Well actually I'm a Mac user... the points about Gateway vs. Dell are based on my experience with machines at work and just illustrate the complete incompetence of Dell when it comes to design. See, when Apple puts ports on the front of the machine, it's to make them easier to access. When Dell does it, it seems to be done just so they can say the ports are on the front of the machine.
My iPod is well designed, and I'm not about to trade it in for something designed by a company like Dell. I haven't used their music players and can't comment on what specifically might be wrong with them, but I'm sure there are major flaws, because Dell's entire design philosophy seems to be to steal Apple's designs but do it horribly wrong.
Well, I connect to my mail server with imaps, but the effort involved in actually encrypting the messages themselves before storing them, let alone getting the people who I'm corresponding with to use encryption on every message, aren't really worth it to me, and I'm guessing 99% of computer users would agree. I use ssh instead of telnet just because typing passwords in a medium that can be snooped on seems like a bad idea, even if it's unlikely anyone will be listening to my telnet session. I don't email my passwords to anyone, and I don't really get any email that I'd especially mind sysadmins reading. It's not that I feel I can completely trust them; it's more that anything they read isn't going to do me any harm.
I don't mind the rebates. I wouldn't buy a Dell product because I have them at work and think it's ridiculous to put ports on the front of a machine if you need to crawl on the floor to plug anything into them. I can tilt a Gateway box and plug headphones into the back a whole lot easier than I can plug headphones into a port on the front of a Dell that has a door covering it so you can't access the ports if you're above the machine.
Since we don't use chemical or biological weapons, what does that leave?
HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! That's a good one.
The US has used chemical weapons more recently and a lot more often then it's used nuclear weapons, and if you really believe the Defense Department only produces new biological weapons so they can learn how protect against other people using them, you're pretty gullible.
Of course, if the US really wants to massively destroy people, the nuclear arsenal would be their best option, since they've already got the submarine, bomber, and ICBM delivery systems all ready to attack at a moment's notice. But for a small-scale retaliatory strike, I'd think chemical weapons would be a more likely answer, because the Russians and Chinese would be pretty likely to be unhappy with the fallout they'd have to deal with from a nuclear strike in Asia, whereas chemical weapons don't spread over as wide an area.
Um, by your argument we shouldn't allow anyone to be elected to any position, because they're clearly going make laws that would benefit their own positions.
Come to think of it, maybe it should be illegal for anyone to be elected to Congress.
The problem, as far as insurance is concerned, is that it's easy to charge higher rates to people with records of unsafe driving and accidents. Keeping track of which software version is running on each person's car gets a bit trickier.
Of course, they'd probably just modify their policies so that they provide no coverage when a human driver isn't in control of the vehicle, at which point it would be illegal to use the cars in most (all?) states, as driving uninsured is illegal.
Actually, just yesterday the Supreme Court ruled that you can't sue the government or the person who kidnaps you if the government hires a bounty hunter to come to your country, kidnap you, and bring you to the US, even if you're acquitted of the crime they claim you committed, and it was obvious enough that you weren't guilty that your own government, which is usually a very compliant puppet of the US, refused to extradite you.
So yeah, basically they can send bounty hunters anywhere to go after you for anything you do.
When some script kiddie can wirelessly take control of the collision-avoidance system of random drivers' cars and crash them into mine, I for one won't want to be driving anymore.
Of course, at that point car insurance will cost more than your car, because the insurance companies sure as hell aren't going to trust the computers.
No, you won't. You have no idea what you're talking about.
I guess it's easy to argue that the law is wrong when you're completely clueless as to what the law is. If you infringe a software company's copyright by obtaining software worth $199, you cannot be charged with theft. In fact, you can't be charged with a federal crime at all, and the FBI sure as hell isn't going to bother looking for you.
If you redistribute that $199 software enough times, then you're committing a federal crime.
The attacks against Hamas that kill civilians who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time suck, yes.
But compaining about the wall just seems ridiculous to me. If you want your own country, you shouldn't be complaining that you can no longer work in the country you used to be a part of. Why should there be a right to cross a border into another country to work, especially if the two countries are effectively at war? If Israel had never seized Gaza and the West Bank (after it was attacked, by the way), would the people living there have a fundamental right to work inside Israel?
Fox News and the Wall Street Journal must also be left-wing, for the same reasons. Why bother reading them, when we can just use "logic" to prove our point?
Look, I didn't want to know about Clinton's sex life, and I don't want to know if Bush has been handcuffing himself to the CEOs of companies that support him. Can't we judge our politicians on their public actions and not their kinky sex lives?
Which is odd, because every bag of concrete mix I've ever seen has very clear warnings printed on it telling you that when mixed with water, this product will burn your skin. I realize you can print warnings on products as clearly as you want and people won't read them, but you'd think people with a career in mixing cement would realize this.
On the other hand, trying to sell to iPod owners would be smart, as they have a huge market share, but the iPod is unlikely to ever start working with any sort of Windows-only DRM'ed music files.
You should really tell BMI and ASCAP about that, since if you're right, their auditors are really going to start to wonder where all that money's coming from that they claim they're getting for licensing broadcasting rights.
Or maybe you just have no idea whatsoever what you're talking about. Yeah, that seems more likely.
All ads in every medium ever have been hit or miss. Why should web ads be any different?
Until the advertising companies can connect retinal scanners to a database of everything you've ever bought, a la Minority Report, it's going to continue to be hit or miss.
Slashdot Mirror
My old iBook had at least 1 perfectly functional USB port. Did they eliminate them on the recent models so you can't plug in a mouse?
My iPod is well designed, and I'm not about to trade it in for something designed by a company like Dell. I haven't used their music players and can't comment on what specifically might be wrong with them, but I'm sure there are major flaws, because Dell's entire design philosophy seems to be to steal Apple's designs but do it horribly wrong.
Well, I connect to my mail server with imaps, but the effort involved in actually encrypting the messages themselves before storing them, let alone getting the people who I'm corresponding with to use encryption on every message, aren't really worth it to me, and I'm guessing 99% of computer users would agree. I use ssh instead of telnet just because typing passwords in a medium that can be snooped on seems like a bad idea, even if it's unlikely anyone will be listening to my telnet session. I don't email my passwords to anyone, and I don't really get any email that I'd especially mind sysadmins reading. It's not that I feel I can completely trust them; it's more that anything they read isn't going to do me any harm.
And this ruling has nothing to do with it, because the Wiretap Act doesn't cover messages sent on paper.
I don't mind the rebates. I wouldn't buy a Dell product because I have them at work and think it's ridiculous to put ports on the front of a machine if you need to crawl on the floor to plug anything into them. I can tilt a Gateway box and plug headphones into the back a whole lot easier than I can plug headphones into a port on the front of a Dell that has a door covering it so you can't access the ports if you're above the machine.
HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! That's a good one.
The US has used chemical weapons more recently and a lot more often then it's used nuclear weapons, and if you really believe the Defense Department only produces new biological weapons so they can learn how protect against other people using them, you're pretty gullible.
Of course, if the US really wants to massively destroy people, the nuclear arsenal would be their best option, since they've already got the submarine, bomber, and ICBM delivery systems all ready to attack at a moment's notice. But for a small-scale retaliatory strike, I'd think chemical weapons would be a more likely answer, because the Russians and Chinese would be pretty likely to be unhappy with the fallout they'd have to deal with from a nuclear strike in Asia, whereas chemical weapons don't spread over as wide an area.
Come to think of it, maybe it should be illegal for anyone to be elected to Congress.
spamsource. see http://openrbl.org/#128.175.13.92
Of course, they'd probably just modify their policies so that they provide no coverage when a human driver isn't in control of the vehicle, at which point it would be illegal to use the cars in most (all?) states, as driving uninsured is illegal.
So yeah, basically they can send bounty hunters anywhere to go after you for anything you do.
Of course, at that point car insurance will cost more than your car, because the insurance companies sure as hell aren't going to trust the computers.
If you can afford to hire lobbyists that could push something like that through Congress, chances are you're not writing software for free.
I guess it's easy to argue that the law is wrong when you're completely clueless as to what the law is. If you infringe a software company's copyright by obtaining software worth $199, you cannot be charged with theft. In fact, you can't be charged with a federal crime at all, and the FBI sure as hell isn't going to bother looking for you.
If you redistribute that $199 software enough times, then you're committing a federal crime.
Well why don't you go give a kid a gun for free and see which one of you gets a bigger jail sentence when he shoots someone.
But compaining about the wall just seems ridiculous to me. If you want your own country, you shouldn't be complaining that you can no longer work in the country you used to be a part of. Why should there be a right to cross a border into another country to work, especially if the two countries are effectively at war? If Israel had never seized Gaza and the West Bank (after it was attacked, by the way), would the people living there have a fundamental right to work inside Israel?
Fox News and the Wall Street Journal must also be left-wing, for the same reasons. Why bother reading them, when we can just use "logic" to prove our point?
Look, I didn't want to know about Clinton's sex life, and I don't want to know if Bush has been handcuffing himself to the CEOs of companies that support him. Can't we judge our politicians on their public actions and not their kinky sex lives?
Slashdot really needs to hire some statisticians who know what the fuck they're doing, to prevent comments like this from happening.
Which is odd, because every bag of concrete mix I've ever seen has very clear warnings printed on it telling you that when mixed with water, this product will burn your skin. I realize you can print warnings on products as clearly as you want and people won't read them, but you'd think people with a career in mixing cement would realize this.
Great... now if I sprain my ankle I won't be able to get through security.
On the other hand, trying to sell to iPod owners would be smart, as they have a huge market share, but the iPod is unlikely to ever start working with any sort of Windows-only DRM'ed music files.
It's really sad that a "quote" that's been quoted so often, as you point out, could be so horribly misquoted.
Or maybe you just have no idea whatsoever what you're talking about. Yeah, that seems more likely.
Please describe any search algorithm that could possibly have any reliance whatsoever on running on top of a linux kernel. Go ahead, try it.
Until the advertising companies can connect retinal scanners to a database of everything you've ever bought, a la Minority Report, it's going to continue to be hit or miss.