They do allow for overclocking. Athlons are not multiplier locked. All you have to do it take the plastic casing off (which you would do anyway if you were serious about overclocking -- need to be able to cool the sucker better:). GFD's are pretty cheap these days.
ROFL. Damn, my system has been having so many problems with AGP issues that I didn't even notice them! How silly of me!
*groan*
I'm sick of seeing people whine and bitch about stuff that know nothing about, nor have experienced. I'm sick of people reading webboards with pro-intel lackies spreading FUD and then repeating it everwhere they go as if it were fact. Get a clue.
To be more specific, the problem with the timing loop was that it was poorly coded -- timing how long it too to complete x itterations instead of seeing how many itterations could be completed in x amout of time. The K6/3 ended up completing the loop so fast that the "time" ended up being zero, causing a divide by zero exception....
This is where everyone looks at the "errata" listed by both companies.
AMD ~4 Intel pages worth
I challenge you to find an app that WON'T run on my Athlon. I also challenge you to demonstrate that the MTBF of an Athlon is shorter than a PIII. Bet you won't.
Having played EQ, it is really annoying to walk around a forest and have a guy named "suckmycock" walk up to you and ask you for stuff....and then follow you around for the next hour when you refuse.
I've seen the names the GM's let people get away with. If someone wants to complain about being forced to change their name from "willy wonka" to something less stupid, they need to get a life...
Ok, let's look at it with a slightly different point of view. If microsoft is, as you say, broken into 10 companies there would be 10 different parts of microsoft out there. Say one of them would do the OS, another would be coding IE, another MS word, another Outlook, etc. When these companies are broken up, they would no longer be able to enter into contracts with each other, nor would they be permitted to operate with one another. Doing so would probably be a blatent violation of the "breakup order" or whatever it'd be called, if this solution were taken. I'd also be willing to bet that the OS company would not be able to branch off into other areas. The only thing they'd be able to sell is OS's. So now, the OS division would not be able to force the inclusion of IE as a condition of their sale. They wouldn't be able to "integrate" it into the OS. The purpose of a remidy is not necessarily to eliminate the monopoly hold microsoft has on the market. A monopoly in and of itself is not illegal. The purpose of the remedy to to prevent future abuses of the monopoly power microsoft has (and power that microsoft has demonstrated that it can and has abused). Personally, I think that this is probably the best structural solution. Everything is still out there, they just can't work together.
Re:How do I change Nscape6 to look like Windows/KD
on
Suck On Skins And UI
·
· Score: 2
I don't get it. I've used Netscape 6. Yeah, the scrollbar has a little = in the middle of it. So what? The buttons change to a solid box when you move the mouse over it. So what?
Everything works the same! You press the left mouse button on a button and hey, it does what it's supposed to do.
I fail to understand how everyone equates it to a "new GUI OS". If someone can't figure out that a scrollbar with a = in the middle of it works the exact same as one without an = in the middle of it, this whole planet is in trouble. Everything works the way you'd expect it to. Or, at least, everything works the way I expect it too.
And to be honest, I kind of like the "different" look. It seems alot more crisp that the sloppy Win32 gui.
The constitution may not be perfect, but you have to admit -- it's a rather impressive feat that it's taken over 200 years for the political system to become corrupt. And if you look at the system, the curruption is due to the judicial system ignoring the constitution instead of protecting it, like they're supposed to.
If you look at most other countries which have tried to "follow" "our example", you'll notice that even the best don't last more than 50 years without a rewrite, revolution, coup, etc.
I beg to differ. Everyone alive to day has the ability to change the constitution.
You just have to get 66% of the people in 66% of the states to agree with you.
By not trying to change it, you've said your bit. By trying to change it and failing, you've demonstrated that there is a significant enough percentage of people in this country who think it's a bad idea.
However much I would like to agree with you, I have to ask this question: doesn't that apply to the implementation of such taxes by the Federal, rather than State, Government? The states are free to assign any form of tax their legislatures or citizenry desire.
I don't believe any state can create a law which superceedes the constitution.
There is a reason that this particular ammendment was included in the first place -- free trade between states was deemed essential for a united country. The framers were worried about one state putting a 500% tarrif on goods imported from another state. I think you can see where that would have led, very quickly.
I distrust, and am dissatisfied with, our government and am convinced that the implementation of the Income Tax in the early part of this century was actually the beginning of the end of our Country. Uncle Sam has access to the ...
I find it interesting that there was a constitutional challenge to the federal income tax when it came about (WWII or WWI, can't remember which). The judgement basically was "Yeah, it's unconstitutional, but it is essential to the survival of this country, so it should be allowed for a brief period of time." Of course, at the time, I believe the government was also saying that it would end the federal income tax after the war was over -- but we all know how that turned out;).
I havn't done a whole lot of cross platform development.
However, what I have done mainly is to get a project for school to run on both windows and linux (windows for the ease of debugging using visual studio, linux so it will run on the sun boxes at school).
I have found that for most non-gui applications, there is a 1:1 function correlation between windows "stuff" and linux "stuff" (posix threads and windows threads come to mind here). There are other places where the functions are identical, but require another function call at the beginning of the program to set things up (sockets). Then there are functions that behave similarly but different enough to be a pain (too many to list...:).
1:1 correlations are easy to deal with... just do a #if _windowstag #define myfunc(a) MyfuncWindoze(a) #define... #endif
For things that require extra startup, just #if in the correct code where appropriate (looks kinda nasty though).
For larger projects where "native" code is required (ie: java is too slow, or you want the app to look like it was written for it's respective os) creating a framework class structure could be handy. In other words, figure out all of the operating system dependent functions and write an extra layer that your application will call, which will then call those dependent functions. That way the porting required is down to a minimum...
I can't comment on Cisco's practices, as I do not really keep up on the company (I know they sell networking equipment, that's about it).
I can point out a few differences here, as to why these cases cannot be compared. First off, I honestly don't think Cisco can be considered a monopoly at this stage of the game. Secondly, Microsoft was making deals to push products OTHER than their OS onto the market, wheras Cisco (according to you) is making deals to push their established product onto the network.
However, if Cisco were to be considered a monopoly, I think the actions that you described would be considered illegal maintenance of the monopoly, but again this is different that what Microsoft has done.
It's one thing being in a dog-eat-dog market place. It's another when you're the only dog with a bone and a SHOTGUN (ok, pretend dogs can use a shotgun) and kill the other dogs when they get their own unique bone (then taking that bone for yourself and killing any dog that tries to get a piece of one of the dozens of bones you have). Yeah, really crappy analogy but it's the best I could come up with.
You are correct when you state Microsft was trying to WALK the fine line between honesty, morality, and making a buck. They wern't trying to live up to the principles in that statement. They tried to get away with stuff and contort the language of the law. I guess a more appropriate way of saying it would be that microsoft was walking on a line that had 10 detours and an huge curve between points A and B...
A hands off policy won't work..."ignoring a problem won't make it go away". How many times have you seen that statement in action? It's no different here. Open Source could be stomped out as a viable *alternative* (not subsitution) to Microsoft products by MS in a matter of months if it wanted to. The movement isn't large enough yet. They need a foothold, not a toehold ('cause toes can be amputated;).
I'm not saying that a solution arrived to will be a great one, or even a good one -- especially in the short term. But it will be better for the industry as a whole over the long term.
Nah, Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly. They've only got 95%+ of all OS sales. A monopoly does not mean you are the only company offering a product in a certain category. A monopoly is a company which controls such a significant portion of their "market" that the mere fact that they exist becomes an entry barrier.
Hell, you have to GIVE AWAY your OS in order to "compete" with microsoft (BeOS, linux, etc) or bundle it with hardware that only free OS's will run on (Apple, Sun, etc) -- and I might also note that windows doesn't run on their hardware either.
Now, just the fact that they are a monopoly isn't wrong in and of itself. But a monopoly has to be more...careful. The best way to put it is that your business practices are held to a higher standard; ie: you can't use your monopoly to "do stuff" that you wouldn't be able to do without a monopoly.
This is what MS has done with their "power". Ex: they've used their monopoly to push products (IE, Word, Excel, Outlook, etc) in areas they didn't have a monopoly in -- they told companies "If you want to put Windows on machines you sell, you have to put this other stuff on here too". If the manufacturer didn't, they wouldn't be able to sell their computers because everyone EXPECTS to have windows pre-installed (because everyone else uses it). This isn't the only thing Microsoft has done, but it's the easiest to understand. If you really want to know it all, read the findings of fact that have come out from the trial. That thing ain't long because the Judge likes to write novels.
Now, there isn't an easy way to solve this problem. It wouldn't be so big of a deal if MS had shown a willingness to "play fair" in the sandbox. However, the way they twisted the language/abused the Concent Decree has demonstrated that they cannot be trusted (hell, look at how they deal with other companies in general). This is where the real dilema comes to play. How do you get a company which is run by people sneaker than a set of 10 law firms?
The breakup idea is an interesting one -- the one you refer to. What this would do is split the company off into at least two segments. The first would only be permitted to produce the monopoly produce -- Windows. The other would get the non-monopoly produce. These two companies wouldn't be permitted to enter into any agreements with each other, or merge, or anything else that would defeat the purpose of splitting them up in the first place. Now you still have the monopoly, but the monopoly doesn't have anything to abuse. They don't have a streaming media player, they don't have a word process... just the os.
Splitting the company into a bunch of mini-companies is also another solution I've seen bandied about. This one, to me, doesn't appear to be a good one. This would fork off a few "twin" companies that would compete with one another. I must admit, I don't think having 4 different version of Windows out there is gonna help (oh man, you think it's a nightmare writing for windows now, wait until you have to write software that gets around bugs in *4* OS's:)
Now, as to Cisco... Cisco doesn't have a problem unless it starts abusing it's monopoly powers as well. When was the last time you *had* to buy (or go with nothing instead) Cisco hubs with Cisco routers, or a Cisco NIC with a Cisco cable?
Anyone can pass a test. All you have to do is memorize a book. What happens when you want them to actually apply that knowledge?
Where I'm going to school, I'm constantly shocked by the number of people I have to work with in groups that <i>do not know what they are doing</i>.
Yesterday I had to teach a guy how to use sockets for a group project in "Distrubuted Operating Systems" (we're creating a system of 5 replicated values, using 2 different methods of transaction propogation). This is the sequal to the Operating Systems class... it is considered a graduate level course by the proff teaching it, yet this guy still didn't have a clue how to do sockets.
I've encountered people that don't know what "return" does in a function! (They "passed" the course that was supposed to teach them the stuff).
Point being, yeah the paper means that they've gone through it, but did they just remember the stuff for a test, or do they really know how to use it?
I must say that, while it makes sense from a certain standpoint, that it's funny that they decided to reject the offer to transfer the domain to the 'rightful' owner because it was "past the deadline" and "the other party didn't accept the offer".
Actually, said person will probably start surfing the net and actually RESEARCH the candidates before casting a vote, as you actually know who's running before the trip to the ballot box.
How many people do you know that actually know what they're voting on before they get there? Other than the highly publicized "races" on the evening *cough* news *cough*.
Perhaps if the system was up 24/7 for long periods of time around the election.
However, with a time period of 10 hours, cracking a system with decent security measures in place will be difficult. And you've got that 10 hour window once per year. Oh, and I bet the system changes a bit each time:).
I'd be more worried about DOS attacks than someone hacking the system. Hell, if they wrote it right you can probably tell if the results have been tainted in some fashion....
Can't get much worse than having voters vote 100 years after they die...
When the constitution was written, "the militia" was considered to be all the people in the United States. The reason being is that it was the people's responsiblity to defend the country -- there wasn't really a standing army, at least not one that could be compared to what we call the army now.
"well regulated", in the language of the time, doesn't refer to organization (or control by the government). Rather, from the research I did, meant more along the means of "up to date" or "modernly equipped."
What does this mean? Well, I think that it means that every person in this country has a right to own a "modern" firearm. This provision does NOT prevent the government from restricting access to certain firearms, it just prevents it from restricting access to all modern firearms.
You must also consider that for a long period of time, there was a law in this country requiring that every able bodied man keep a rifle and a box of ammunition in their home.
(for what it's worth, I don't own a firearm, and never plan on owning one)
Nah, more like "Who hasn't been giving us a hard time lately?"
I noticed DELL gets to sell them...gee, what kind of "Athlons have compatibility issues" fud were they sending out awhile back?
Lesse, HP and IBM don't "advertise" athlon systems... oh, and look! Guess what they're getting!
Hrm, Gateway isn't so lucky though. Doesn't look like they're going to be able to sell any. If only they hadn't complained about the supply of processors they were getting from Intel...
Actually, you won't be seeing them available for sale on pricewatch.
Intel has said that it will be giving "limited quanties" to a small number of vendors (HP, Dell, and some other company I think).
They won't be available on the BYO market until their problem with "limited quantities" goes away.
...and somehow, I think that "limited quantities" equates to something along the lines of "hey! it worked at 1ghz! ship it!" when they do their bin testing...
Slashdotted already...
on
MacOS X DP3
·
· Score: 1
The server is down hard too.....doesn't even answer to pings...
Slashdot Mirror
They do allow for overclocking. Athlons are not multiplier locked. All you have to do it take the plastic casing off (which you would do anyway if you were serious about overclocking -- need to be able to cool the sucker better :). GFD's are pretty cheap these days.
ROFL. Damn, my system has been having so many problems with AGP issues that I didn't even notice them! How silly of me!
*groan*
I'm sick of seeing people whine and bitch about stuff that know nothing about, nor have experienced. I'm sick of people reading webboards with pro-intel lackies spreading FUD and then repeating it everwhere they go as if it were fact. Get a clue.
To be more specific, the problem with the timing loop was that it was poorly coded -- timing how long it too to complete x itterations instead of seeing how many itterations could be completed in x amout of time. The K6/3 ended up completing the loop so fast that the "time" ended up being zero, causing a divide by zero exception....
This is where everyone looks at the "errata" listed by both companies.
AMD ~4
Intel pages worth
I challenge you to find an app that WON'T run on my Athlon. I also challenge you to demonstrate that the MTBF of an Athlon is shorter than a PIII. Bet you won't.
Having played EQ, it is really annoying to walk around a forest and have a guy named "suckmycock" walk up to you and ask you for stuff....and then follow you around for the next hour when you refuse.
I've seen the names the GM's let people get away with. If someone wants to complain about being forced to change their name from "willy wonka" to something less stupid, they need to get a life...
Ok, let's look at it with a slightly different point of view. If microsoft is, as you say, broken into 10 companies there would be 10 different parts of microsoft out there. Say one of them would do the OS, another would be coding IE, another MS word, another Outlook, etc. When these companies are broken up, they would no longer be able to enter into contracts with each other, nor would they be permitted to operate with one another. Doing so would probably be a blatent violation of the "breakup order" or whatever it'd be called, if this solution were taken. I'd also be willing to bet that the OS company would not be able to branch off into other areas. The only thing they'd be able to sell is OS's. So now, the OS division would not be able to force the inclusion of IE as a condition of their sale. They wouldn't be able to "integrate" it into the OS. The purpose of a remidy is not necessarily to eliminate the monopoly hold microsoft has on the market. A monopoly in and of itself is not illegal. The purpose of the remedy to to prevent future abuses of the monopoly power microsoft has (and power that microsoft has demonstrated that it can and has abused). Personally, I think that this is probably the best structural solution. Everything is still out there, they just can't work together.
I don't get it. I've used Netscape 6. Yeah, the scrollbar has a little = in the middle of it. So what? The buttons change to a solid box when you move the mouse over it. So what?
Everything works the same! You press the left mouse button on a button and hey, it does what it's supposed to do.
I fail to understand how everyone equates it to a "new GUI OS". If someone can't figure out that a scrollbar with a = in the middle of it works the exact same as one without an = in the middle of it, this whole planet is in trouble. Everything works the way you'd expect it to. Or, at least, everything works the way I expect it too.
And to be honest, I kind of like the "different" look. It seems alot more crisp that the sloppy Win32 gui.
The constitution may not be perfect, but you have to admit -- it's a rather impressive feat that it's taken over 200 years for the political system to become corrupt. And if you look at the system, the curruption is due to the judicial system ignoring the constitution instead of protecting it, like they're supposed to.
If you look at most other countries which have tried to "follow" "our example", you'll notice that even the best don't last more than 50 years without a rewrite, revolution, coup, etc.
Then ammend the constitution -- don't ignore it.
I beg to differ. Everyone alive to day has the ability to change the constitution.
You just have to get 66% of the people in 66% of the states to agree with you.
By not trying to change it, you've said your bit. By trying to change it and failing, you've demonstrated that there is a significant enough percentage of people in this country who think it's a bad idea.
However much I would like to agree with you, I have to ask this question: doesn't that apply to the implementation of such taxes by the Federal, rather than State, Government? The states are free to assign any form of tax their legislatures or citizenry desire.
;).
I don't believe any state can create a law which superceedes the constitution.
There is a reason that this particular ammendment was included in the first place -- free trade between states was deemed essential for a united country. The framers were worried about one state putting a 500% tarrif on goods imported from another state. I think you can see where that would have led, very quickly.
I distrust, and am dissatisfied with, our government and am convinced that the implementation of the Income Tax in the early part of this century was actually the beginning of the end of our Country. Uncle Sam has access to the
...
I find it interesting that there was a constitutional challenge to the federal income tax when it came about (WWII or WWI, can't remember which). The judgement basically was "Yeah, it's unconstitutional, but it is essential to the survival of this country, so it should be allowed for a brief period of time." Of course, at the time, I believe the government was also saying that it would end the federal income tax after the war was over -- but we all know how that turned out
I havn't done a whole lot of cross platform development.
... just do a ...
However, what I have done mainly is to get a project for school to run on both windows and linux (windows for the ease of debugging using visual studio, linux so it will run on the sun boxes at school).
I have found that for most non-gui applications, there is a 1:1 function correlation between windows "stuff" and linux "stuff" (posix threads and windows threads come to mind here). There are other places where the functions are identical, but require another function call at the beginning of the program to set things up (sockets). Then there are functions that behave similarly but different enough to be a pain (too many to list...:).
1:1 correlations are easy to deal with
#if _windowstag
#define myfunc(a) MyfuncWindoze(a)
#define
#endif
For things that require extra startup, just #if in the correct code where appropriate (looks kinda nasty though).
For larger projects where "native" code is required (ie: java is too slow, or you want the app to look like it was written for it's respective os) creating a framework class structure could be handy. In other words, figure out all of the operating system dependent functions and write an extra layer that your application will call, which will then call those dependent functions. That way the porting required is down to a minimum...
My inexperienced 2c.
I can't comment on Cisco's practices, as I do not really keep up on the company (I know they sell networking equipment, that's about it).
;).
I can point out a few differences here, as to why these cases cannot be compared. First off, I honestly don't think Cisco can be considered a monopoly at this stage of the game. Secondly, Microsoft was making deals to push products OTHER than their OS onto the market, wheras Cisco (according to you) is making deals to push their established product onto the network.
However, if Cisco were to be considered a monopoly, I think the actions that you described would be considered illegal maintenance of the monopoly, but again this is different that what Microsoft has done.
It's one thing being in a dog-eat-dog market place. It's another when you're the only dog with a bone and a SHOTGUN (ok, pretend dogs can use a shotgun) and kill the other dogs when they get their own unique bone (then taking that bone for yourself and killing any dog that tries to get a piece of one of the dozens of bones you have). Yeah, really crappy analogy but it's the best I could come up with.
You are correct when you state Microsft was trying to WALK the fine line between honesty, morality, and making a buck. They wern't trying to live up to the principles in that statement. They tried to get away with stuff and contort the language of the law. I guess a more appropriate way of saying it would be that microsoft was walking on a line that had 10 detours and an huge curve between points A and B...
A hands off policy won't work..."ignoring a problem won't make it go away". How many times have you seen that statement in action? It's no different here. Open Source could be stomped out as a viable *alternative* (not subsitution) to Microsoft products by MS in a matter of months if it wanted to. The movement isn't large enough yet. They need a foothold, not a toehold ('cause toes can be amputated
I'm not saying that a solution arrived to will be a great one, or even a good one -- especially in the short term. But it will be better for the industry as a whole over the long term.
*nt*
Nah, Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly. They've only got 95%+ of all OS sales. A monopoly does not mean you are the only company offering a product in a certain category. A monopoly is a company which controls such a significant portion of their "market" that the mere fact that they exist becomes an entry barrier.
... just the os.
:)
Hell, you have to GIVE AWAY your OS in order to "compete" with microsoft (BeOS, linux, etc) or bundle it with hardware that only free OS's will run on (Apple, Sun, etc) -- and I might also note that windows doesn't run on their hardware either.
Now, just the fact that they are a monopoly isn't wrong in and of itself. But a monopoly has to be more...careful. The best way to put it is that your business practices are held to a higher standard; ie: you can't use your monopoly to "do stuff" that you wouldn't be able to do without a monopoly.
This is what MS has done with their "power". Ex: they've used their monopoly to push products (IE, Word, Excel, Outlook, etc) in areas they didn't have a monopoly in -- they told companies "If you want to put Windows on machines you sell, you have to put this other stuff on here too". If the manufacturer didn't, they wouldn't be able to sell their computers because everyone EXPECTS to have windows pre-installed (because everyone else uses it). This isn't the only thing Microsoft has done, but it's the easiest to understand. If you really want to know it all, read the findings of fact that have come out from the trial. That thing ain't long because the Judge likes to write novels.
Now, there isn't an easy way to solve this problem. It wouldn't be so big of a deal if MS had shown a willingness to "play fair" in the sandbox. However, the way they twisted the language/abused the Concent Decree has demonstrated that they cannot be trusted (hell, look at how they deal with other companies in general). This is where the real dilema comes to play. How do you get a company which is run by people sneaker than a set of 10 law firms?
The breakup idea is an interesting one -- the one you refer to. What this would do is split the company off into at least two segments. The first would only be permitted to produce the monopoly produce -- Windows. The other would get the non-monopoly produce. These two companies wouldn't be permitted to enter into any agreements with each other, or merge, or anything else that would defeat the purpose of splitting them up in the first place. Now you still have the monopoly, but the monopoly doesn't have anything to abuse. They don't have a streaming media player, they don't have a word process
Splitting the company into a bunch of mini-companies is also another solution I've seen bandied about. This one, to me, doesn't appear to be a good one. This would fork off a few "twin" companies that would compete with one another. I must admit, I don't think having 4 different version of Windows out there is gonna help (oh man, you think it's a nightmare writing for windows now, wait until you have to write software that gets around bugs in *4* OS's
Now, as to Cisco... Cisco doesn't have a problem unless it starts abusing it's monopoly powers as well. When was the last time you *had* to buy (or go with nothing instead) Cisco hubs with Cisco routers, or a Cisco NIC with a Cisco cable?
Anyone can pass a test. All you have to do is memorize a book. What happens when you want them to actually apply that knowledge?
... it is considered a graduate level course by the proff teaching it, yet this guy still didn't have a clue how to do sockets.
Where I'm going to school, I'm constantly shocked by the number of people I have to work with in groups that <i>do not know what they are doing</i>.
Yesterday I had to teach a guy how to use sockets for a group project in "Distrubuted Operating Systems" (we're creating a system of 5 replicated values, using 2 different methods of transaction propogation). This is the sequal to the Operating Systems class
I've encountered people that don't know what "return" does in a function! (They "passed" the course that was supposed to teach them the stuff).
Point being, yeah the paper means that they've gone through it, but did they just remember the stuff for a test, or do they really know how to use it?
Thinking back on the storage I've had over the years...
:)
Back in the mid 80's I had a 40mb SCSI hard drive (it still works too, believe it or not)
A couple of years later I had an 50mb drive, then a 120mb drive, then a 340mb drive. That was on my old atari =).
At some point I bought a PC with a 4.3gb drive, added a 6.4gb drive, and now I've got a 27gb drive.
It's kind of funny looking at the curve there...it seems.....exponential.
(Right now, I'm using about 32gb of the 37gb available...)
How many cars does your household have? If you're married I'd be willing to bet there are two.
:P
Most EV's today have a range of 120 miles on a full charge. If you can't get to work with that amount of juice you drive worse than my mother
I must say that, while it makes sense from a certain standpoint, that it's funny that they decided to reject the offer to transfer the domain to the 'rightful' owner because it was "past the deadline" and "the other party didn't accept the offer".
Actually, said person will probably start surfing the net and actually RESEARCH the candidates before casting a vote, as you actually know who's running before the trip to the ballot box.
How many people do you know that actually know what they're voting on before they get there? Other than the highly publicized "races" on the evening *cough* news *cough*.
Perhaps if the system was up 24/7 for long periods of time around the election.
:).
However, with a time period of 10 hours, cracking a system with decent security measures in place will be difficult. And you've got that 10 hour window once per year. Oh, and I bet the system changes a bit each time
I'd be more worried about DOS attacks than someone hacking the system. Hell, if they wrote it right you can probably tell if the results have been tainted in some fashion....
Can't get much worse than having voters vote 100 years after they die...
An often forgotten point, from what I can tell...
When the constitution was written, "the militia" was considered to be all the people in the United States. The reason being is that it was the people's responsiblity to defend the country -- there wasn't really a standing army, at least not one that could be compared to what we call the army now.
"well regulated", in the language of the time, doesn't refer to organization (or control by the government). Rather, from the research I did, meant more along the means of "up to date" or "modernly equipped."
What does this mean? Well, I think that it means that every person in this country has a right to own a "modern" firearm. This provision does NOT prevent the government from restricting access to certain firearms, it just prevents it from restricting access to all modern firearms.
You must also consider that for a long period of time, there was a law in this country requiring that every able bodied man keep a rifle and a box of ammunition in their home.
(for what it's worth, I don't own a firearm, and never plan on owning one)
Nah, more like "Who hasn't been giving us a hard time lately?"
I noticed DELL gets to sell them...gee, what kind of "Athlons have compatibility issues" fud were they sending out awhile back?
Lesse, HP and IBM don't "advertise" athlon systems... oh, and look! Guess what they're getting!
Hrm, Gateway isn't so lucky though. Doesn't look like they're going to be able to sell any. If only they hadn't complained about the supply of processors they were getting from Intel...
/rant off
Actually, you won't be seeing them available for sale on pricewatch.
Intel has said that it will be giving "limited quanties" to a small number of vendors (HP, Dell, and some other company I think).
They won't be available on the BYO market until their problem with "limited quantities" goes away.
...and somehow, I think that "limited quantities" equates to something along the lines of "hey! it worked at 1ghz! ship it!" when they do their bin testing...
The server is down hard too.....doesn't even answer to pings...