is the memory tester:). I can't tell you how many OEM 98 boxen I've upgraded to XP only to have the install blow up due to bad RAM ( XP copies the contents of the CD into ram before coping it to harddrive). Wasn't there a/. story years ago about some major OEMs getting caught selling bad RAM because Windows 98 had that quirk where it wouldn't use the top 20% or system RAM unless you hacked the registry?
You can filter most of the crap out if you're looking for something specific, as opposed to just browsing. I've got searching to hunt for PS2 games I want at cheap prices, and have managed to amass a pretty nice library for about 1/4 the cost of buying it in town (literally, I pay an average of about $7 bucks a game).
You still can't filter out everything of course. e.g. Ebay won't let you filter out people who don't list actual shipping charges or who set a reserve price. But for the most part, it's the same few asshats that shill in each category and once you spot them you filter them out specifically, and then you filter out a few common scams (1 CENT GAMES111!!!). Do that and you'll get a pretty clean search.
The same reason insurance companies
on
Who won?
·
· Score: 1
charge about the same. You don't need a conspiracy for something this obvious. Insurance companies publish rates and check their competitor's published rates, it's obvious. Corrupt election officials take advantage of paper-free electronic polling machines to get Republicans elected, also obvious. Hell, what would be silly is if they even bothered with conspiring together.
And you would have gotten away with it too
on
Who won?
·
· Score: 1
except for patenting the Karl Rove Neocon Magic Weather Machine. They publish those things, you know?
cheaper cards have lousy tvout. Also, it's a PITA to find an Nvidia card with good tvout, I finally gave up and bought an ATI card (I'm speaking of last gen's cards, I'm too cheap to buy a current gen card:) ).
anyone who suggests otherwise is just being silly. Ignoring human limitations and blaming the individual for _everything_ is either ignorance or a rhetorical tactic. Put another way, if she was diagnosed mentally ill would you still blame her for choosing wrong?
It's easy to say he should find work elsewhere. It's not so easy to just go 'elsewhere' when you lack the capital to do that. It costs money to move to a new state, let alone a new country. Michigan is sort of a bad example. A better one is Iraq, with it's 20% unemployment rate, violence and being surrounded by hostile countries, our hypothetical man has nowhere to go, and a measly 1 in 5 chance of getting a job, even a lousy one.
Bush is a wealthy man, so I'm not surprised he got past his drinking problem. Heck, I'm surprised he had one the first place.
Exeptions to the rule ( Bill Clinton and Sheldon Adelson) prove nothing. Our society, thanks to technology, is changing rapidly, allowing many people to move up quickly. Whose to say things will stay that way? Are you willing to risk maybe a thousand years of dark ages betting on that? What I'm worried about is a small group of absolutely wealthy hording nearly all of mankind's wealth and capital to the detriment of everyone else, simply because they can. With the gap between rich and poor growing every year (and with it being a pretty huge gap right up until about the end of WWII, or in other words the first several thousand years of recorded history), I think this is a valid worry that ought to be addressed with something more substantial than blaming the poor for being poor.
The rich use their wealth to protect and perpetuate their power. The poor aren't just poor because they make bad decisions, they're poor because it's hard to stop a downward spiral.
You say people in America are only truly poor "by choice". But does an uneducated girl whose father abandoned her at birth have that much choice when she gets pregnant? Sure, she can say no, but is she really equipped to do that? Does the guy in Michigan growing up in what's left of an industrial town have what it takes to say no to the booze that drowns out the misery of his situation? Did George Bush choose to be rich? What about Dick Cheney (who got nearly all of his wealth from gov't contracts, buyouts and subsidies he obtained with his connections).
People don't choose to be rich and poor, it's mostly blind luck (or lack thereof) and nepotism. The real problem, the one you haven't considered, is what happens when the rich get so entrenched the poor can't move up. You saw that in 17th century Europe. There's an opera house in Berlin I think it is that couldn't be built today, because you couldn't get society to dedicate that much of it's resources to something as frivolous as an opera house. It's that kind of abuse of wealth that we're heading towards.
if the Rich are left to hoard all the wealth, there's no capital flow to encourage new businesses and developments in science. Society stagnants and things got to hell for all but the very Rich and an small middle class serving them. This is how it worked for thousands of years until a couple of big wars and plagues depleted the supply of cheap labor ( and hindered the flow of cheap labor ), and this is where we're headin back to.
It will include an improved add-on experience, provide an extensible bookmarks back-end platform, add more support for web services "to act as content handlers" - all of which show that Internet Explorer wants to be an independent information broker rather than a simple HTML renderer in its next version. Oh, and it'll come up not long after Firefox v.3...
The people in those countries don't think they know any better, they just want it. All of it. And I do know better. As a recovering loser, who hangs out with and knows lots and lots of losers, I can honestly say I know better than a good percentage of the population. Shit, I can at least say I know better than the poor idiots below the poverty line that vote republican....
what most people think is 'necessary' falls far short of what actually is.
And what about corporations which have no moral obligations to aid the needy and in fact have a moral obligation (to their stockholders) to not only _not_ aid the needy, but to create more needy so that their shareholders can benefit from the pool of cheap labor?
And yeah, I don't have a hell of a lot of faith in my fellow man. One quick glance around any part of Darfur, Afghanistan, South America, Mexico, Iraq, Iran, Haiti, New Jersey... doesn't exactly encourage me.
That's the whole point of society. Please move to any one of several chaotic African nations currently in anarchy and you can hold onto every meager scrap you can obtain in that hell hole. Meanwhile, me and my friends are moving to Canada. They have socialized medicine and it tastes like maple syrup.
Joke's aside, you give up lots of freedoms for the benefit of society so that you can reap your own benefits. e.g. your doctor went to schools funded largely by your tax dollars...
I just want a minimum guaranteed standard of living for all mankind, and one that is as high as possible.
The problem with your attitude is, you're too focused on the 'fruits of your labor', and not enough on improving your overall standard of living. You're so concerned with the though of a few stray dollars going to someone undeserving that you're easily manipulated into working harder for less. Not trying to be insulting (although there's really no less blunt way I can say the above:) ), but what's it matter if 2/3'rds of your 'income' goes to social programs when you've got everything you really want and need? On the other hand, if you keep every penny you earn, but work 60 hours a week and die from lack of medicine, then you've got a problem there too. Yeah, I'm using extremes here, but it's certainly true that the rich and powerful exploit your desire to keep all those 'fruits of labor' to hold onto their wealth. I like to call this the "Bill Gates" syndrome: almost nobody is every going to be as rich as Bill Gates but damned if we'll touch his enormous wealth because we all lust after it ourselves, and if we take it away from him, we can't have it ourselves. The sad part is we'll never have that wealth, and we all suffer for allowing him to have it...
but should it? Do we, as a race, really want life to be Dog eat dog? I know the rich and wealthy do, since they benefit enormously from the struggle. Me? I'm not so Rich and Powerful, so I'm more of a social welfare / safety net kind of guy. In my experience, in a modern, mechanized society there's usually enough people to get the work done even with a few welfare marms anyway (just as long as you an keep the dumb from breeding out of control).
It doesn't free up those people to satisfy some other demand, it impoverishes them. Throughout history, the very, very rich have concentrated wealth, leaving the crumbs for the survivors, even when there was no reason to do so. What changed that, oddly enough, was the Military Industrial Complex along with massive Government spending on public works projects (most of which were roads built to make cars a viable and necessary transportation system so GM could sell you a car:) ). Take away Gov't spending on war and roads, and all that money goes back to the very, very wealthy, and the rest of us poor dumb shlocks do go off to some magical la-la land to satisfy demand, we starve in the streets, and blow each other up with in half hearted attempts to improve the situation (read: sectarian violence).
that I can't already do with share level access and the appropriate client application? Does it handle sharing removable drives better (i.e. mp3 players)? Will I be able to create NT domains with it? Will mapped network drives finally stop periodically vanishing?
I mean, really, does any home user need the kind of performance a networking OS brings? You're gonna have at most 10 computers hooked up to the darn thing. Now, otoh, it might be a cheap way to build a domain:).
I bought a Sony Wega TV not because it was positioned better in the store, but because it was the only flat screen I could find that a) wasn't a $1500 dollar plasma/lcd and b) didn't have a big thick black line at the bottom of the screen because quality control was too lazy to aim the electron gun right.
Could I have spent dozens of hours of my time researching and found cheaper tv that met these requirements? Sure. It wasn't worth the $100 bucks.
because it's the party of losers (this coming from a card Carrying Democrat:) ). Seriously, hear me out. All successful politicians want to be evil and screw the common man, because that's the most efficient way to be a politician. Doing so gets you profitable contacts and large campaign contributions which you use to blanket the airwaves with spin. People who don't subscribe to this kind of government get weeded out by those that do. If you're just not very good at it, you become a Democrat to avoid competing with the Republicans for campaign money. Successful politicians don't have ideals; they couldn't survive in politics against people who don't.
I can't say I like all the tampering science does to our food supply. It's too easy for stuff to get approved and too hard for it it get banned after approval (e.g. Sodium Nitrate). But what are arguments against this? The only real problem I see is the whole patent mess.
First, require all funds be donated by individuals. No more corporate slush funds. Next, make it illegal to donate to a candidate you can't vote for. No more buying off 51% of Congress. Finally, limit what can be donated by an individual to something the a person making the median income could afford (a couple of grand, adjust for inflation as needed). Toss in some really nasty penalties for violating these crimes. Problem solved.
Slashdot Mirror
for people with those damned OEM restore partitions who've had a harddrive crash. Or if you just never got install media.
is the memory tester :). I can't tell you how many OEM 98 boxen I've upgraded to XP only to have the install blow up due to bad RAM ( XP copies the contents of the CD into ram before coping it to harddrive). Wasn't there a /. story years ago about some major OEMs getting caught selling bad RAM because Windows 98 had that quirk where it wouldn't use the top 20% or system RAM unless you hacked the registry?
You can filter most of the crap out if you're looking for something specific, as opposed to just browsing. I've got searching to hunt for PS2 games I want at cheap prices, and have managed to amass a pretty nice library for about 1/4 the cost of buying it in town (literally, I pay an average of about $7 bucks a game).
You still can't filter out everything of course. e.g. Ebay won't let you filter out people who don't list actual shipping charges or who set a reserve price. But for the most part, it's the same few asshats that shill in each category and once you spot them you filter them out specifically, and then you filter out a few common scams (1 CENT GAMES111!!!). Do that and you'll get a pretty clean search.
was an add for Coke?
charge about the same. You don't need a conspiracy for something this obvious. Insurance companies publish rates and check their competitor's published rates, it's obvious. Corrupt election officials take advantage of paper-free electronic polling machines to get Republicans elected, also obvious. Hell, what would be silly is if they even bothered with conspiring together.
except for patenting the Karl Rove Neocon Magic Weather Machine. They publish those things, you know?
cheaper cards have lousy tvout. Also, it's a PITA to find an Nvidia card with good tvout, I finally gave up and bought an ATI card (I'm speaking of last gen's cards, I'm too cheap to buy a current gen card :) ).
anyone who suggests otherwise is just being silly. Ignoring human limitations and blaming the individual for _everything_ is either ignorance or a rhetorical tactic. Put another way, if she was diagnosed mentally ill would you still blame her for choosing wrong?
It's easy to say he should find work elsewhere. It's not so easy to just go 'elsewhere' when you lack the capital to do that. It costs money to move to a new state, let alone a new country. Michigan is sort of a bad example. A better one is Iraq, with it's 20% unemployment rate, violence and being surrounded by hostile countries, our hypothetical man has nowhere to go, and a measly 1 in 5 chance of getting a job, even a lousy one.
Bush is a wealthy man, so I'm not surprised he got past his drinking problem. Heck, I'm surprised he had one the first place.
Exeptions to the rule ( Bill Clinton and Sheldon Adelson) prove nothing. Our society, thanks to technology, is changing rapidly, allowing many people to move up quickly. Whose to say things will stay that way? Are you willing to risk maybe a thousand years of dark ages betting on that? What I'm worried about is a small group of absolutely wealthy hording nearly all of mankind's wealth and capital to the detriment of everyone else, simply because they can. With the gap between rich and poor growing every year (and with it being a pretty huge gap right up until about the end of WWII, or in other words the first several thousand years of recorded history), I think this is a valid worry that ought to be addressed with something more substantial than blaming the poor for being poor.
The rich use their wealth to protect and perpetuate their power. The poor aren't just poor because they make bad decisions, they're poor because it's hard to stop a downward spiral.
You say people in America are only truly poor "by choice". But does an uneducated girl whose father abandoned her at birth have that much choice when she gets pregnant? Sure, she can say no, but is she really equipped to do that? Does the guy in Michigan growing up in what's left of an industrial town have what it takes to say no to the booze that drowns out the misery of his situation? Did George Bush choose to be rich? What about Dick Cheney (who got nearly all of his wealth from gov't contracts, buyouts and subsidies he obtained with his connections).
People don't choose to be rich and poor, it's mostly blind luck (or lack thereof) and nepotism. The real problem, the one you haven't considered, is what happens when the rich get so entrenched the poor can't move up. You saw that in 17th century Europe. There's an opera house in Berlin I think it is that couldn't be built today, because you couldn't get society to dedicate that much of it's resources to something as frivolous as an opera house. It's that kind of abuse of wealth that we're heading towards.
if the Rich are left to hoard all the wealth, there's no capital flow to encourage new businesses and developments in science. Society stagnants and things got to hell for all but the very Rich and an small middle class serving them. This is how it worked for thousands of years until a couple of big wars and plagues depleted the supply of cheap labor ( and hindered the flow of cheap labor ), and this is where we're headin back to.
It will include an improved add-on experience, provide an extensible bookmarks back-end platform, add more support for web services "to act as content handlers" - all of which show that Internet Explorer wants to be an independent information broker rather than a simple HTML renderer in its next version. Oh, and it'll come up not long after Firefox v.3...
:).
It worked last time
The people in those countries don't think they know any better, they just want it. All of it. And I do know better. As a recovering loser, who hangs out with and knows lots and lots of losers, I can honestly say I know better than a good percentage of the population. Shit, I can at least say I know better than the poor idiots below the poverty line that vote republican....
:).
BTW, You read a lot of Ayn Rand, don't you?
what most people think is 'necessary' falls far short of what actually is.
And what about corporations which have no moral obligations to aid the needy and in fact have a moral obligation (to their stockholders) to not only _not_ aid the needy, but to create more needy so that their shareholders can benefit from the pool of cheap labor?
And yeah, I don't have a hell of a lot of faith in my fellow man. One quick glance around any part of Darfur, Afghanistan, South America, Mexico, Iraq, Iran, Haiti, New Jersey... doesn't exactly encourage me.
That's the whole point of society. Please move to any one of several chaotic African nations currently in anarchy and you can hold onto every meager scrap you can obtain in that hell hole. Meanwhile, me and my friends are moving to Canada. They have socialized medicine and it tastes like maple syrup.
Joke's aside, you give up lots of freedoms for the benefit of society so that you can reap your own benefits. e.g. your doctor went to schools funded largely by your tax dollars...
I just want a minimum guaranteed standard of living for all mankind, and one that is as high as possible.
:) ), but what's it matter if 2/3'rds of your 'income' goes to social programs when you've got everything you really want and need? On the other hand, if you keep every penny you earn, but work 60 hours a week and die from lack of medicine, then you've got a problem there too. Yeah, I'm using extremes here, but it's certainly true that the rich and powerful exploit your desire to keep all those 'fruits of labor' to hold onto their wealth. I like to call this the "Bill Gates" syndrome: almost nobody is every going to be as rich as Bill Gates but damned if we'll touch his enormous wealth because we all lust after it ourselves, and if we take it away from him, we can't have it ourselves. The sad part is we'll never have that wealth, and we all suffer for allowing him to have it...
The problem with your attitude is, you're too focused on the 'fruits of your labor', and not enough on improving your overall standard of living. You're so concerned with the though of a few stray dollars going to someone undeserving that you're easily manipulated into working harder for less. Not trying to be insulting (although there's really no less blunt way I can say the above
but should it? Do we, as a race, really want life to be Dog eat dog? I know the rich and wealthy do, since they benefit enormously from the struggle. Me? I'm not so Rich and Powerful, so I'm more of a social welfare / safety net kind of guy. In my experience, in a modern, mechanized society there's usually enough people to get the work done even with a few welfare marms anyway (just as long as you an keep the dumb from breeding out of control).
It doesn't free up those people to satisfy some other demand, it impoverishes them. Throughout history, the very, very rich have concentrated wealth, leaving the crumbs for the survivors, even when there was no reason to do so. What changed that, oddly enough, was the Military Industrial Complex along with massive Government spending on public works projects (most of which were roads built to make cars a viable and necessary transportation system so GM could sell you a car :) ). Take away Gov't spending on war and roads, and all that money goes back to the very, very wealthy, and the rest of us poor dumb shlocks do go off to some magical la-la land to satisfy demand, we starve in the streets, and blow each other up with in half hearted attempts to improve the situation (read: sectarian violence).
I can say this study is wholly and completely inaccurate. Well, that's the diplomatic way to say it anyway ;).
that I can't already do with share level access and the appropriate client application? Does it handle sharing removable drives better (i.e. mp3 players)? Will I be able to create NT domains with it? Will mapped network drives finally stop periodically vanishing?
:).
I mean, really, does any home user need the kind of performance a networking OS brings? You're gonna have at most 10 computers hooked up to the darn thing. Now, otoh, it might be a cheap way to build a domain
It's probably just some engineering nerd's Social Experiment. Maybe see if he can get the coins back at some point.
I bought a Sony Wega TV not because it was positioned better in the store, but because it was the only flat screen I could find that a) wasn't a $1500 dollar plasma/lcd and b) didn't have a big thick black line at the bottom of the screen because quality control was too lazy to aim the electron gun right.
Could I have spent dozens of hours of my time researching and found cheaper tv that met these requirements? Sure. It wasn't worth the $100 bucks.
because it's the party of losers (this coming from a card Carrying Democrat :) ). Seriously, hear me out. All successful politicians want to be evil and screw the common man, because that's the most efficient way to be a politician. Doing so gets you profitable contacts and large campaign contributions which you use to blanket the airwaves with spin. People who don't subscribe to this kind of government get weeded out by those that do. If you're just not very good at it, you become a Democrat to avoid competing with the Republicans for campaign money. Successful politicians don't have ideals; they couldn't survive in politics against people who don't.
I've got 3+ years worth of ps2 games at least, if not more :).
I can't say I like all the tampering science does to our food supply. It's too easy for stuff to get approved and too hard for it it get banned after approval (e.g. Sodium Nitrate). But what are arguments against this? The only real problem I see is the whole patent mess.
First, require all funds be donated by individuals. No more corporate slush funds. Next, make it illegal to donate to a candidate you can't vote for. No more buying off 51% of Congress. Finally, limit what can be donated by an individual to something the a person making the median income could afford (a couple of grand, adjust for inflation as needed). Toss in some really nasty penalties for violating these crimes. Problem solved.
Yeah, it'll never happen, but it's a nice though.