"Heard and witnessed"... how is that not anecdotal as the evidence (elsewhere in the thread) you debunk from Apple users who are saying you're full of it?
Unless you can point me to a document that states unequivocally "user added ram/HDD" voids Apple's warranty... _you're_ the moron. I suspect you can't. I've seen the documents provided with Apple computers on how to do _just_ what you claim voids warranties (If I weren't lazy, I'd get the links from Apple's knowledge base, but why feed a troll?)
Very true. The congress is full of lawyers.:-) You make an excellent point regarding loopholes and the legalese associated with these laws... a specific class of people has arisen to interpret, write, lobby, and legislate these things into the convenient loop-hole filled nonsense we pass off (as a nation) as laws.
God forbid the lawyers stop being soulless bastards (and bitches) for their tenure as Senator/Congressman, but no.. they amp up the lawyer-vision and we are less free and less secure as a result.
Let me be more specific. The application of the law picks the winners and losers... the law itself is ambivalent. The law itself, perhaps crafted to grant one sector more power than another (oh, that's been done to death, even in the "enlightened" 20th and 21st centuries...heh) , the law does not automatically apply itself to a "winner" or loser. Except of course in the cases where the law was purchased outright, and the mere existence of the law already picks a winner (such as Prohibition).
Most laws that are not of the purchased variety are, for all intents and purposes, there until the application of the law through a criminal/civil case produces a resulting precedent that will, in future cases, provide a better lens at viewing who "wins" and "loses" in the matter.
I fully understand your position, but I think for semantics' sake, we'll narrow the "law" to application of the law. Really, until a law is applied, it's anyone's guess who will win or lose.
As for civil matters, proof of innocence is not guaranteed, but supposition of guilt before each party makes their case is left to outside speculators rather than the actual participants in the matter (as best we can do being imperfect and biased humans.) The fact that each party has the equal barrier of proving their point is, for the most part, subjected to the nature of the law being about blind equity and station-less application. Granted, we see little of that in certain segments of our history, and even today we can verify some of the abuses that the lawyers and courts inflict upon those least likely to have the means to challenge the inequity.
Fundamentally though, some laws rise from the desire to prevent polarization and promote equality, that otherwise would, left to its own devices, create a tiered system that promotes a certain kind of group over another. Sure, the Order of the Pickpockets is probably up in arms about laws regarding theft, but we can generally see that (even if such an organization existed) those who operate with a sense of inequity themselves will have it foisted upon them through the application of laws designed to remove such inequity. (Albeit imperfectly.)
Rather than ramble on for more pages, I'll sum it up this way.. we both are on the same page with the law's "winner and loser" choices, we but differ on when in the life-cycle of a law it occurs.:)
I should think that the law is what it is... it does not choose sides, favor one party over another, nor does it pick "winners and losers." It exists. It provides a baseline, a boundary if you will, from which a blind justice system works its magic.
The court system is set up that (ideally) you are innocent until proven guilty, you have a right to a speedy and public trial, and you are not required to incriminate yourself. (And not taking the stand doesn't admit guilt or innocence... SO many jurors need that hit into their heads with a big hammer.) Yes, things have come to pass that call those things into question, but for the most part, we're _supposed_ to get that regardless of our accusations or status in society.
The cases that we see the most abuse of the built-in legal fairness (that's taken many hundreds of years to get "stuck"... and should not be taken lightly) are when a "vested" interest (i.e. an entity with loads of cash) dictates the "reasonable" tests and information requests that usually precede a case. (We can see examples of this with the MPAA/RIAA, and now Viacom.) We also see this as an issue in terms of criminal cases where the defendant is loaded to the gills with disposable income. So, I'm guessing that "money" (in all its forms) is the factor in our legal system that makes the law "choose", and creates inequality.
What we need is many improvements, but you get the gist of the problem with this case w/r/t Viacom. The only difference here is Google's got a stack of cash that is probably making Viacom have a wicked case penis envy.:)
You are correct, in that the laws are written these days with the built-in bias favoring the last asshole who gave said politician cash (Fritz Hollings was a crystal clear example of appeasing his greatest benefactor, and that sure as shit wasn't the people of South Carolina.)
The court system is supposed to have a built in filter for the abuse, but it appears we are missing the primary component to fix the problem (lawyers need to stop looking at the money and start redeeming themselves for centuries of ass-reaming and start CHALLENGING the unconstitutional and pathetically biased laws that get passed.) Trouble is, they are on the take just as much as those who write the laws. So if we can't get the unfit law _to_ the court, we can't rely on the court to strike it down. And in recent days, obviously unconstitutional laws are a hit and miss affair. (some getting their just desserts, while others are still there and bloody well sanctioned by SCOTUS).
I apologize for the rambling... but I haven't eaten breakfast yet.;)
Well, that may be... but certainly Dell's "cred" for anything but a Windows lapdog and a mod-unfriendly assembler of Chinese parts has been thoroughly trashed over the years.
I have a P2-400 from Dell that is _STILL_ running DSL 4.1. I can't vouch for the current lot of Dell's computers, but if the web (and my company's) comments on Dell's QC of their boxes are even 10% true, they've fallen FLAT.
It's rather a sad state of things when the margins got so razor thin (mostly by Dell's own making), they simply became "just another builder"... and a shoddy one at that.
Nope. The first step is a big one. The rest is easy. Get RID OF THEM ALL. 50% evil, 20% evil... just start the hell over. Feingold didn't get to be a senator having "Mr. Smith" style values and "Mayberry" qualities. He's not without his thorns. He may be _your_ style of asshole, but he's still an asshole.
The Founders gave us the power to fix this problem, (and hell, THEY ADVOCATED IT when we got fed up with it) and we NEVER DO. (There is no two party system anymore... in case you also thought I was advocating abolishing it...)
We're all asleep. We let this happen because we are happy having our tummies rubbed by major corporations who are putting up puppet politicians who rob us blind and tell us "we know best." MY ass they do. NONE of them do. Do you honestly think John Kerry knows what it's like to be poor? He's got his OWN PRIVATE ISLAND for chrissakes! And Ted Kennedy? Besides being a murderer, he's drank more than 90 street bums in his life, and used his political position to force out rivals and screw over his enemies.... Dick Cheney? I don't have time to type all his evil in... Robert Byrd? I could go on and on.. pick one and you'll see that somehow, somwhere, THESE PEOPLE are the problem.
And yet, they're not 100% evil.... Close enough to boot them all out. Is it a tough call? Sure... it's tough that we don't elect ANOTHER set of these dipshits. But the average lazy asshole american won't get off his couch and stop watching American Idol long enough to DO somethign about it. They'd rather curse the darkness than light a candle.
And _that_ is why we will be here 10 years from now saying the _SAME_ thing with a new set of people claiming "senator X is a hero"....
I have no faith in people, so it's not a big deal when they continue to screw up and elect the same morons. I'd like to be proven wrong once... but so far, putting Democrats in after Republicans is _not_ change. It's just shifting the mailing lists.
I didn't say I had a solution. I have a start... reboot.
I never said get rid of the two party system. WE don't HAVE A two party system anymore. Anyone who thinks so is delusional. It's a ONE party system bent on growin their own power for their own gain, and for their benefactors (the major corporations who finance EVERYTHING a politician does.)
Feingold had a good idea in banning ALL CORPORATE donations... stop treating companies that don't die like people. Simple, eh? But, it's just a start... there needs to be more... and there needs to be less 'I know what's best for you' style politicians. The only one who knows what's best for me is ME. Anyone who says otherwise is looking to control me... and I've had enough of that to last 3 lifetimes.
Look at it another way. He's a Senator. He's a Lawyer. He's a Democrat. 3 out of 3 things that are the problem in politics today, he's got them. (I'd say that even if he was a republican). These people _ARE_ part of the problem. The fact that he happens to vote correctly on the PATRIOT Act doesn't absolve him from the rest of the problems his party and he creates just by existing and sucking public money dry. They _all_ do it, and I wouldn't care if Feingold repealed the extension to Copyright and reined in copyright conglomerates... he's still part of the problem.
Until we realize this, we will still be in the same place we are today. A mess.
I don't google for others. He's just like every other politician. Defining his character because he opposed the Patriot Act is like defining Bill Clinton for his taste in cigars.
I guess by viewing a gameplay video, we've seen that the game's farther along than when they announced Diablo II. Of course, it would be nice if they made a console version too, simply because I don't have a Winders machine anymore.:)
I do have a 1st gen Macbook Pro, but I've gotten so used to console gaming in the last 5 years that using a mouse and keyboard would take some re-learning.;)
Indeed. The facade of the "Two party system" is cracking, and we're seeing that the system is _one_ party. Vote them ALL out. Until we get that through our heads, there _IS_ no change. Not from Obama, McCain, Clinton... NO ONE in the current system will change.
EVER. Dems and Repubs can throw barbs at each other until the cows come home... it's all a smokescreen for the 1 party system.
Even in all his rantings (he got a little less jovial after his wife died) he really didn't mock the individual specifically for believing something... he mocked the powerful, the privileged, and those who wanted to make a buck off the spritual nature of man... (the Pope included.) In other words, he poked holes in the pompous blowhards who think they know better than we do about ourselves and our own lives. If I got anything from his comedy (besides a sore side from laughing so hard), it was this: You are the individual... stop following others and looking to others to answer the questions _you_ have to answer. "Eyes on your own paper..."
It was posted earlier w/r/t Joe Pesci... "Pick your supersition and enjoy yourself..."
If you didn't, he probably would have fun at your expense, I guess.;)
I never said that. The mere fact that this is being SNUCK into a 650 page bill is telling.
It's not what we think it is... if it were, we'd be above board on it and hear the politicians from here crowing about how "equitable" they've made the playing field.
Sorry, your distracted view of "anti-corporatism" is missing the entire point of what I was saying... why is it so secretive? Why is it snuck into a housing bill? What are these bastards up to?
Good point. I don't know what they considered to be kiddie porn on this laptop, but the justification for going deeper into his laptop was the load of shit that no one (besides us) seems to be thinking about.
And of course, because it's 'kiddie porn', we're having difficulty getting people to focus on the _reason_ rather than the _result_. And that, to put it bluntly, is a goddamned shame.
Freedom shouldn't be something we have to force out of the hands of our elected officials... it's ours already... they have no right to take it away, and yet they are getting away with it.
The only problem I had with my thinkpad (i1460 I bought used) was the lack of a suitable battery replacement... I decided that for the price, the thinkpad (celeron) made a nice "mini desktop" tethered to the AC adapter... when it finally died last year (2000 - 2007) I think I got my money's worth.
I am trying that with all my machines... repurposing them as I need them. (Mostly moving from a heavy to a more lightweight linux... etc etc...) It's working great so far, and I hope to finally retire my P2-400 Dell once the replacement hard drive dies on me. (It's running DSL, btw... pretty snappy stuff for a 256mb Pentium 2 that's 11 years old...)
One good thing about surfing the web with the P2... no temptation to watch 200 different fart-lighting videos on Youtube.;)
Just because I'm not _in_ my country at the time I arrive _to_ my country... the border agents of _my_ country have no right to exclude the _rights_ I already have and are not subject to negotiation.
Well true, but two naked photos of grown women (I assume that's what the initial search uncovered) do not constitute "probable cause" to search for kiddie porn.
It's a fluke, from what I've understood of this case so far, that they uncovered child porn in the first place. The problem I have is that the "search" of the laptop initially produced something unrelated to a search for kiddie porn. Nudity != perverse pictures of children.
Even though this particular case shows a "positive" from the investigation, we need people to realize that in our system of justice and freedom the ends do not justify the means. We have protections and guaranteed rights (not granted ones) because we are protecting people from the system's possible abuses. We grant them power but never in exchange for our rights and freedoms. That is a common misconception of the "great unwashed" and it's up to us (and the EFF is helping) to educate people.
We need to focus away from the actual child porn found and focus on how they got to that... If we don't, the end result will become the justification, and like The Patriot Act, we'll be stuck with something that endangers us all.
Slashdot Mirror
"Heard and witnessed"... how is that not anecdotal as the evidence (elsewhere in the thread) you debunk from Apple users who are saying you're full of it?
Unless you can point me to a document that states unequivocally "user added ram/HDD" voids Apple's warranty... _you're_ the moron. I suspect you can't. I've seen the documents provided with Apple computers on how to do _just_ what you claim voids warranties (If I weren't lazy, I'd get the links from Apple's knowledge base, but why feed a troll?)
They filed suit against microsoft?
Again? What were they thinking...
Oh, you don't mean _that_ competition....
Very true. The congress is full of lawyers. :-) You make an excellent point regarding loopholes and the legalese associated with these laws... a specific class of people has arisen to interpret, write, lobby, and legislate these things into the convenient loop-hole filled nonsense we pass off (as a nation) as laws.
God forbid the lawyers stop being soulless bastards (and bitches) for their tenure as Senator/Congressman, but no.. they amp up the lawyer-vision and we are less free and less secure as a result.
Let me be more specific. The application of the law picks the winners and losers... the law itself is ambivalent. The law itself, perhaps crafted to grant one sector more power than another (oh, that's been done to death, even in the "enlightened" 20th and 21st centuries...heh) , the law does not automatically apply itself to a "winner" or loser. Except of course in the cases where the law was purchased outright, and the mere existence of the law already picks a winner (such as Prohibition).
Most laws that are not of the purchased variety are, for all intents and purposes, there until the application of the law through a criminal/civil case produces a resulting precedent that will, in future cases, provide a better lens at viewing who "wins" and "loses" in the matter.
I fully understand your position, but I think for semantics' sake, we'll narrow the "law" to application of the law. Really, until a law is applied, it's anyone's guess who will win or lose.
As for civil matters, proof of innocence is not guaranteed, but supposition of guilt before each party makes their case is left to outside speculators rather than the actual participants in the matter (as best we can do being imperfect and biased humans.) The fact that each party has the equal barrier of proving their point is, for the most part, subjected to the nature of the law being about blind equity and station-less application. Granted, we see little of that in certain segments of our history, and even today we can verify some of the abuses that the lawyers and courts inflict upon those least likely to have the means to challenge the inequity.
Fundamentally though, some laws rise from the desire to prevent polarization and promote equality, that otherwise would, left to its own devices, create a tiered system that promotes a certain kind of group over another. Sure, the Order of the Pickpockets is probably up in arms about laws regarding theft, but we can generally see that (even if such an organization existed) those who operate with a sense of inequity themselves will have it foisted upon them through the application of laws designed to remove such inequity. (Albeit imperfectly.)
Rather than ramble on for more pages, I'll sum it up this way.. we both are on the same page with the law's "winner and loser" choices, we but differ on when in the life-cycle of a law it occurs. :)
Yes indeed... hence the underlying problem. ;) But that's to be understood, given their distasteful rhetoric...
I should think that the law is what it is... it does not choose sides, favor one party over another, nor does it pick "winners and losers." It exists. It provides a baseline, a boundary if you will, from which a blind justice system works its magic.
The court system is set up that (ideally) you are innocent until proven guilty, you have a right to a speedy and public trial, and you are not required to incriminate yourself. (And not taking the stand doesn't admit guilt or innocence... SO many jurors need that hit into their heads with a big hammer.) Yes, things have come to pass that call those things into question, but for the most part, we're _supposed_ to get that regardless of our accusations or status in society.
The cases that we see the most abuse of the built-in legal fairness (that's taken many hundreds of years to get "stuck"... and should not be taken lightly) are when a "vested" interest (i.e. an entity with loads of cash) dictates the "reasonable" tests and information requests that usually precede a case. (We can see examples of this with the MPAA/RIAA, and now Viacom.) We also see this as an issue in terms of criminal cases where the defendant is loaded to the gills with disposable income. So, I'm guessing that "money" (in all its forms) is the factor in our legal system that makes the law "choose", and creates inequality.
What we need is many improvements, but you get the gist of the problem with this case w/r/t Viacom. The only difference here is Google's got a stack of cash that is probably making Viacom have a wicked case penis envy. :)
You are correct, in that the laws are written these days with the built-in bias favoring the last asshole who gave said politician cash (Fritz Hollings was a crystal clear example of appeasing his greatest benefactor, and that sure as shit wasn't the people of South Carolina.)
The court system is supposed to have a built in filter for the abuse, but it appears we are missing the primary component to fix the problem (lawyers need to stop looking at the money and start redeeming themselves for centuries of ass-reaming and start CHALLENGING the unconstitutional and pathetically biased laws that get passed.) Trouble is, they are on the take just as much as those who write the laws. So if we can't get the unfit law _to_ the court, we can't rely on the court to strike it down. And in recent days, obviously unconstitutional laws are a hit and miss affair. (some getting their just desserts, while others are still there and bloody well sanctioned by SCOTUS).
I apologize for the rambling... but I haven't eaten breakfast yet. ;)
HP's always sucked. :) Dell's just recently started the "rock-bottom-and-started-digging" syndrome. :-)
That's why no matter what PC you buy, you wipe and install a real OS on it. ...this is slashdot after all. ;)
Well, that may be... but certainly Dell's "cred" for anything but a Windows lapdog and a mod-unfriendly assembler of Chinese parts has been thoroughly trashed over the years.
I have a P2-400 from Dell that is _STILL_ running DSL 4.1. I can't vouch for the current lot of Dell's computers, but if the web (and my company's) comments on Dell's QC of their boxes are even 10% true, they've fallen FLAT.
It's rather a sad state of things when the margins got so razor thin (mostly by Dell's own making), they simply became "just another builder"... and a shoddy one at that.
YMMV, of course...
Nope. The first step is a big one. The rest is easy. Get RID OF THEM ALL. 50% evil, 20% evil... just start the hell over. Feingold didn't get to be a senator having "Mr. Smith" style values and "Mayberry" qualities. He's not without his thorns. He may be _your_ style of asshole, but he's still an asshole.
The Founders gave us the power to fix this problem, (and hell, THEY ADVOCATED IT when we got fed up with it) and we NEVER DO. (There is no two party system anymore... in case you also thought I was advocating abolishing it...)
We're all asleep. We let this happen because we are happy having our tummies rubbed by major corporations who are putting up puppet politicians who rob us blind and tell us "we know best." MY ass they do. NONE of them do. Do you honestly think John Kerry knows what it's like to be poor? He's got his OWN PRIVATE ISLAND for chrissakes! And Ted Kennedy? Besides being a murderer, he's drank more than 90 street bums in his life, and used his political position to force out rivals and screw over his enemies.... Dick Cheney? I don't have time to type all his evil in... Robert Byrd? I could go on and on.. pick one and you'll see that somehow, somwhere, THESE PEOPLE are the problem.
And yet, they're not 100% evil.... Close enough to boot them all out. Is it a tough call? Sure... it's tough that we don't elect ANOTHER set of these dipshits. But the average lazy asshole american won't get off his couch and stop watching American Idol long enough to DO somethign about it. They'd rather curse the darkness than light a candle.
And _that_ is why we will be here 10 years from now saying the _SAME_ thing with a new set of people claiming "senator X is a hero"....
I have no faith in people, so it's not a big deal when they continue to screw up and elect the same morons. I'd like to be proven wrong once... but so far, putting Democrats in after Republicans is _not_ change. It's just shifting the mailing lists.
I didn't say I had a solution. I have a start... reboot.
I never said get rid of the two party system. WE don't HAVE A two party system anymore. Anyone who thinks so is delusional. It's a ONE party system bent on growin their own power for their own gain, and for their benefactors (the major corporations who finance EVERYTHING a politician does.)
Feingold had a good idea in banning ALL CORPORATE donations... stop treating companies that don't die like people. Simple, eh? But, it's just a start... there needs to be more... and there needs to be less 'I know what's best for you' style politicians. The only one who knows what's best for me is ME. Anyone who says otherwise is looking to control me... and I've had enough of that to last 3 lifetimes.
Look at it another way. He's a Senator. He's a Lawyer. He's a Democrat. 3 out of 3 things that are the problem in politics today, he's got them. (I'd say that even if he was a republican). These people _ARE_ part of the problem. The fact that he happens to vote correctly on the PATRIOT Act doesn't absolve him from the rest of the problems his party and he creates just by existing and sucking public money dry. They _all_ do it, and I wouldn't care if Feingold repealed the extension to Copyright and reined in copyright conglomerates... he's still part of the problem.
Until we realize this, we will still be in the same place we are today. A mess.
Like I've said before, one issue does not a hero make.
I don't google for others. He's just like every other politician. Defining his character because he opposed the Patriot Act is like defining Bill Clinton for his taste in cigars.
Feingold's a self-serving twit who craves attention.
He's neither noble nor a hero. He's a press blip.
I guess by viewing a gameplay video, we've seen that the game's farther along than when they announced Diablo II. Of course, it would be nice if they made a console version too, simply because I don't have a Winders machine anymore. :)
I do have a 1st gen Macbook Pro, but I've gotten so used to console gaming in the last 5 years that using a mouse and keyboard would take some re-learning. ;)
Please, Zombie Jesus, make this a 360 game too! :P
Indeed. The facade of the "Two party system" is cracking, and we're seeing that the system is _one_ party. Vote them ALL out. Until we get that through our heads, there _IS_ no change. Not from Obama, McCain, Clinton... NO ONE in the current system will change.
EVER. Dems and Repubs can throw barbs at each other until the cows come home... it's all a smokescreen for the 1 party system.
Even in all his rantings (he got a little less jovial after his wife died) he really didn't mock the individual specifically for believing something... he mocked the powerful, the privileged, and those who wanted to make a buck off the spritual nature of man... (the Pope included.) In other words, he poked holes in the pompous blowhards who think they know better than we do about ourselves and our own lives. If I got anything from his comedy (besides a sore side from laughing so hard), it was this: You are the individual... stop following others and looking to others to answer the questions _you_ have to answer. "Eyes on your own paper..."
It was posted earlier w/r/t Joe Pesci... "Pick your supersition and enjoy yourself..."
If you didn't, he probably would have fun at your expense, I guess. ;)
I never said that. The mere fact that this is being SNUCK into a 650 page bill is telling.
It's not what we think it is... if it were, we'd be above board on it and hear the politicians from here crowing about how "equitable" they've made the playing field.
Sorry, your distracted view of "anti-corporatism" is missing the entire point of what I was saying... why is it so secretive? Why is it snuck into a housing bill? What are these bastards up to?
THOSE are the questions we should be asking them.
I'd rather they collect taxes from the corporations who aren't pulling their fair share. ;)
But seriously.. If this were about tax equity, it'd not have been hidden in a bill and not up for debate.
The very nature of its inclusion should make anyone who isn't completely retarded suspicious.
Good point. I don't know what they considered to be kiddie porn on this laptop, but the justification for going deeper into his laptop was the load of shit that no one (besides us) seems to be thinking about.
And of course, because it's 'kiddie porn', we're having difficulty getting people to focus on the _reason_ rather than the _result_. And that, to put it bluntly, is a goddamned shame.
Freedom shouldn't be something we have to force out of the hands of our elected officials... it's ours already... they have no right to take it away, and yet they are getting away with it.
The only problem I had with my thinkpad (i1460 I bought used) was the lack of a suitable battery replacement... I decided that for the price, the thinkpad (celeron) made a nice "mini desktop" tethered to the AC adapter... when it finally died last year (2000 - 2007) I think I got my money's worth.
I am trying that with all my machines... repurposing them as I need them. (Mostly moving from a heavy to a more lightweight linux... etc etc...) It's working great so far, and I hope to finally retire my P2-400 Dell once the replacement hard drive dies on me. (It's running DSL, btw... pretty snappy stuff for a 256mb Pentium 2 that's 11 years old...)
One good thing about surfing the web with the P2... no temptation to watch 200 different fart-lighting videos on Youtube. ;)
Bullshit.
Just because I'm not _in_ my country at the time I arrive _to_ my country... the border agents of _my_ country have no right to exclude the _rights_ I already have and are not subject to negotiation.
Well true, but two naked photos of grown women (I assume that's what the initial search uncovered) do not constitute "probable cause" to search for kiddie porn.
It's a fluke, from what I've understood of this case so far, that they uncovered child porn in the first place. The problem I have is that the "search" of the laptop initially produced something unrelated to a search for kiddie porn. Nudity != perverse pictures of children.
Even though this particular case shows a "positive" from the investigation, we need people to realize that in our system of justice and freedom the ends do not justify the means. We have protections and guaranteed rights (not granted ones) because we are protecting people from the system's possible abuses. We grant them power but never in exchange for our rights and freedoms. That is a common misconception of the "great unwashed" and it's up to us (and the EFF is helping) to educate people.
We need to focus away from the actual child porn found and focus on how they got to that... If we don't, the end result will become the justification, and like The Patriot Act, we'll be stuck with something that endangers us all.
...Just like Microsoft?
Then why isn't Windows doing it itself? Regardless of browser used.
Would this happen with Firefox? Would this happen with Seamonkey? I'm just wondering... I don't honestly know, because I don't use Windows...
It doesn't seem like Safari would turn off such a feature...