Judging from the responses you got to that one, I would say you found the 18%!
For God's sake people, chlorinated tap water will likely contain fewer microbes than spring water, which comes out of the damned GROUND. If you're lucky. Know where aquafina and dasani come from? Chlorinated tap water with some salts added. So you're paying $2 a bottle for what you can get for (essentially) free. Morons.
If you have any questions about your tap water, you have the right to get the full results of the water testing, at http://www.epa.gov/safewater/dwinfo.htm
Here is a link to LA's water.
http://www.ladwp.com/water/quality/Annual/AnnRep01/index.htm
And here's New York's:
http://www.ci.nyc.ny.us/html/dep/html/wsstate.html
I would say a small fraction of the country actually lives in an area where the water is actually hazardous. Both NY and LA were pretty damned good, actually. I've done tests on water, you'd be surprised how good tap water is in most places.
But congratulations on swallowing the FUD of the bottled water industry! I suppose you'll follow suit with the **AA.
Remote merchants use FAR less resources than local ones. The SFPD rarely has to respond to problems at the Amazon offices in Seattle, etc. Any wear and tear to roads, etc caused by delivery trucks should be borne by the freight handlers, and passed onto the merchants that way. By and large, a remote vendor will use basically no local resources.
There has never been a "resources" argument for brick and mortar stores. So my store uses more resources than yours, do I pay more tax? No. Bars use more resources than coffeeshops (ie, cops to break up fights). Do bars pay higher taxes? No. So that argument, while the best one for not taxing the net, doesn't really hold.
To be consistent, you could also argue that all telemarketers, mail order, and online sales should not be taxed even in-state, though they are.
Bottom line is we need a comprehensive tax policy that includes the net. Especially with the steadily blurring line between clicks and bricks. Best case is a tax policy that isn't an obscene burden to collect but which allows localities to collect taxes.
You also have to remember, we (the./ community) tend to be a lot less trusting and paranoid than the rest of the world (rightly or wrongly), and I really don't think most people care about spyware. Given that we're quite the minority, I don't necessarily think the company is so *evil.* If they won't let you have your modem install without the stuff, it's more likely due to inflexible bureaucrats than any conspiracy.
That said, I hate telemarketers and do hold people responsible for the jobs that they hold. Are the Phillip Morris scientists not responsible for their lack of integrity just because "their boss told them so?" Arguements of "I was following orders" don't fly too well.
I would have to be on the verge of death from starvation to work as a telemarketer. If then.
You might want t check this out a little further - in terms of vision, for instance, initial processing of images from right eye is done by the left side of the brain, and vice versa. (The wiring is strangely crossed). Of course, different functions that use visual info are on either the right or left side, respectively. Because of the bandwidth choke between hemishpheres, info from different eyes will get to functional areas of the brain at different rates.
As you might imagine, some visual tasks are traditionally "right brain" and some are "left brain." So, in tasks where subjects were required to use only one eye, for instance the left eye, they would do better at "right brain" activities. Cover up the other eye, and they would do better (faster) in "left brain" tasks.
And again, the reason is exactly the same as in processors. Info transfer is MUCH faster within hemispheres as is is between them. Similarly, info transfer within a chip is much faster than the front side bus speed, which is the rate at which info would transfer between chips. So one fast chip is always preferable to two slower chips if I have a fixed amount of transistors to work with.
And our brains would work better, too, if it weren't for that info choke between hemispheres. That's one of the disadvantages of bilateral symmetry in humans.
...must have been anti-trust law. Assuming that high market share=good products is a pretty dangerous fallacy that big business would very much like you to buy into. You forget anticompetitive business practices and such that keep their market share where it is.
And that's another good point. If you do "predict" powerball numbers, what you've done is overtrained your network on the same input data, and the model is worthless. A lot of people think ANN's are infallible. They're not. I swear, if they weren't called "neural," no one would give them this mystique.
"Do it in parallel" is one of those great buzzwords in tech that claims to solve all problems, but ends up failing (for what it's worth, "Use a neual net!" is another of my favorites).
People, the costs of parallelizing a given problem are LARGE. It works best for iterative problems, where you require little inter-processor communication. By splitting your chip in two (effectively), you are reducing the communication between the two parts to that of the front-side bus, which is much slower than within-chip communication. Folding@home works in parallel because the jobs are easily distributed. But many things don't work so well. Imagine a graphics card trying to do this, frame rates would be like.002 fps.
This is why, if I have a certain number of transitors to "play" with, the fastest chip has them all on one die. Parallelizaion is only done when you just can't find a chip fast enough to do what you want to do (Think Beowulf clusters).
And actually, our brain models best, I think, as a single chip, maybe as a 2-chip system. Yes, it has regions devoted to different tasks, but so does a single chip. Also, the fact that our brains have two hemispheres is a severe detriment - this is why we can only control one of our hands particularly well. The reason is the same as with a 2-processor PC - information transfer is slow between the boundary. If we had a one-hemisphere brain, we would be much more capable.
I looked at that one today. That's the one that says "You can't publish.NET benchmarks" (because.NET sucks) and "This software is under warranty, and we'll try to fix it, but if the fix doesn't work, tough shit."
I'm thinking of starting a stupid EULA collection.
The major problem is how the network fixes itself. Nodes will go down - either because they just do, or because some sysadmin is going to notice trafic on some strange port.
I could see one node saying "Hey, my neighbor disappeared, we need a new node," but he doesn't know the neighbor's other neighbor. This is exactly like a linked list - if you delete a node before switching the pointers around, you've just created a memory leak.
Also, to make this thing branch, won't each node need at least three neighbors?
Just because nerual nets sound "smart" and we want a "smart" program doesn't mean they're appropriate here. As already mentioned, what are you going to train it with? Second, is the problem highly nonlinear? If not, simpler solutions exist. Best yet, a heuristic (set of rules) based system would make more sense. Give it a set of conditions under which it can alter its behavior - and I think that there are reasonable ways of determining such courses of action before hand.
Remember, this thing needs to be small, not bloated.
Nowhere in the Bill of Rights does it say that citizens must always reveal information simply because an agent of the government asks for it.
Don't know if you're a US citizen or not, but you seem to be under the misimpression that subpoenas aren't binding. They are. That said, the only "agent" who has that right is a judge.
For reference:
\Sub*p[oe]"na\, n. A writ commanding the attendance in court, as a witness, of the person on whom it is served, under a penalty; the process by which a defendant in equity is commanded to appear and answer the plaintiff's bill.
Being arrested for merely "crossing a line" is absurd, a tactic of a totalitarian regime.
Then I suppose that you are in favor of breaking and entering? I wouldn't want that line called my "front door" to get in your way.
You seem to be under the false impression that laws=totalitarian government. Laws are things that restrict your freedom, by nature. If restricting your freedom=totalitarianism, then anything more restrictive than anarchy is totalitarian. In the US case, we pick the people restricting our freedom, and implicitly agree with the bulk of those decisions. Try to think outside the black/white world.
This may be almost a replacement for ISS. It's become fairly obvious that certain nations (*ahem Russia*) are intent on using the ISS as SpaceDisney, letting any jackass with $20M up there. So NASA might be trying to get their own space station back. ISS was really a political animal anyway (Congress loved the idea of unity or some similar crap).
Look, this doesn't have to hold up in court. What he is doing is extorting - many companies have already settled. These are small companies that have limited resources, and that's who they pick on. Finally, a group of defendants is pooling resources, and yes, he will lose. But not before recouping his costs of the patent, and a whole lot more.
Of course, all of this was in the original article...is there any way./ can IP restrict the comment page to those who actually READ the article?
1. A whistle-blower doesn't have secrets. That's the nature of the whistle he's blowing.
2. Yes, violating a subpoena is contempt of court. It applies to me, you, and reporters. Are we supposed to allow them certain rights based on their occupation? They're not exactly doctors.
3. No one ever gave you or anyone the right to keep your mouth shut. Our society values the right to safety over that of silence. Even the right to free speech has exceptions, including, specifically, public hazard.
5. A government needs secrets to protect its populace. Should reporters be allowed access to troop positions? Names of spies? That wouldn't work too well.
4. As I mentioned, certain agencies have been a bit overzealous, especially recently. But that wasn't the reasons for the US rank.
The article points out two specific reasons for the US Rank of 17.
First, the US imprisons reporters who do not reveal sources in court when subpoenaed. But nowhere in the Constitution are journalists given some sort of doctor-patient or lawyer-client confidentiality. Indeed, this is not a restriction of the press. They can still write what they want - they may simply have to spill their source if relevant to a crime. One can argue that this may hurt their livelihood if future sources elect not to talk to them for fear of being turned over, but this isn't a responsibility of a society.
Second, they argue that many security perimeters were established around buildings after September 11, and that reporters were arrested for crossing them. Shocking. You mean that reporters were arrested for blatantly commiting a crime? They should be arrested, just as I would have been. Reporters seem to think that their occupation gives them some license to break laws that apply to the rest of us. It doesn't, and shouldn't.
Ultimately, I don't think we necessarily have the most free press. There are a lot of secrets, but military and intelligence secrets should be just that. A lot of institutions blatantly violate the FOIA. But the arguments put forth by the organization that made the report are not in the least compelling.
For the majority of you who don't read the articles, they DO have contact info for PanIP at www.youmaybenext.com/who.html.;)
Unfortunately, their site seems to be removed (www.panip.com), though it gives you a directory listing. I'm surprised this site is still standing.
Also, is there any way that the./ community can help on this one? Make our views known to rmercado37@yahoo.com and info@panip.com?
I wonder if the victims' organization takes donations to their defense fund? I'd throw them $10, how about the rest of you?
Linux is what you want it to be
on
Linux 3.0
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
when people start complaining about how hard it is to install and configure. Because in the end it seems these people don't realize anymore that they are complaining about Linux itself.
What a bunch of garbage. Who the hell said that Linux is supposed to be hard? Why? So you can be an 3!337 hacker when you get it installed? That attitude is why linux doesn't take off on the desktop - because when newbies interested in it look for help, all they hear is "RTFM." Yeah, those manuals are real easy to read.
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that linux is a religion, and that we should all be bowing down to the Great God Penguin. Crap on that. Me personally, I'm not looking for an OS to become my hobby. I'm not looking to spend hours installing a damned window manager.
All I'm looking for is an OS that works, that I can customize aspects of if I like, that comes with a good compiler, that doesn't crash, and that isn't too bloated. Linux fits all of these requirements. I personally use Slackware, which was because I wanted to learn some about the guts of Linux, but I also wanted intelligent default configurations.
However, none of this gives me, you, or anyone else the right to insult someone because they don't want to spend hours, or days, on an install. Some people have jobs, and social lives, that together preclude spending such time on an OS. For people who want an OS that just WORKS and gives them the flexibility to do what they nead to do, a distro like Mandrake may make sense. This doesn't mean that they're less "linux" than you.
I think some people need to re-evaluate why they use linux in the first place. Is it because they are using it as a replacement for a social life? A replacement for religion? An outlet for M$ hatred? Because they like hacking open OS's? Or because it just does what they want it to? Personally, I'm of the opinion that the first three groups can just piss off.
No shit. I can't wait until Linux 3.2 comes out so people stop it with the damned 3.1 joke. I guess we're safe then until Linux 95.0 comes out, but at this rate, we'll all be dead, fortunately.
You can still use Yahoo, Netscape, MSN, altavista, or anyone else. I love how journalists who have no computer, science, or C/S training never fail to mangle tech stories.
The most important thing for the movie industry is that teenagers still need an excuse to get out of the house and go make out. Teenagers can't stay home and do it - that might be a little sick with Mom and Dad there. So they go watch crappy movies, then go get their rocks off. This will continue to happen.
1. They need to do this to remain competitive.
Not likely. None of them gets an edge if they all do it. Whoever the "mover" on this idea was should have realized it.
2. Returns cost them a ton, and anyway their products are SO reliable it doesn't matter
These seem a bit contradictory. If products are SO reiable, then that would seem to mitigate the costs of returns, wouldn't it? And this doesn't help them on DOA at all - the warranty is still a year - only on long-term failure.
Basically what they are saying is long-term failures aren't their fault, or that they get a lot of non-defcetive returns. But I would think that the non-defective returns are from the guy who couldn't figure out how to use it - not the guy who used it for four years before it broke.
I think they've come to realize that all their engineering hasn't increased the half-life of hard drives, though perhaps it has reduced the DOA rate. So they maintain the part of the warranty that is probably the cheapest, and saying to hell with the rest of us.
Slashdot Mirror
Judging from the responses you got to that one, I would say you found the 18%!
1 /index.htm
l
For God's sake people, chlorinated tap water will likely contain fewer microbes than spring water, which comes out of the damned GROUND. If you're lucky. Know where aquafina and dasani come from? Chlorinated tap water with some salts added. So you're paying $2 a bottle for what you can get for (essentially) free. Morons.
If you have any questions about your tap water, you have the right to get the full results of the water testing, at http://www.epa.gov/safewater/dwinfo.htm
Here is a link to LA's water.
http://www.ladwp.com/water/quality/Annual/AnnRep0
And here's New York's:
http://www.ci.nyc.ny.us/html/dep/html/wsstate.htm
I would say a small fraction of the country actually lives in an area where the water is actually hazardous. Both NY and LA were pretty damned good, actually. I've done tests on water, you'd be surprised how good tap water is in most places.
But congratulations on swallowing the FUD of the bottled water industry! I suppose you'll follow suit with the **AA.
Remote merchants use FAR less resources than local ones. The SFPD rarely has to respond to problems at the Amazon offices in Seattle, etc. Any wear and tear to roads, etc caused by delivery trucks should be borne by the freight handlers, and passed onto the merchants that way. By and large, a remote vendor will use basically no local resources.
There has never been a "resources" argument for brick and mortar stores. So my store uses more resources than yours, do I pay more tax? No. Bars use more resources than coffeeshops (ie, cops to break up fights). Do bars pay higher taxes? No. So that argument, while the best one for not taxing the net, doesn't really hold.
To be consistent, you could also argue that all telemarketers, mail order, and online sales should not be taxed even in-state, though they are.
Bottom line is we need a comprehensive tax policy that includes the net. Especially with the steadily blurring line between clicks and bricks. Best case is a tax policy that isn't an obscene burden to collect but which allows localities to collect taxes.
You also have to remember, we (the ./ community) tend to be a lot less trusting and paranoid than the rest of the world (rightly or wrongly), and I really don't think most people care about spyware. Given that we're quite the minority, I don't necessarily think the company is so *evil.* If they won't let you have your modem install without the stuff, it's more likely due to inflexible bureaucrats than any conspiracy.
That said, I hate telemarketers and do hold people responsible for the jobs that they hold. Are the Phillip Morris scientists not responsible for their lack of integrity just because "their boss told them so?" Arguements of "I was following orders" don't fly too well.
I would have to be on the verge of death from starvation to work as a telemarketer. If then.
You might want t check this out a little further - in terms of vision, for instance, initial processing of images from right eye is done by the left side of the brain, and vice versa. (The wiring is strangely crossed). Of course, different functions that use visual info are on either the right or left side, respectively. Because of the bandwidth choke between hemishpheres, info from different eyes will get to functional areas of the brain at different rates.
As you might imagine, some visual tasks are traditionally "right brain" and some are "left brain." So, in tasks where subjects were required to use only one eye, for instance the left eye, they would do better at "right brain" activities. Cover up the other eye, and they would do better (faster) in "left brain" tasks.
And again, the reason is exactly the same as in processors. Info transfer is MUCH faster within hemispheres as is is between them. Similarly, info transfer within a chip is much faster than the front side bus speed, which is the rate at which info would transfer between chips. So one fast chip is always preferable to two slower chips if I have a fixed amount of transistors to work with.
And our brains would work better, too, if it weren't for that info choke between hemispheres. That's one of the disadvantages of bilateral symmetry in humans.
...must have been anti-trust law. Assuming that high market share=good products is a pretty dangerous fallacy that big business would very much like you to buy into. You forget anticompetitive business practices and such that keep their market share where it is.
And that's another good point. If you do "predict" powerball numbers, what you've done is overtrained your network on the same input data, and the model is worthless. A lot of people think ANN's are infallible. They're not. I swear, if they weren't called "neural," no one would give them this mystique.
"Do it in parallel" is one of those great buzzwords in tech that claims to solve all problems, but ends up failing (for what it's worth, "Use a neual net!" is another of my favorites).
.002 fps.
People, the costs of parallelizing a given problem are LARGE. It works best for iterative problems, where you require little inter-processor communication. By splitting your chip in two (effectively), you are reducing the communication between the two parts to that of the front-side bus, which is much slower than within-chip communication. Folding@home works in parallel because the jobs are easily distributed. But many things don't work so well. Imagine a graphics card trying to do this, frame rates would be like
This is why, if I have a certain number of transitors to "play" with, the fastest chip has them all on one die. Parallelizaion is only done when you just can't find a chip fast enough to do what you want to do (Think Beowulf clusters).
And actually, our brain models best, I think, as a single chip, maybe as a 2-chip system. Yes, it has regions devoted to different tasks, but so does a single chip. Also, the fact that our brains have two hemispheres is a severe detriment - this is why we can only control one of our hands particularly well. The reason is the same as with a 2-processor PC - information transfer is slow between the boundary. If we had a one-hemisphere brain, we would be much more capable.
I looked at that one today. That's the one that says "You can't publish .NET benchmarks" (because .NET sucks) and "This software is under warranty, and we'll try to fix it, but if the fix doesn't work, tough shit."
I'm thinking of starting a stupid EULA collection.
The major problem is how the network fixes itself. Nodes will go down - either because they just do, or because some sysadmin is going to notice trafic on some strange port.
I could see one node saying "Hey, my neighbor disappeared, we need a new node," but he doesn't know the neighbor's other neighbor. This is exactly like a linked list - if you delete a node before switching the pointers around, you've just created a memory leak.
Also, to make this thing branch, won't each node need at least three neighbors?
Just because nerual nets sound "smart" and we want a "smart" program doesn't mean they're appropriate here. As already mentioned, what are you going to train it with? Second, is the problem highly nonlinear? If not, simpler solutions exist. Best yet, a heuristic (set of rules) based system would make more sense. Give it a set of conditions under which it can alter its behavior - and I think that there are reasonable ways of determining such courses of action before hand.
Remember, this thing needs to be small, not bloated.
"We don't believe you get a viable economic model in opt-in."
Translation: We know no one wants spam, and we don't give a shit. Bunch of savages.
Nowhere in the Bill of Rights does it say that citizens must always reveal information simply because an agent of the government asks for it.
Don't know if you're a US citizen or not, but you seem to be under the misimpression that subpoenas aren't binding. They are. That said, the only "agent" who has that right is a judge.
For reference:
\Sub*p[oe]"na\, n. A writ commanding the attendance in court, as a witness, of the person on whom it is served, under a penalty; the process by which a defendant in equity is commanded to appear and answer the plaintiff's bill.
Being arrested for merely "crossing a line" is absurd, a tactic of a totalitarian regime.
Then I suppose that you are in favor of breaking and entering? I wouldn't want that line called my "front door" to get in your way.
You seem to be under the false impression that laws=totalitarian government. Laws are things that restrict your freedom, by nature. If restricting your freedom=totalitarianism, then anything more restrictive than anarchy is totalitarian. In the US case, we pick the people restricting our freedom, and implicitly agree with the bulk of those decisions. Try to think outside the black/white world.
This may be almost a replacement for ISS. It's become fairly obvious that certain nations (*ahem Russia*) are intent on using the ISS as SpaceDisney, letting any jackass with $20M up there. So NASA might be trying to get their own space station back. ISS was really a political animal anyway (Congress loved the idea of unity or some similar crap).
When was the Fifth Amendment repealled? And what happend to Mirander (sp?) - the bit about "you do not have to say anything..." ?
Allright, with the incredibly obvious exception of self-incrimination. And whistle-blowers keep their identities, not their information, secret.
Look, this doesn't have to hold up in court. What he is doing is extorting - many companies have already settled. These are small companies that have limited resources, and that's who they pick on. Finally, a group of defendants is pooling resources, and yes, he will lose. But not before recouping his costs of the patent, and a whole lot more.
./ can IP restrict the comment page to those who actually READ the article?
Of course, all of this was in the original article...is there any way
1. A whistle-blower doesn't have secrets. That's the nature of the whistle he's blowing.
2. Yes, violating a subpoena is contempt of court. It applies to me, you, and reporters. Are we supposed to allow them certain rights based on their occupation? They're not exactly doctors.
3. No one ever gave you or anyone the right to keep your mouth shut. Our society values the right to safety over that of silence. Even the right to free speech has exceptions, including, specifically, public hazard.
5. A government needs secrets to protect its populace. Should reporters be allowed access to troop positions? Names of spies? That wouldn't work too well.
4. As I mentioned, certain agencies have been a bit overzealous, especially recently. But that wasn't the reasons for the US rank.
The article points out two specific reasons for the US Rank of 17.
First, the US imprisons reporters who do not reveal sources in court when subpoenaed. But nowhere in the Constitution are journalists given some sort of doctor-patient or lawyer-client confidentiality. Indeed, this is not a restriction of the press. They can still write what they want - they may simply have to spill their source if relevant to a crime. One can argue that this may hurt their livelihood if future sources elect not to talk to them for fear of being turned over, but this isn't a responsibility of a society.
Second, they argue that many security perimeters were established around buildings after September 11, and that reporters were arrested for crossing them. Shocking. You mean that reporters were arrested for blatantly commiting a crime? They should be arrested, just as I would have been. Reporters seem to think that their occupation gives them some license to break laws that apply to the rest of us. It doesn't, and shouldn't.
Ultimately, I don't think we necessarily have the most free press. There are a lot of secrets, but military and intelligence secrets should be just that. A lot of institutions blatantly violate the FOIA. But the arguments put forth by the organization that made the report are not in the least compelling.
For the majority of you who don't read the articles, they DO have contact info for PanIP at ;)
./ community can help on this one? Make our views known to rmercado37@yahoo.com and info@panip.com?
www.youmaybenext.com/who.html.
Unfortunately, their site seems to be removed (www.panip.com), though it gives you a directory listing. I'm surprised this site is still standing.
Also, is there any way that the
I wonder if the victims' organization takes donations to their defense fund? I'd throw them $10, how about the rest of you?
when people start complaining about how hard it is to install and configure. Because in the end it seems these people don't realize anymore that they are complaining about Linux itself.
What a bunch of garbage. Who the hell said that Linux is supposed to be hard? Why? So you can be an 3!337 hacker when you get it installed? That attitude is why linux doesn't take off on the desktop - because when newbies interested in it look for help, all they hear is "RTFM." Yeah, those manuals are real easy to read.
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that linux is a religion, and that we should all be bowing down to the Great God Penguin. Crap on that. Me personally, I'm not looking for an OS to become my hobby. I'm not looking to spend hours installing a damned window manager.
All I'm looking for is an OS that works, that I can customize aspects of if I like, that comes with a good compiler, that doesn't crash, and that isn't too bloated. Linux fits all of these requirements. I personally use Slackware, which was because I wanted to learn some about the guts of Linux, but I also wanted intelligent default configurations.
However, none of this gives me, you, or anyone else the right to insult someone because they don't want to spend hours, or days, on an install. Some people have jobs, and social lives, that together preclude spending such time on an OS. For people who want an OS that just WORKS and gives them the flexibility to do what they nead to do, a distro like Mandrake may make sense. This doesn't mean that they're less "linux" than you.
I think some people need to re-evaluate why they use linux in the first place. Is it because they are using it as a replacement for a social life? A replacement for religion? An outlet for M$ hatred? Because they like hacking open OS's? Or because it just does what they want it to? Personally, I'm of the opinion that the first three groups can just piss off.
No shit. I can't wait until Linux 3.2 comes out so people stop it with the damned 3.1 joke. I guess we're safe then until Linux 95.0 comes out, but at this rate, we'll all be dead, fortunately.
You can still use Yahoo, Netscape, MSN, altavista, or anyone else. I love how journalists who have no computer, science, or C/S training never fail to mangle tech stories.
The most important thing for the movie industry is that teenagers still need an excuse to get out of the house and go make out. Teenagers can't stay home and do it - that might be a little sick with Mom and Dad there. So they go watch crappy movies, then go get their rocks off. This will continue to happen.
Please tell me you're not the guy who actually buys the extended warranty that costs 1/3 as much as the actual product.
They make basically two points, and both suck.
1. They need to do this to remain competitive.
Not likely. None of them gets an edge if they all do it. Whoever the "mover" on this idea was should have realized it.
2. Returns cost them a ton, and anyway their products are SO reliable it doesn't matter
These seem a bit contradictory. If products are SO reiable, then that would seem to mitigate the costs of returns, wouldn't it? And this doesn't help them on DOA at all - the warranty is still a year - only on long-term failure.
Basically what they are saying is long-term failures aren't their fault, or that they get a lot of non-defcetive returns. But I would think that the non-defective returns are from the guy who couldn't figure out how to use it - not the guy who used it for four years before it broke.
I think they've come to realize that all their engineering hasn't increased the half-life of hard drives, though perhaps it has reduced the DOA rate. So they maintain the part of the warranty that is probably the cheapest, and saying to hell with the rest of us.
THanks a lot guys.
What would the MPAA/RIAA say in response to an email like that, I wonder.
...Best...SouthPark....ever...
What, is that kind of like "What would Brian Boitano do?"