I'm serious here. What obligation does the government have to make sure a premium travel method is available? If airline travel is failing, perhaps it's not meant for the common citizen. I for one would NOT want my taxes raised just so that every shmuck who wanted a plane ticket for cheap could get one.
If you knew that said Slashdot person was extremely mentally unstable and likely to fly off the chain at the slightest provocation, and then you go ahead and provoke them, it damn well is your fault. People with mental disorders are, sadly, best understood akin to animals. If you go poke a tiger in the eye and an orphanage gets mauled because of it, it's a whole lot more your fault than the tiger's.
And you get a "D-, see me after class" for Psychology and Mental Disorders 101. Do at least a little bit of research on depression before you come in here claiming you know how people act. Chances are you wouldn't kill yourself, and I wouldn't kill myself, but we're also probably not suffering from a chemical imbalance in our brains. I mean really, you're arguing that depressed people "just have the blues", which is NOT true.
Do you honestly, really, truly believe that the RIAA has any clue at all? They're harvesting IPs off of limewire. They might as well put up a sign up sheet on their website saying "We're now on the Honor System for internet downloads. Please fill out this form, including your bank account number and the number of songs you have downloaded, and we'll just bill you for it."
Buckets of Cocks are well known to be predictable in size and weight, the two normal ways of obtaining randomness from them. the change is to a bucket of cookies, which provides considerably more secure randomness. I mean, you've got oatmeal, oatmeal rasin, oreo, etc. Considerably more random than cocks.
Now that's a weak argument if I ever heard one. Most people wouldn't want to be born into poverty either, or with birth defects, or maybe (depending on who you ask), to black parents. Should we go around fixing those problems too because people wouldn't want to be that way? Of course not. Reductio ad absurdum.
I agree that we shouldn't make glowing people (just yet), but come on, there's better ways to argue this than sensibilities.
The "cost" of having embryos, human only in genetics (it certainly doesn't have any brain activity at that point!), that would never develop into humans anyways, be used for research that helps everyone. If this research wasn't being done, those embryos would either have never been formed, or would die with no good done to anyone. Surely you can agree that "Research and then death" is a greater good for all than "just death", when in both cases the fetus never even develops enough to feel?
I'd give you a 10/10 for your post, except that Linux doesn't always behave in ways that are unsurprising. I mean this in the way that the creator of Ruby meant it - an application should always be consistent with itself and its own rules, and those rules should make sense. Hit a nail with a hammer, it goes in or it breaks. Use Linux, and occasionally it's like the nail flies up out of the hole. You ask someone why this happens, and 10% of the time you get told to make a new hammer. Windows has its own surprising quirks, too, but because of its marketshare, people are used to them, and this sadly makes them less of a problem.
Ah yes, thank you for that. Some people are just, well, a little crazy. He repetadly called me a liar despite never backing up his points ever. Oh, and apparently the laptop I'm typing this message on is imaginary.
Acer Aspire 7720. Core 2 Duo 2.1 GHz; 3 GB ram; Geforce 8600 M Gt. Can play Crysis. Gets 4 hours of battery life, easily, on the standard battery.
Sounds like you're just bitter at having gotten ripped off when Dell didn't give a fuck with their XPS systems.
I keep repeating the same thing because you're wrong. High end laptops and good battery life are not mutually exclusive, no matter how hard you want them to be. No matter how much you think your personal experience encompases every situation.
I'm not going to respond to you any more; you've gotten angry, worked up, and condescending without any real reason to. Take a deep breath, do some research, and go after somebody else who you need to prove wrong. Remember, we're talking about laptops; you're talking about as if it were the next political canidate or the salvation of my soul. Being this angry and combatative just makes you look like an overcompensating idiot, something you've been trying so hard to avoid. Chill.
I'm explaining why you are wrong. I guess that's getting you worked up to where you think I'm worked up.
If you're going to constantly bitch about it's battery life, don't fucking buy it.
I have no need to even tackle your other points, devoid of they are of any proof, and they're filled with something called "wrong".
For something so "high end" you'd think that it would be more flexible and configurable. That's my point.
No, your point has been "There is no way a high-end laptop can have good battery life, peroid, so shut up while I post the same thing over and over" My point has been that high-end laptops can, should, and do have adequite battery life on power save mode, and the performance loss is reasonable. Watch as you respond, yet again, that "You shouldn't buy a high-end laptop if you want battery life! There's only one thing you can have at once! I'm stuck in 1999!"
My grandparents owned the first mass market vehicle to do that. It sucked. The dealerships were ordered to do everything possible to disable that feature. And, with all the problems it caused, it didn't gain much mileage. The same is true with the current models that do it.
Wow, your knowledge about the first model of something is really applicable to models today. Let's discuss about how the Pentium 1 had awful rounding errors, so all versions since must because I think it probably does. Sounds like you have no idea how it works today and just used your experience with your grandparent's vehicle as universal truth. And you think I don't know what I'm talking about. Get a freakin' clue.
You're getting very worked up about laptops. Not only that, you're refusing to acknowledge that high-end laptops can even run in a power save mode. While a Ferrari isn't a gas-saving car, there are now vehicles that can switch off cylinders when they're not needed to improve mileage. Which is a much, much better analogy to a laptop.
I recommend you stop posting here before people start thinking you know what you're talking about.
Why would you turn things down when you're buying the laptop purely for performance?
Um, maybe because you don't need all that performance and you want to extend your battery life? My point is this: if you have higher end hardware, why can't it be turned down, so you only need one tool?
Why do high-end laptops necessarily get less battery life? Why can't things be "turned down"? I thought things like Intel's Speedstep technology existed for a reason.
Battery life. It absolutely smokes the other three systems, and while it is in last place, it's almost tied for 3rd. It's an impressive machine. In my opinion, though, not worth the $3258.00 price tag.
Slashdot Mirror
Once it becomes publicly disclosed it is no longer 0-day. We shouldn't even be having this discussion.
Why do we need to bail out the airlines?
I'm serious here. What obligation does the government have to make sure a premium travel method is available? If airline travel is failing, perhaps it's not meant for the common citizen. I for one would NOT want my taxes raised just so that every shmuck who wanted a plane ticket for cheap could get one.
If you knew that said Slashdot person was extremely mentally unstable and likely to fly off the chain at the slightest provocation, and then you go ahead and provoke them, it damn well is your fault. People with mental disorders are, sadly, best understood akin to animals. If you go poke a tiger in the eye and an orphanage gets mauled because of it, it's a whole lot more your fault than the tiger's.
And you get a "D-, see me after class" for Psychology and Mental Disorders 101. Do at least a little bit of research on depression before you come in here claiming you know how people act. Chances are you wouldn't kill yourself, and I wouldn't kill myself, but we're also probably not suffering from a chemical imbalance in our brains. I mean really, you're arguing that depressed people "just have the blues", which is NOT true.
A history of non-negotiated post-sale contracts not being held up in court?
You are now imagining your mother naked manually.
Do you honestly, really, truly believe that the RIAA has any clue at all? They're harvesting IPs off of limewire. They might as well put up a sign up sheet on their website saying "We're now on the Honor System for internet downloads. Please fill out this form, including your bank account number and the number of songs you have downloaded, and we'll just bill you for it."
Ahh, Peerguardian. Once they have a Vista client out...
By what I've seen of the RIAA, they could make good use of the choke on a bucket of cocks function.
Buckets of Cocks are well known to be predictable in size and weight, the two normal ways of obtaining randomness from them. the change is to a bucket of cookies, which provides considerably more secure randomness. I mean, you've got oatmeal, oatmeal rasin, oreo, etc. Considerably more random than cocks.
Now that's a weak argument if I ever heard one. Most people wouldn't want to be born into poverty either, or with birth defects, or maybe (depending on who you ask), to black parents. Should we go around fixing those problems too because people wouldn't want to be that way? Of course not. Reductio ad absurdum.
I agree that we shouldn't make glowing people (just yet), but come on, there's better ways to argue this than sensibilities.
The "cost" of having embryos, human only in genetics (it certainly doesn't have any brain activity at that point!), that would never develop into humans anyways, be used for research that helps everyone. If this research wasn't being done, those embryos would either have never been formed, or would die with no good done to anyone. Surely you can agree that "Research and then death" is a greater good for all than "just death", when in both cases the fetus never even develops enough to feel?
Indeed, I remember a few years back turning my GeForce4 Ti 4400 into a Quadro through driver hacks, without ever touching the card's flash.
While I agree 100%, I suspect those "inventors" would use a font that's readable to humans, and thus I have to give them more props than you. Sorry.
I'd give you a 10/10 for your post, except that Linux doesn't always behave in ways that are unsurprising. I mean this in the way that the creator of Ruby meant it - an application should always be consistent with itself and its own rules, and those rules should make sense. Hit a nail with a hammer, it goes in or it breaks. Use Linux, and occasionally it's like the nail flies up out of the hole. You ask someone why this happens, and 10% of the time you get told to make a new hammer. Windows has its own surprising quirks, too, but because of its marketshare, people are used to them, and this sadly makes them less of a problem.
So does Vista Ultimate, but because that's Microsoft, we're unlikely to hear about it here.
Slashdot is about the only place suffering from groupthink that exemplifies the people who point it out.
He's widely believed to be an awful director. I'd rather not watch a movie that gets less than 60% critical approval, much less 20% or even 1%.
Ah yes, thank you for that. Some people are just, well, a little crazy. He repetadly called me a liar despite never backing up his points ever. Oh, and apparently the laptop I'm typing this message on is imaginary.
Oh well. Some people just MUST be right.
Acer Aspire 7720. Core 2 Duo 2.1 GHz; 3 GB ram; Geforce 8600 M Gt. Can play Crysis. Gets 4 hours of battery life, easily, on the standard battery.
Sounds like you're just bitter at having gotten ripped off when Dell didn't give a fuck with their XPS systems.
I keep repeating the same thing because you're wrong. High end laptops and good battery life are not mutually exclusive, no matter how hard you want them to be. No matter how much you think your personal experience encompases every situation.
I'm not going to respond to you any more; you've gotten angry, worked up, and condescending without any real reason to. Take a deep breath, do some research, and go after somebody else who you need to prove wrong. Remember, we're talking about laptops; you're talking about as if it were the next political canidate or the salvation of my soul. Being this angry and combatative just makes you look like an overcompensating idiot, something you've been trying so hard to avoid. Chill.
I have no need to even tackle your other points, devoid of they are of any proof, and they're filled with something called "wrong".No, your point has been "There is no way a high-end laptop can have good battery life, peroid, so shut up while I post the same thing over and over"
My point has been that high-end laptops can, should, and do have adequite battery life on power save mode, and the performance loss is reasonable. Watch as you respond, yet again, that "You shouldn't buy a high-end laptop if you want battery life! There's only one thing you can have at once! I'm stuck in 1999!"Wow, your knowledge about the first model of something is really applicable to models today. Let's discuss about how the Pentium 1 had awful rounding errors, so all versions since must because I think it probably does. Sounds like you have no idea how it works today and just used your experience with your grandparent's vehicle as universal truth.
And you think I don't know what I'm talking about. Get a freakin' clue.
You're getting very worked up about laptops. Not only that, you're refusing to acknowledge that high-end laptops can even run in a power save mode. While a Ferrari isn't a gas-saving car, there are now vehicles that can switch off cylinders when they're not needed to improve mileage. Which is a much, much better analogy to a laptop.
I recommend you stop posting here before people start thinking you know what you're talking about.
Why do high-end laptops necessarily get less battery life? Why can't things be "turned down"? I thought things like Intel's Speedstep technology existed for a reason.
Battery life. It absolutely smokes the other three systems, and while it is in last place, it's almost tied for 3rd. It's an impressive machine. In my opinion, though, not worth the $3258.00 price tag.