Intel to get an RMA number (I'm a reseller and still had to go through hell to get it done), three to five business days for shipping each way (depending on where you're located), thirty days for them to fix or replace it, and finally three to five business days to ship it back to you. To put this in perspective, let's assume the machine dies on Saturday:
2 + 5 + 5 + 30 + 5 + 8 (4 weekends) = 55 days for worst-case scenario.
It took somewhere along the lines of 4 weeks in my particular case. That was 4 weeks that my customer was without the computer which I had repaired only a few weeks prior by replacing the mainboard and CPU with brand new ones. This was about a year and a half ago, and I've yet to buy another board from Intel. I also steer customers, friends, family, etc away from all Intel products. It really only takes one or two really, really bad experiences to kill my confidence in a company. According to the folks I spoke with at Intel, what I went through was standard operating procedure. I will never use, nor recommend an Intel product again.
Just to get my word in, an Athlon64 3000+ based system would be cheaper, and much faster for gaming. They must be pretty good chips, as even Intel is buying the AMD64 boxes.
"I'm looking forward to a full Intel^3 (cpu/chipset/board) solution for ultimate stability."
I've had too many problems with Intel boards to touch them ever again. If I were you, I'd definitely go with an Asus setup. The quality is better, and the tech support is excellent. Then again, I'm a reseller, so I don't know what the end user tech support is like. Anyway, don't think that just because Intel makes lots of ads that they're somehow super-duper stable by any measure. Just as any other tech company, they have plenty of problems with their products.