I'm sorry, but linking to Tom's Hardware? Aside from the obvious inaccuracies in many of their articles, their obvious bias within individual articles varies based on who's paying for banner ads that week. My understanding was that no one who knows their stuff actually takes them seriously any more.
"except for any case involving the Second Amendment,"
I invite you to check here for the ACLU's word on the second amendment.
Essentially, the position of the ACLU is as follows:
They DO believe that the initial intent of the second amendment was to protect citizens against an oppressive regime. Here's the problem: to defeat a modern US military, you would need bazookas, F-15s, and nuclear weapons. Obviously, virtually no one honestly believes that every citizen has a Constitutional right to own their own F-15s and nuclear weapons. Therefore, the original intent of the framers goes out the window.
Next, while bazookas and nuclear weapons would certainly be considered arms, most people agree that private citizens just ought not be allowed to own them. At that point, you've agreed that the right of citizens to own arms has limits. Therefore, the ACLU concludes that those limits ought be set by the Congress and the Supreme Court, as they currently are.
The ACLU isn't against the second amendment, nor does it ignore the second amendment. The ACLU simply believes that the Congress and the Supreme Court have handled the matter in a perfectly reasonable matter to date, and therefore sees no reason to get involved. Aside from that, the NRA is at least as powerful as the ACLU, so it quite honestly isn't something the ACLU needs to devote a whole lot of resources to, considering the fact that there are other organizations that deal with the issue. If you agree with everything else the ACLU does, or even just some of it, join up and earmark all donations for the cause you're supporting. Some very conservative people have joined the ACLU lately, because it's at the forefront of defending our Constitution.
"or are we going to just skip that whole pesky "due process" thing and just string him up by his nuts in the public square?"
You know, you're right. Once we begin down the road of assuming all terrorism-related arrests are righteous, we get to a point where we take the benefit of the doubt away from the accused in all situations. It's at that point that the entire criminal justice system becomes a sham, no better than that of Iraq or China.
It's truly a shame that people throughout the world are so afraid that they shed their ideals about justice and humanity as though they were a burden.
Moderators, don't punish this person for making a rarely-made and very unpopular point. You may totally disagree with him, but reply - don't moderate. He wasn't trying to be an ass, and he wasn't repeating what's been said 100 times in the war on terrorism. In fact, he's saying something that we almost never hear anymore - respect the rights of the accused.
"All I know is if I hear one word from the ACLU about this guy's civil liberties or privacy being violated, I'm going to start hoping they turn into cactus fertilizer."
So long as the Geneva convention and international treaties are followed, you'll not hear a word from the ACLU. I doubt you'd hear much anyway, so long as he's not an American citizen.
The ACLU is an organization dedicated to the defense of the United States Constitution. In effect, they do nothing more than live by the oath that every President swears to. If you have a problem with the defense of the US Constitution, then perhaps another nation (such as China) would be more to your liking.
Now, I've heard plenty of junk blasting the ACLU as a bunch of liberal hippies, but when they're willing to stand up and defend the rights of those such as the KKK, I think it pretty much blows that argument out of the water.
What you say and what you believe may go against every principle and belief that the members of the ACLU stand for, but we will stand up next to you and fight to ensure that you have the right to express those beliefs. I think it's great that we have an organization in this country willing to stand up for the people no one else will, because I believe, as our forefathers did, that when the rights of one are violated, the rights of all are endangered.
Certainly not the American people. We aren't even told what our government does with the money we give it, and if we withhold the money pending a report on its use, we're sent to prison for "tax evasion".
The "government", as you put it, would have to be more readily defined. Congress and the EU can't even get the answers they want from the NSA and other intelligence agencies regarding the use or even the existence of Echelon, so when you say "government", you're going to have to be more specific.
I think that when this "war on terrorism" starts winding down, the American people need to sit down with their government and talk about just what their money's being used for. If our government won't tell us, then I think we need to stop funding it.
If a servant in your home refuses to tell you who called on the telephone or who came to the door, you fire him. Why does no one hold governments to the same standard?
Considering the fact that the European Union and the Congress of the United States have both conducted investigations into Echelon, and considering the statements made by the government of Australia hinting at a global surveillance network, I think it's pretty safe to assume at this point that Echelon exists.
The only other choice they have is to say "worldwide surveillance network", and that might make some people think it's a Bad(r) thing.
"I can root out child pornography by putting cameras in everyone's house"
But why so limited? Wouldn't it make more sense to put flat screen plasma TVs with built-in cameras in every room of every home? That way, when someone does something ungood, our thoughtful and wonderful government can give them a warning to stop it. Perhaps with weekly stripsearches of every American and a full search of all their personal belongings, we can eliminate all crime. If we make being angry a crime, we can stop violence before it begins! Oh joy, what a wonderous world we can make, free from the burdens of thought, choice, or will; free from the struggles for freedom and privacy.
Luckily, there's more than enough karma on my profile for me to be able to make light-hearted jokes about Linux and Microsoft and still withstand the hyper-militant types who happen to have some mod points at the time.:)
Do some moderators actually believe that someone would seriously make this statement? If so, then I suppose the real joke is on the moderators themselves - probably the same folks with a basement full of duct tape and plastic.:)
" This guy made his money from bar-code scanners' patents (and lawsuits)."
And while I normally jump all over overly-litigous corporations and individuals, I must say that I find his particular abuses of the patent and judicial systems quite appealing. Seems he took somewhat of a Robin Hood approach, with a sue the rich, give grants to the poor (students) philosophy. Is this one instance where the ends truly do justify the means? Or are the means, themselves, wholey justified by the participants and their intentions?
I've got 1TB of disk space on my home PC. What's the big deal here?
(1) 10GB drive
(2) 40GB drives
(1) 60GB drive
(4) 80GB drives
(1) 160GB drive
(2) 200GB drives
It's pretty expensive, and slows the machine down a little bit as you add drives (assuming you actually use many of them at once). So what's the big deal? Terabytes of drive space really shouldn't be a news story in an age of 200GB+ hard drives. The 360's should be out soon as well. Is that a lot of storage? Sure it is; but that doesn't necessarily warrant a news story. If anything, it should be somewhat laughable that someone actually took the time to put 17 drives together and forgot to add a CD-ROM.
"No, and people who use computers ought not to have to fuss about with building their own firewalls in order to have a modicum of security. Firewalls and other security-related code ought to be buried deep inside any consumer OS marketed for use on the Internet and their configuration ought to be done at a level of abstraction that requires no techncal knowledge."
You're talking about making a completely idiofied operating system, far beyond that which was Mac OS 9. To make an analogy, you're talking about building a car where the user never has to use the brakes, because "no should have to fuss with doing anything any time there's an immediate need to decelerate." I think we can expect a little more from companies like Microsoft in terms of security, but I also think we can expect a lot more from consumers. I may not need to know exactly how the fuel combustion chamber in my car allows me to move forward, but I for damn sure know that I have to shift to drive to go forward, shift to reverse to go backwards, and press the brakes to stop. How many computer users, if they drove their car like they use their computer, would end up in the hospital once a day with a totaled car?
While I can't provide a simple answer for solving the problem, I really don't think that building an OS that does all but completely remove user interaction is the answer. A certain level of security should be expected, but if a person can't even install Zone Alarm, or install a router, then perhaps they ought not be using a computer in the first place. Perhaps we should license computer use like we license car use. As much as I'd hate to have to muck around with a DIT (Dept of Info Tech) counterpart to the DMV, I think this would solve a whole lot of problems. Granted, however, this is not a likely or entirely feasible solution, but you have to admire how quickly we'd clean up tech support/virus/worm/security issues.
Amendment XI should have been, "Any leader caught violating any of the first 10 amendments shall be set afire as to cause unimaginably painful death."
Perhaps then we wouldn't continuously get ourselves into cycles of Constitution shredding/rebuilding. What's missing from the US Constitution is, quite frankly, consequences. There's no provision for punishing a bad, or abusive sitting government. What's worse, in today's surveillance society, a good old fashion revolution is downright impossible. Since when is it treasonous to save your country from your government?
" I buy Intel because their chips and chipsets are rock solid stable, at least compared to other PC chips and chipsets. And for ultimate stability you can even go with an Intel motherboard. Besides stability they are also compatible with a wide range of hardware. You don't have to worry about filling up every DIMM and PCI slot, it will just work."
Amazing how Intel again demonstrates alongside Microsoft that good marketing and a brand name more than makes up for shoddy workmanship. Lets examine the facts, shall we?
So, as for your comment about Intel's reliability and and stability, I can't help but laugh. These aren't theoretical problems, these are real-world problems. It will just work? Hardly; the coppermine CPUs often wouldn't even boot, Xeons crashing, chips recalled, chipsets slowing performance, and a history dating at least back to 1994 of Intel - Inept Inside.
Is any CPU perfect? Absolutely not - but don't go glorifying Intel as the pinnacle of stability when it obviously isn't the case.
Silly EU guys, do y'all need a third rear-end kicking?
1775 - 1783, we didn't like being part of England's silly little "empire" any more, so some farmers and lawyers got together and wiped the floor with the largest and best trained/equiped army of the time.
1812 - 1815, we got tired of England pestering our troops, so we once again beat the tar out of the largest and best trained/equiped army of the time.
1815 - Present, just to make sure y'all are finished pestering us, we built the largest, best trained, best equiped, most powerful army in the world, and then we built a shitload of nuclear weapons, just to make sure.
As the Declaration of Independence clear states - an authority is only lawful so long as those goverened by it consent to its authority. Having freed ourselves from the tyranny of a government we didn't consent to, we taxed ourselves so we could run a government we did consent to. It wasn't about getting away from Europe, it was about getting Europe away from us.:)
Slashdot Mirror
Why should the truth stand in the way of modding down?
:)
Besides, if I wanted to post flamebait, I'd talk about what an arrogant asshole Tom is. But I wouldn't do such a thing, of course.
I'm sorry, but linking to Tom's Hardware? Aside from the obvious inaccuracies in many of their articles, their obvious bias within individual articles varies based on who's paying for banner ads that week. My understanding was that no one who knows their stuff actually takes them seriously any more.
"except for any case involving the Second Amendment,"
I invite you to check here for the ACLU's word on the second amendment.
Essentially, the position of the ACLU is as follows:
They DO believe that the initial intent of the second amendment was to protect citizens against an oppressive regime. Here's the problem: to defeat a modern US military, you would need bazookas, F-15s, and nuclear weapons. Obviously, virtually no one honestly believes that every citizen has a Constitutional right to own their own F-15s and nuclear weapons. Therefore, the original intent of the framers goes out the window.
Next, while bazookas and nuclear weapons would certainly be considered arms, most people agree that private citizens just ought not be allowed to own them. At that point, you've agreed that the right of citizens to own arms has limits. Therefore, the ACLU concludes that those limits ought be set by the Congress and the Supreme Court, as they currently are.
The ACLU isn't against the second amendment, nor does it ignore the second amendment. The ACLU simply believes that the Congress and the Supreme Court have handled the matter in a perfectly reasonable matter to date, and therefore sees no reason to get involved. Aside from that, the NRA is at least as powerful as the ACLU, so it quite honestly isn't something the ACLU needs to devote a whole lot of resources to, considering the fact that there are other organizations that deal with the issue. If you agree with everything else the ACLU does, or even just some of it, join up and earmark all donations for the cause you're supporting. Some very conservative people have joined the ACLU lately, because it's at the forefront of defending our Constitution.
We have SIM cards in the US as well. When you buy a new phone, you can simply switch the SIM to keep the same number and such.
"or are we going to just skip that whole pesky "due process" thing and just string him up by his nuts in the public square?"
You know, you're right. Once we begin down the road of assuming all terrorism-related arrests are righteous, we get to a point where we take the benefit of the doubt away from the accused in all situations. It's at that point that the entire criminal justice system becomes a sham, no better than that of Iraq or China.
It's truly a shame that people throughout the world are so afraid that they shed their ideals about justice and humanity as though they were a burden.
Moderators, don't punish this person for making a rarely-made and very unpopular point. You may totally disagree with him, but reply - don't moderate. He wasn't trying to be an ass, and he wasn't repeating what's been said 100 times in the war on terrorism. In fact, he's saying something that we almost never hear anymore - respect the rights of the accused.
"All I know is if I hear one word from the ACLU about this guy's civil liberties or privacy being violated, I'm going to start hoping they turn into cactus fertilizer."
So long as the Geneva convention and international treaties are followed, you'll not hear a word from the ACLU. I doubt you'd hear much anyway, so long as he's not an American citizen.
The ACLU is an organization dedicated to the defense of the United States Constitution. In effect, they do nothing more than live by the oath that every President swears to. If you have a problem with the defense of the US Constitution, then perhaps another nation (such as China) would be more to your liking.
Now, I've heard plenty of junk blasting the ACLU as a bunch of liberal hippies, but when they're willing to stand up and defend the rights of those such as the KKK, I think it pretty much blows that argument out of the water.
What you say and what you believe may go against every principle and belief that the members of the ACLU stand for, but we will stand up next to you and fight to ensure that you have the right to express those beliefs. I think it's great that we have an organization in this country willing to stand up for the people no one else will, because I believe, as our forefathers did, that when the rights of one are violated, the rights of all are endangered.
"Who actually was in charge?"
Certainly not the American people. We aren't even told what our government does with the money we give it, and if we withhold the money pending a report on its use, we're sent to prison for "tax evasion".
The "government", as you put it, would have to be more readily defined. Congress and the EU can't even get the answers they want from the NSA and other intelligence agencies regarding the use or even the existence of Echelon, so when you say "government", you're going to have to be more specific.
I think that when this "war on terrorism" starts winding down, the American people need to sit down with their government and talk about just what their money's being used for. If our government won't tell us, then I think we need to stop funding it.
If a servant in your home refuses to tell you who called on the telephone or who came to the door, you fire him. Why does no one hold governments to the same standard?
Considering the fact that the European Union and the Congress of the United States have both conducted investigations into Echelon, and considering the statements made by the government of Australia hinting at a global surveillance network, I think it's pretty safe to assume at this point that Echelon exists.
The only other choice they have is to say "worldwide surveillance network", and that might make some people think it's a Bad(r) thing.
"I can root out child pornography by putting cameras in everyone's house"
But why so limited? Wouldn't it make more sense to put flat screen plasma TVs with built-in cameras in every room of every home? That way, when someone does something ungood, our thoughtful and wonderful government can give them a warning to stop it. Perhaps with weekly stripsearches of every American and a full search of all their personal belongings, we can eliminate all crime. If we make being angry a crime, we can stop violence before it begins! Oh joy, what a wonderous world we can make, free from the burdens of thought, choice, or will; free from the struggles for freedom and privacy.
What a pity, and I was going to suggest a bill entitled: Delivering Industry-Envisioned Data Integrity Enforcement Designed to Invigorate the Economy.
:)
DIEDIEDIE!!!
Lol, Linux fanboy-moderators to the rescue! :P
:)
Luckily, there's more than enough karma on my profile for me to be able to make light-hearted jokes about Linux and Microsoft and still withstand the hyper-militant types who happen to have some mod points at the time.
Oh lighten up, it was a joke.. lol
:)
Do some moderators actually believe that someone would seriously make this statement? If so, then I suppose the real joke is on the moderators themselves - probably the same folks with a basement full of duct tape and plastic.
"so why not download a snapshot from one of the mirrors and try it out?" "
Yeah, see, I would, but I'm a bit concerned about security on my network, so I think I'm going to stay with Windows 2000 for now.
Hey, I saw something like that once.
"Now if only I could find that Linux thing..."
Oh, it's right here, I think.
" Is there anywhere I can get the Massive engine they used to generate the Battle of Helms Deep?"
:p
I guess you already tried Kazaa?
" This guy made his money from bar-code scanners' patents (and lawsuits)."
And while I normally jump all over overly-litigous corporations and individuals, I must say that I find his particular abuses of the patent and judicial systems quite appealing. Seems he took somewhat of a Robin Hood approach, with a sue the rich, give grants to the poor (students) philosophy. Is this one instance where the ends truly do justify the means? Or are the means, themselves, wholey justified by the participants and their intentions?
"A 30-year-old MIT doctoral student won $30,000 yesterday for designing a swarm of little robots..."
Which covers what, about 1 semester at MIT?
It's pretty expensive, and slows the machine down a little bit as you add drives (assuming you actually use many of them at once). So what's the big deal? Terabytes of drive space really shouldn't be a news story in an age of 200GB+ hard drives. The 360's should be out soon as well. Is that a lot of storage? Sure it is; but that doesn't necessarily warrant a news story. If anything, it should be somewhat laughable that someone actually took the time to put 17 drives together and forgot to add a CD-ROM.
"No, and people who use computers ought not to have to fuss about with building their own firewalls in order to have a modicum of security. Firewalls and other security-related code ought to be buried deep inside any consumer OS marketed for use on the Internet and their configuration ought to be done at a level of abstraction that requires no techncal knowledge."
You're talking about making a completely idiofied operating system, far beyond that which was Mac OS 9. To make an analogy, you're talking about building a car where the user never has to use the brakes, because "no should have to fuss with doing anything any time there's an immediate need to decelerate." I think we can expect a little more from companies like Microsoft in terms of security, but I also think we can expect a lot more from consumers. I may not need to know exactly how the fuel combustion chamber in my car allows me to move forward, but I for damn sure know that I have to shift to drive to go forward, shift to reverse to go backwards, and press the brakes to stop. How many computer users, if they drove their car like they use their computer, would end up in the hospital once a day with a totaled car?
While I can't provide a simple answer for solving the problem, I really don't think that building an OS that does all but completely remove user interaction is the answer. A certain level of security should be expected, but if a person can't even install Zone Alarm, or install a router, then perhaps they ought not be using a computer in the first place. Perhaps we should license computer use like we license car use. As much as I'd hate to have to muck around with a DIT (Dept of Info Tech) counterpart to the DMV, I think this would solve a whole lot of problems. Granted, however, this is not a likely or entirely feasible solution, but you have to admire how quickly we'd clean up tech support/virus/worm/security issues.
Amendment XI should have been, "Any leader caught violating any of the first 10 amendments shall be set afire as to cause unimaginably painful death."
Perhaps then we wouldn't continuously get ourselves into cycles of Constitution shredding/rebuilding. What's missing from the US Constitution is, quite frankly, consequences. There's no provision for punishing a bad, or abusive sitting government. What's worse, in today's surveillance society, a good old fashion revolution is downright impossible. Since when is it treasonous to save your country from your government?
"But as it stands today"
Actually, as of the last time I clicked on the link, it was on its knees.
"the OCSystem Enhanced Radeon 9700 Pro Level III SE is simply the best card your money can buy today."
Good for graphics, not so hot for web servers?
Slashdot effect once again turns premium hardware into molten piles of PCB and silicon.
We did, it's called WWII.
Amazing how Intel again demonstrates alongside Microsoft that good marketing and a brand name more than makes up for shoddy workmanship. Lets examine the facts, shall we?
Pentium Floating-point division bug (it's close enough, isn't it?)
Invalid Operand Instruction crashes original Pentiums Pentium crash codes
Pentium Pro/II still having problems with floats Unable to convert to int
Pentium III can't even start up You went faster with an 8088
SSE is great for when you want your PIII to crash Pretty blue screens abound.
PIII Xeon, quality you can count on, except at high CPU usage Watch the task manager, Phil.
Yay, PIII MTH crashes! Does MTH stand for Meth?
Total Recall 2: PIII@1.13GHz Fastest crashes ever.
Total Recall 3: PIII Xeons@800/900Mhz More Xeon quality in a box.
Total Recall 4: CC820 How many defects? Can't recall...
Pentium 4 overwriting data Hope it wasn't something important.
Pentium 4 chipset bug Fast video performance? Naaa.
P4 Oracle/Sun problems More workarounds than work
Itanium shipments halted That's an expensive oops.
So, as for your comment about Intel's reliability and and stability, I can't help but laugh. These aren't theoretical problems, these are real-world problems. It will just work? Hardly; the coppermine CPUs often wouldn't even boot, Xeons crashing, chips recalled, chipsets slowing performance, and a history dating at least back to 1994 of Intel - Inept Inside.
Is any CPU perfect? Absolutely not - but don't go glorifying Intel as the pinnacle of stability when it obviously isn't the case.
Silly EU guys, do y'all need a third rear-end kicking?
:)
1775 - 1783, we didn't like being part of England's silly little "empire" any more, so some farmers and lawyers got together and wiped the floor with the largest and best trained/equiped army of the time.
1812 - 1815, we got tired of England pestering our troops, so we once again beat the tar out of the largest and best trained/equiped army of the time.
1815 - Present, just to make sure y'all are finished pestering us, we built the largest, best trained, best equiped, most powerful army in the world, and then we built a shitload of nuclear weapons, just to make sure.
As the Declaration of Independence clear states - an authority is only lawful so long as those goverened by it consent to its authority. Having freed ourselves from the tyranny of a government we didn't consent to, we taxed ourselves so we could run a government we did consent to. It wasn't about getting away from Europe, it was about getting Europe away from us.