I have my own open source project at sourceforge (I'm posting anonymously for a reason) and I wouldn't dream of releasing crap like that.
The key word here is "releasing". Mozilla hasn't been released yet. It's not even officially in beta. But it's pretty good. I'm using it right now - the latest nightly build. If you let people have access to your tree every night, I'm sure there would be some builds that suck.
Actually, I think there are probably as many casual visitors as members, which more than makes up for multiple accounts.
The band poll yesterday got over 1,000,000 votes. I admit some of that was probably ballot stuffing. But I'd bet slashdot gets well over 100,000 page views per day . Many of those are casual visitors who are unique from the day before.
Another point - if you are against this, a personal boycott, as small of an effect as it may have, is the right thing to do. I can't stand it when people say "I believe in that, but I'm not going to do it because it won't do any good." These are the same people who go to the polls and vote for the lesser of the evils. If you don't like any of the candidates, WRITE SOMEONE IN. Who cares if they win? At least you don't look back and say "man, that guy was evil, but I voted for him." Waiting to boycott because you're not sure if anyone else will is the same thing.
Oh. Really. Well, I guess it's understandable that you overlook Sun and Oracle and IBM and Adobe and Corel and all those other minor little companies that exercise those exact same rights.
No matter who pretends to exercise them, that still doesn't make them rights. They are exercising a unilateral extension of contract law, which is generally not legitimately enforceable. They do this to try and prevent fair use. However, fair use still stands, because it is the condition under which copyright law exists.
License agreements operate under the smokescreen of copyright law, when really they are more closely related to contract law. By getting someone to agree to a contract, you can give yourself any "rights" you want to. The problem with license agreements is that they try to take away the fair rights of the consumer without that consumer's actual agreement. This generally makes the contract invalid. In all reality, the only basis for license agreements is fear. (Of course, if you get right down to it, that's the basis of law itself.)
I've been thinking the same thing. There is supposed to be a big AMD price break on September 20th. The 1000 should drop below $500, possibly the low $400 range. I think by January it should be in the $200 range. That's what you call cheap power.
Don' cha love progress? (For pricing reasons at least.)
Actually, Compaq has been in the Athlon camp for their 1 Ghz machines lately. Dell is strictly Intel (and probably always will be, because of Intel advertising co-ops). Compaq, Gateway, and IBM are primarily AMD.
They are talking about putting a PLL (Phase Locked Loop) circuit in during marking, so the processor will only work at the proper FSB setting. Hasn't happened yet, but I expect it happen soon.
In order to piss vapor, it would have to be heavier than air. And compressed somehow...
But anyhow, I agree with you. I'm not sure why they're doing a paper launch of the 1.13 Ghz when you can't even buy the 1 Ghz in the open market yet.
In the weekly pricewatch comparison, the Athlon 1 Ghz has over 25 listings, and the PIII 1 Ghz has zero, zilch, aught, naught, cipher. None.
The Thunderbird 1.1 Ghz will be out about August 15th, and will be shipping in quantity about that day. The Pentium III 1.13 Ghz will be "out" July 31st, but I doubt you'll see it in the open market (i.e. outside a Dell machine) before October.
Yes, I do understand the purpose of government. I also understand that once most laws are passed, they are never repealed. And the longer they are on the books, the more open they are to interpretation. What you get is a long term "solution" to a short term problem. It called a knee-jerk reaction, for lack of a better term.
The government is not in charge of speech, or expression. They are not even in charge of "pretty", though many city governments have begun to think they are.
The problem is that with movies, it is a voluntary act of the industry, not a law.
If the industry decided, based on parent pressure, that this is a good idea, that is acceptable. If the government mandates it by law, it is government censorship, which is a very bad thing.
The reason it is a bad thing is because the government is then responsible for defining "violence", "sexuality", and "offensive". They can then whittle away as they choose at these definitions. They may even do it very, very slowly, so we don't feel oppressed.
That's why the first amendment must remain an absolute. It the whittle away, or slippery slope, theory of gradual opression of clueless masses.
Let the industry take care of this if they think it is necessary. The people can even boycott arcades that offend them. But this law needs to be ruled unconstitutional.
Not yet, there is still the fact that it will take approximately 6 months for them to get the product to market, and 6 months to get working drivers.
This particular card is the exception to that rule. The card is shipping, and from the reviews I've read, the drivers seem pretty good.
Sorry I got a ATI Rage Fury MAXX and I'm rather pissed that the card works in Win 9x/NT and Linux/*BSD with XFree86 3.3.6+ but doesn't work under Windows 2000 because they cannot get windows to activate the second chip? WTF?
As far as I know, NO manufacturer has gotten mutiple graphics chips to work under Windows 2000. The Voodoo 5 might work by now.
It has something to do with the driver architecture of Windows 2000. So you should be bitching at Microsoft, not ATI. Anyway, bitching at Microsoft might gain you Slashdot karma points.
Actually, both the Rage II and Rage 128 were intended to have leading edge performance, but each of them came out six months or so later than they planned, which put them in the "slightly below average" category.
One good thing about ATI - their business performance and 2D quality have always been very good. For Desktop Publishing applications, audio recording apps, and similar uses, I've always recommended ATI. Well, that or Matrox. (Also Canadian, which Tom would find very relavent)
Another point - this card seems to scale well to higher resolutions and bit levels. Because of that, I'd say it is a better card than the GeForce 2. Who needs 120 frames a second at low resolution, when your monitor only works well at about 85 frames anyway? If you can do 85 frames per second, and do it at any resolution and bit level you choose, I think that should be the goal of a fast video card.
No offense, but you are really missing the point. Whether or not there is any philosophical or ethical reasoning to it, the letter of the law has been violated. At the level the case is at now, that is all the judge is allowed to look at.
Not true. The judge is ALLOWED to look at whatever areas of the case he wishes to. The constitution is the supreme law of the land, and may be considered at any level of court.
The judge however, seems UNWILLING to look at anything but a very narrow, closeminded view of this case. This indicates to me that he has a prior bias.
Such is life and the legal system, and carping about how unfair it is does little to alter the fact.
The fact is that the legal system attempts to preserve the illusion of fairness. Otherwise, they are violating the purpose of their own creation. If something no longer serves the purpose it was created for, people start wondering why it still exists in the way it does.
Just a note - hemp grows in about 4-6 months, and can get up to 15 feet tall. A tree doesn't have this kind of growth for a couple of decades, and oil takes thousands of years.
And if they hadn't, the people in the cities wouldn't have anything to eat.
Mass transit is not an advantage in low population. Which is going to pollute the environment more, a car with 2 people in it, or a big bus with 2 people in it. My point is, to have mass transit, you have to have mass population.
The other thing is, don't go from the big city to a small town and try to solve problems they don't even have in the first place.
First of all, fuel made from hemp wouldn't have any noticable amount of THC, so it wouldn't be worth drinking. Also, depending on the process used to make it, it would be non-toxic. So it would be much better for drinking than regular gasoline. But there wouldn't be any motivation to do it.
I'm not sure where people get the idea that people are so hard up for THC that they'll grow crappy dope in hemp fields or drink the gas out of their cars. Better quality stuff isn't that hard to get in the first place.
Also, it's not that harmful. The true motivation for making it illegal in the first place was to prevent hemp industry. The "drug" issue is just a smokescreen.
YOU CANNOT GROW CANNABIS IN HEMP FIELDS - The reason why is easily explained when you understand how marijuana is produced. To make "pot" you grow only female plants. Depriving them of male pollen is what creates the "bud" that people smoke. If you planted your marijuana plants in a hemp field you would end up with pollenized plants and have wasted your time.
Actually, you're way off on your reasoning here. All female plants produce buds, assuming they get the right light cycle. The fertilization of the male pollen causes the buds to form seeds, which lowers the THC content, because the plants are depleting energy creating seed they would otherwise use to create THC. So without males, you get sensimilla, or seedless females. With males, you get just as many buds, but they are considerably less potent. Most commercial bud ("schwag") is grown in fields with a combination of female and male plants. Kind bud ("dank") is normally grown indoors, by seperating the males and females into separate rooms, and pollenating only enough buds to maintain a seed crop.
Also hemp IS cannabis. It is just a different breed of cannabis. Much like the difference between a cocker spaniel and a doberman - both dogs, but different breeds. This brings up the point of why no self respecting pot smoker would grow marajuana in a hemp field - cross breeding. Your pot plants would become very weak (for smoking) and very stalky. It's like letting your purebred dobermans breed with cockerspaniels. They would no longer be worth the trouble.
Cannabis hemp that is grown for the purpose of fuel or clothing is typically stocky, strong, and very low THC. Cannabis sativa / cannabis indica, which are typically grown for recreational or medicinal uses, are typically chosen for the sweetest, juiciest, most potent buds, and the least stalk strength. You would never want to grow them anywhere near each other.
One of the main reasons is because we go around the world pushing our ideas on everyone. We have actually gone to other countries and burned down hemp fields. The other reason may be that the countries where technology is developed are petroleum based. It may also be that the perception of financial gain is greater for petroleum.
That's a hard question, because I'm not sure there's a good answer. It's most likely something that stems from either ignorance or greed.
Your right to free speech is not being infringed, you're being prohibited from spreading information about a criminal activity.
Two points on this - first, this IS an infringement on free speech. You are allowed to speak out against any law you disagree with, in any way you choose. Otherwise, bad laws would never get repealed.
The other point is - does something being illegal make it wrong, and being legal make it right? You do know that working in a coca (yes coca - not cocoa) field in Columbia is completely legal - many of the cartels are government subsidized. In some cases, they are even government assisted job placement, like something you'd get at job service in the U.S... Should we kill these people for going to work that day? And does the fact that it's legal make it right? By whos government's standards? Is the U.S. government inherently responsible for what happens in other countries? Are we inherently more knowledgable or ethical than the people of columbia, or any other country? And if we disagree with our government, or any other, shouldn't we be allowed to talk about it?
My point? That many many things can and do have far worse effects on people than illicit-or-otherwise drugs. Most outlawed substances are that way because of arbitrary decisions by ill-informed doctors made years ago.
This is a good point, however by making it you imply that drugs were made illegal for health reasons - i.e. to "protect" people. The truth of the matter is that most drugs, especially marijuana/cannabis/hemp (and to a lesser extent coca/cocaine), were made illegal for almost purely financial reasons.
The proponents of hemp and cannabis legislation were mostly from industries that would be harmed financially by hemp industry, namely the petroleum industry (mainly dupont), the over the counter drug industry (johnson and johnson), and several other industries. They lobbied to start the drug war to shut down financial competition.
If hemp was legal, it could replace almost all of our needs for petroleum, as well as becoming a material replacement for many other materials, such as fiberglass. In the early 1940's, Henry Ford make a car from purely organic materials, mainly hemp, flax and ramie. It was so strong you could beat it with a sledge hammer and it wouldn't dent. The sails we used to get to this country (the U.S.) were made out of hemp. George Washington had a hemp plantation, as well as being in favor of indian hemp (marajuana).
Do you honestly think, that when Thomas Jefferson helped draft the bill of rights, he wanted to exclude talking about one of his favorite plants just because some clueless government decided to make it illegal. You are allowed to talk about laws you disagree with, as well as encourage others to fight them. There is nothing in the first amendment that says you have to be on the government's side, either.
------------
On the note of drugs in general, I believe in teaching responsible drug use, or street smarts... For example, don't use extacy, but if you end up in a situation where you've used it, remember that it drains your electrolytes, so don't forget to drink lots of liquids. Or if you are going to use speed, remember to sleep every night so you don't start dreaming out loud. And if you are going to drive high, don't forget to concentrate on the road so you don't wreck your car.
If our free speech is restrained on the internet, are we forced to echo the dronings of the government on things we don't agree on? Or are we just forced to keep our mouths shut? I believe that making intelligent, responsible decisions about a substance is much easier if you know exactly what it does and exactly what's in it. If free speech goes away on the internet, the only place to learn street smarts will be on the street. There will always be free speech there.
At least in paranoia, you could send your clones off to the termination center and hide out for a while. In real life, there's only one you.
I think it's getting to the point where the cost of "protection" (or the illusion thereof) is that we have a government that is going to get worse than the crime was to start with.
Well, screw the FBI. I'm going to go smoke a bowl and clean my machine gun.:-)
The chip alterations probably will be obvious, but the "boxed" processors are sold with a fan attached. It should be possible to overclock a processor, put it into a counterfeit box, move the holograms from the original box, reattach the factory fan, and sell it as a higher clocked processor. When the fan is permanently attached to the processor, nobody ever looks underneath it.
Reason Number 1. It would mean having different CPU dies for each chip they sell. They aren't going to do that. They prefer to simply build a batch of chips and depending on how clean they come out you put a label on to claim a specific clock speed. Yes. Specific clock speeds are determined after the fact before labeling is done, not before.
Actually, it wouldn't necessarily mean that at all. The way they will probably do it, which Intel is already talking about, is to install a small PLL (Phase Locked Loop) circuit into the processor at marking time. This locks the processor to one frequency, period. It would not only prevent multiplier changes, it would also prevent changing BUS SPEEDS. Intel seems to be ate up that people are buying Celerons and setting them at the 100 Mhz bus that the die was designed for.
I know - the article is about AMD. If you want to know how to overclock these processors, there is an article on Toms Hardware today that tells exactly how to do it. Multipliers and all.
That's sorta true - however, the 8086, which was BEFORE the 8088, had a 16 bit bus. The 8 bit bus was actually from the 8080 (or the competing Z80), which was an 8 bit processor.
The 8086 was short lived for cost reasons, so most people (i.e. you) associate the 16 bit bus with the 286.
If your price is too high, look for another distributor.
You can do this, but it changes the legality of the situation a little.
There are very few distributors truly authorized to sell OEM system builder versions of Windows. Every one of these is about the same price.
There are many other distributors that sell it without being properly authorized. Most of these copies of Windows are less expensive, but they are either gray market (split up from a volume purchase) or black market (pulls from large OEMS or counterfeits). The only way to assure a legal copy of Windows is to buy from one of the few distributors who is truly authorized. And pay full price.
Slashdot Mirror
I have my own open source project at sourceforge (I'm posting anonymously for a reason) and I wouldn't dream of releasing crap like that.
The key word here is "releasing". Mozilla hasn't been released yet. It's not even officially in beta. But it's pretty good. I'm using it right now - the latest nightly build. If you let people have access to your tree every night, I'm sure there would be some builds that suck.
Actually, I think there are probably as many casual visitors as members, which more than makes up for multiple accounts.
The band poll yesterday got over 1,000,000 votes. I admit some of that was probably ballot stuffing. But I'd bet slashdot gets well over 100,000 page views per day . Many of those are casual visitors who are unique from the day before.
Another point - if you are against this, a personal boycott, as small of an effect as it may have, is the right thing to do. I can't stand it when people say "I believe in that, but I'm not going to do it because it won't do any good." These are the same people who go to the polls and vote for the lesser of the evils. If you don't like any of the candidates, WRITE SOMEONE IN. Who cares if they win? At least you don't look back and say "man, that guy was evil, but I voted for him." Waiting to boycott because you're not sure if anyone else will is the same thing.
Oh. Really. Well, I guess it's understandable that you overlook Sun and Oracle and IBM and Adobe and Corel and all those other minor little companies that exercise those exact same rights.
No matter who pretends to exercise them, that still doesn't make them rights. They are exercising a unilateral extension of contract law, which is generally not legitimately enforceable. They do this to try and prevent fair use. However, fair use still stands, because it is the condition under which copyright law exists.
License agreements operate under the smokescreen of copyright law, when really they are more closely related to contract law. By getting someone to agree to a contract, you can give yourself any "rights" you want to. The problem with license agreements is that they try to take away the fair rights of the consumer without that consumer's actual agreement. This generally makes the contract invalid. In all reality, the only basis for license agreements is fear. (Of course, if you get right down to it, that's the basis of law itself.)
I've been thinking the same thing. There is supposed to be a big AMD price break on September 20th. The 1000 should drop below $500, possibly the low $400 range. I think by January it should be in the $200 range. That's what you call cheap power.
Don' cha love progress? (For pricing reasons at least.)
Actually, Compaq has been in the Athlon camp for their 1 Ghz machines lately. Dell is strictly Intel (and probably always will be, because of Intel advertising co-ops). Compaq, Gateway, and IBM are primarily AMD.
They are talking about putting a PLL (Phase Locked Loop) circuit in during marking, so the processor will only work at the proper FSB setting. Hasn't happened yet, but I expect it happen soon.
In order to piss vapor, it would have to be heavier than air. And compressed somehow...
But anyhow, I agree with you. I'm not sure why they're doing a paper launch of the 1.13 Ghz when you can't even buy the 1 Ghz in the open market yet.
In the weekly pricewatch comparison, the Athlon 1 Ghz has over 25 listings, and the PIII 1 Ghz has zero, zilch, aught, naught, cipher. None.
The Thunderbird 1.1 Ghz will be out about August 15th, and will be shipping in quantity about that day. The Pentium III 1.13 Ghz will be "out" July 31st, but I doubt you'll see it in the open market (i.e. outside a Dell machine) before October.
Yes, I do understand the purpose of government. I also understand that once most laws are passed, they are never repealed. And the longer they are on the books, the more open they are to interpretation. What you get is a long term "solution" to a short term problem. It called a knee-jerk reaction, for lack of a better term.
The government is not in charge of speech, or expression. They are not even in charge of "pretty", though many city governments have begun to think they are.
The problem is that with movies, it is a voluntary act of the industry, not a law.
If the industry decided, based on parent pressure, that this is a good idea, that is acceptable. If the government mandates it by law, it is government censorship, which is a very bad thing.
The reason it is a bad thing is because the government is then responsible for defining "violence", "sexuality", and "offensive". They can then whittle away as they choose at these definitions. They may even do it very, very slowly, so we don't feel oppressed.
That's why the first amendment must remain an absolute. It the whittle away, or slippery slope, theory of gradual opression of clueless masses.
Let the industry take care of this if they think it is necessary. The people can even boycott arcades that offend them. But this law needs to be ruled unconstitutional.
Not yet, there is still the fact that it will take approximately 6 months for them to get the product to market, and 6 months to get working drivers.
This particular card is the exception to that rule. The card is shipping, and from the reviews I've read, the drivers seem pretty good.
Sorry I got a ATI Rage Fury MAXX and I'm rather pissed that the card works in Win 9x/NT and Linux/*BSD with XFree86 3.3.6+ but doesn't work under Windows 2000 because they cannot get windows to activate the second chip? WTF?
As far as I know, NO manufacturer has gotten mutiple graphics chips to work under Windows 2000. The Voodoo 5 might work by now.
It has something to do with the driver architecture of Windows 2000. So you should be bitching at Microsoft, not ATI. Anyway, bitching at Microsoft might gain you Slashdot karma points.
Actually, both the Rage II and Rage 128 were intended to have leading edge performance, but each of them came out six months or so later than they planned, which put them in the "slightly below average" category.
One good thing about ATI - their business performance and 2D quality have always been very good. For Desktop Publishing applications, audio recording apps, and similar uses, I've always recommended ATI. Well, that or Matrox. (Also Canadian, which Tom would find very relavent)
Another point - this card seems to scale well to higher resolutions and bit levels. Because of that, I'd say it is a better card than the GeForce 2. Who needs 120 frames a second at low resolution, when your monitor only works well at about 85 frames anyway? If you can do 85 frames per second, and do it at any resolution and bit level you choose, I think that should be the goal of a fast video card.
No offense, but you are really missing the point. Whether or not there is any philosophical or ethical reasoning to it, the letter of the law has been violated. At the level the case is at now, that is all the judge is allowed to look at.
Not true. The judge is ALLOWED to look at whatever areas of the case he wishes to. The constitution is the supreme law of the land, and may be considered at any level of court.
The judge however, seems UNWILLING to look at anything but a very narrow, closeminded view of this case. This indicates to me that he has a prior bias.
Such is life and the legal system, and carping about how unfair it is does little to alter the fact.
The fact is that the legal system attempts to preserve the illusion of fairness. Otherwise, they are violating the purpose of their own creation. If something no longer serves the purpose it was created for, people start wondering why it still exists in the way it does.
Well, it's government regulation that's keeping us from having hovercraft, in which case we wouldn't need roads.
Just a thought.
In the absence of government, people will figure things out on their own.
Just a note - hemp grows in about 4-6 months, and can get up to 15 feet tall. A tree doesn't have this kind of growth for a couple of decades, and oil takes thousands of years.
"Renewable" is a relative term.
Yes, they chose to be farmers.
And if they hadn't, the people in the cities wouldn't have anything to eat.
Mass transit is not an advantage in low population. Which is going to pollute the environment more, a car with 2 people in it, or a big bus with 2 people in it. My point is, to have mass transit, you have to have mass population.
The other thing is, don't go from the big city to a small town and try to solve problems they don't even have in the first place.
Other than people trying to drink the fuel.
First of all, fuel made from hemp wouldn't have any noticable amount of THC, so it wouldn't be worth drinking. Also, depending on the process used to make it, it would be non-toxic. So it would be much better for drinking than regular gasoline. But there wouldn't be any motivation to do it.
I'm not sure where people get the idea that people are so hard up for THC that they'll grow crappy dope in hemp fields or drink the gas out of their cars. Better quality stuff isn't that hard to get in the first place.
Also, it's not that harmful. The true motivation for making it illegal in the first place was to prevent hemp industry. The "drug" issue is just a smokescreen.
YOU CANNOT GROW CANNABIS IN HEMP FIELDS - The reason why is easily explained when you understand how marijuana is produced. To make "pot" you grow only female plants. Depriving them of male pollen is what creates the "bud" that people smoke. If you planted your marijuana plants in a hemp field you would end up with pollenized plants and have wasted your time.
Actually, you're way off on your reasoning here. All female plants produce buds, assuming they get the right light cycle. The fertilization of the male pollen causes the buds to form seeds, which lowers the THC content, because the plants are depleting energy creating seed they would otherwise use to create THC. So without males, you get sensimilla, or seedless females. With males, you get just as many buds, but they are considerably less potent. Most commercial bud ("schwag") is grown in fields with a combination of female and male plants. Kind bud ("dank") is normally grown indoors, by seperating the males and females into separate rooms, and pollenating only enough buds to maintain a seed crop.
Also hemp IS cannabis. It is just a different breed of cannabis. Much like the difference between a cocker spaniel and a doberman - both dogs, but different breeds. This brings up the point of why no self respecting pot smoker would grow marajuana in a hemp field - cross breeding. Your pot plants would become very weak (for smoking) and very stalky. It's like letting your purebred dobermans breed with cockerspaniels. They would no longer be worth the trouble.
Cannabis hemp that is grown for the purpose of fuel or clothing is typically stocky, strong, and very low THC. Cannabis sativa / cannabis indica, which are typically grown for recreational or medicinal uses, are typically chosen for the sweetest, juiciest, most potent buds, and the least stalk strength. You would never want to grow them anywhere near each other.
One of the main reasons is because we go around the world pushing our ideas on everyone. We have actually gone to other countries and burned down hemp fields. The other reason may be that the countries where technology is developed are petroleum based. It may also be that the perception of financial gain is greater for petroleum.
That's a hard question, because I'm not sure there's a good answer. It's most likely something that stems from either ignorance or greed.
Your right to free speech is not being infringed, you're being prohibited from spreading information about a criminal activity.
Two points on this - first, this IS an infringement on free speech. You are allowed to speak out against any law you disagree with, in any way you choose. Otherwise, bad laws would never get repealed.
The other point is - does something being illegal make it wrong, and being legal make it right? You do know that working in a coca (yes coca - not cocoa) field in Columbia is completely legal - many of the cartels are government subsidized. In some cases, they are even government assisted job placement, like something you'd get at job service in the U.S... Should we kill these people for going to work that day? And does the fact that it's legal make it right? By whos government's standards? Is the U.S. government inherently responsible for what happens in other countries? Are we inherently more knowledgable or ethical than the people of columbia, or any other country? And if we disagree with our government, or any other, shouldn't we be allowed to talk about it?
My point? That many many things can and do have far worse effects on people than illicit-or-otherwise drugs. Most outlawed substances are that way because of arbitrary decisions by ill-informed doctors made years ago.
This is a good point, however by making it you imply that drugs were made illegal for health reasons - i.e. to "protect" people. The truth of the matter is that most drugs, especially marijuana/cannabis/hemp (and to a lesser extent coca/cocaine), were made illegal for almost purely financial reasons.
The proponents of hemp and cannabis legislation were mostly from industries that would be harmed financially by hemp industry, namely the petroleum industry (mainly dupont), the over the counter drug industry (johnson and johnson), and several other industries. They lobbied to start the drug war to shut down financial competition.
If hemp was legal, it could replace almost all of our needs for petroleum, as well as becoming a material replacement for many other materials, such as fiberglass. In the early 1940's, Henry Ford make a car from purely organic materials, mainly hemp, flax and ramie. It was so strong you could beat it with a sledge hammer and it wouldn't dent. The sails we used to get to this country (the U.S.) were made out of hemp. George Washington had a hemp plantation, as well as being in favor of indian hemp (marajuana).
Do you honestly think, that when Thomas Jefferson helped draft the bill of rights, he wanted to exclude talking about one of his favorite plants just because some clueless government decided to make it illegal. You are allowed to talk about laws you disagree with, as well as encourage others to fight them. There is nothing in the first amendment that says you have to be on the government's side, either.
------------
On the note of drugs in general, I believe in teaching responsible drug use, or street smarts... For example, don't use extacy, but if you end up in a situation where you've used it, remember that it drains your electrolytes, so don't forget to drink lots of liquids. Or if you are going to use speed, remember to sleep every night so you don't start dreaming out loud. And if you are going to drive high, don't forget to concentrate on the road so you don't wreck your car.
If our free speech is restrained on the internet, are we forced to echo the dronings of the government on things we don't agree on? Or are we just forced to keep our mouths shut? I believe that making intelligent, responsible decisions about a substance is much easier if you know exactly what it does and exactly what's in it. If free speech goes away on the internet, the only place to learn street smarts will be on the street. There will always be free speech there.
At least in paranoia, you could send your clones off to the termination center and hide out for a while. In real life, there's only one you.
:-)
I think it's getting to the point where the cost of "protection" (or the illusion thereof) is that we have a government that is going to get worse than the crime was to start with.
Well, screw the FBI. I'm going to go smoke a bowl and clean my machine gun.
The chip alterations probably will be obvious, but the "boxed" processors are sold with a fan attached. It should be possible to overclock a processor, put it into a counterfeit box, move the holograms from the original box, reattach the factory fan, and sell it as a higher clocked processor. When the fan is permanently attached to the processor, nobody ever looks underneath it.
Reason Number 1. It would mean having different CPU dies for each chip they sell. They aren't going to do that. They prefer to simply build a batch of chips and depending on how clean they come out you put a label on to claim a specific clock speed. Yes. Specific clock speeds are determined after the fact before labeling is done, not before.
Actually, it wouldn't necessarily mean that at all. The way they will probably do it, which Intel is already talking about, is to install a small PLL (Phase Locked Loop) circuit into the processor at marking time. This locks the processor to one frequency, period. It would not only prevent multiplier changes, it would also prevent changing BUS SPEEDS. Intel seems to be ate up that people are buying Celerons and setting them at the 100 Mhz bus that the die was designed for.
I know - the article is about AMD. If you want to know how to overclock these processors, there is an article on Toms Hardware today that tells exactly how to do it. Multipliers and all.
That's sorta true - however, the 8086, which was BEFORE the 8088, had a 16 bit bus. The 8 bit bus was actually from the 8080 (or the competing Z80), which was an 8 bit processor.
The 8086 was short lived for cost reasons, so most people (i.e. you) associate the 16 bit bus with the 286.
If your price is too high, look for another distributor.
You can do this, but it changes the legality of the situation a little.
There are very few distributors truly authorized to sell OEM system builder versions of Windows. Every one of these is about the same price.
There are many other distributors that sell it without being properly authorized. Most of these copies of Windows are less expensive, but they are either gray market (split up from a volume purchase) or black market (pulls from large OEMS or counterfeits). The only way to assure a legal copy of Windows is to buy from one of the few distributors who is truly authorized. And pay full price.