Why not just use PGP or GPG? I for one, would like to see greater implementation (read: any implementation whatsoever) of these systems in the more common web-based/free email systems such as Yahoo and Hotmail.
A 5200 is NOT a "badass video card."
With each chipset release, NVidia has a complete line of cards that run on said platform. This time around, it's the FX-series, named after the CineFX GPU. Just because the 5200 uses the FX, it does not necessarily mean the card is a "badass video card."
To compare this now, against my dated GF3Ti200: (output of nvclock -s)
Card: nVidia Geforce 3 Titanium 200
Card number: 1
Memory speed: 400.904 MHz
Core speed: 174.997 MHz
As you can see, the core speed of the GPU for the 5200 is about 75Mhz faster (<sarcasm>OH WOW </sarcasm>), but, MORE IMPORTANTLY, the clock speed of the memory is nearly 75Mhz SLOWER.
Given that, if you were to pit my gf3ti200 against a brand-new 5200, my card would outperform the 5200 in every test.
The Bottom Line:If you are considering an upgrade to play Doom III: Buying anything less powerful (fuck the numbers, marketing, and prices, check the specs) than a 5950 or 5900XT (or, for ATI folk, a 9600XT or better) is a complete waste of money.
With the recent stories of Winex's cedega, and that other little startup who claimed to magically have 100% windows interoperability, it sounds like we're trading software titles like baseball cards.
Linux Community: "I'll give ya grep and less, for Photoshop."
Microsoft: "Uhh...how about you throw in sendmail, and we give you notepad?"
Linux Community: "WHAT?! No way, you give me Outlook, if you want sendmail!"
Microsoft (chuckling, because they know Outlook is a shit deal): "Yeah, man! You got a deal!"
PNG alpha transparency is KEY.
For example, compare my latest website design in IE5/6, then look at it in Mozilla/Firefox/Konqueror/Galeon[insert other standards-compliant browser here].
As highly slathered with boring right wing cliches as your post is, I must say I completely agree with your notion to enforce a.XXX TLD.
However, the Court's ruling is perfectly justified; it is their job to uphold the First Amendment, not to pander to a few "rich old white men" who have one unified view of the country as this 1950's suburb, all aglow with happy faces and puppies.
That being said, I completely disagree with the unfair moderation of your post as flamebait.
p.s. "My aunt's neice" . . . isn't that a bit circular? Isn't that your sister or cousin?
That is hardly "enough new features."
Where's the CSS2 support?
Hell, for that matter, where's the fixes to fully implement CSS1 (i.e., NOT PROPRIETARY EXTENSIONS).
Where's tabbed-browsing?
A service pack is not a release. It's a patch. It's an addon. It's a, well, SERVICE PACK.
So...wait, let me get this straight...people still use Internet Explorer? You shouldn't even have to link to Mozilla. /me checks the date...
yep, it's 2004. The last version of IE (not counting patches, of course) came out in late summer of 2001. TWO THOUSAND AND ONE. We're going on THREE YEARS, people.
Same thing with Blaster...if you didn't install the patches from a CD, as soon as you got online, you would get infected. Perhaps the situation is better now, but that's how it was last Fall. I had the misfortune of working as a technician (I know, it's idiotic -- some of us have bills to pay) at Best Buy during that time, and we had to patch every single new machine that was sold off the floor. Of course, we charged a $25 fee for this service. And, of course, people bitched that it was a scam, but, hey, we didn't write the virus. And we sure as hell didn't make Windows insecure by default. Sure enough, people that refused to pay the extra $25 came back a week later, crying that they were infected. We did some testing (nothing scientific, I assure you) and the fastest we saw a machine get infected was within thirty seconds of being on a dial-up network. So claiming that Windows is insecure has nothing to do with the stupidity of its users (although that factor does play a role).
You think it's coincidental that Microsoft released a patch CD for free last October? (Which, btw, was FAR TOO LATE to do jack shit about intercepting Blaster's wrath.)
I couldn't agree more.
I've had the same Debian sid installation on this machine since early 2002.
It has gone through two processor upgrades, one motherboard upgrade, two video cards, two harddrives. The most important of these being the motherboard, of course. It's the modularity of Linux that keeps me on it. The fact that I can upgrade hardware, or even move files from one harddrive to a new harddrive, without losing an OUNCE of data, is what really does it for me. Ever do a motherboard upgrade in Windows? It breaks horribly. Ever try to move all files from harddrive to another? It breaks horribly. On top of having the same Debian install, I've had the same ~/ since 2000, from when I was on redhat. Now that's portability.
Quoting:
KDE apps has down right painful startup times, especially if you don't run KDE.
Very true statement, aside from the fact that you say (indirectly) that it still takes long, even if you are in KDE. Firstly, the reason KDE apps take so long to load outside of KDE, is because KDE applications are made to run inside KDE, i.e., they expect to be able to connect to DCOPServer, they expect kdeinit to already be running. But, if those things (and other little 'background-loaded and cached hacks', as the parent first noted) are not running, they must first be loaded, and then your KDE app can run freely. To view the other side of the proverbial coin, start up a full-fledged KDE3.2 (3.2 being far more responsive than ANY KDE predecessor) and then, after the desktop has completely loaded, start up Konqueror. On my box, [Athlon XP 2000+, 768M DDR, UDMA133], it takes one second.
And so, to reply the parent:
Aparently, windows caches a bunch of stuff and has a bunch other little hacks that allows this. So why can't linux and the kde people do this. They've copied everything else, why not this?
Upgrade your KDE build. They do what you asked for.
The best way to avoid all this mess is to only listen to independant music. And by "independant," I don't mean "indie." Indie is a genre, not a fiscal model. Any band on an independant label is bound to be superior to "for-money" bands. For example, I'm into hardcore, a subgenre of punk rock. All real hardcore bands typically don't make any money whatsoever. In fact, some do it on the side of their day jobs, such as snapcase. Members of snapcase are software engineers and jet engine technicians, and the band has been around for well over ten years, with four full-length albums and legions of rabid fans. The shows they (and other hardcore bands) play are typically in tiny clubs, for tiny cover charges. Their merchandise (thirts, etc) is also cheap (roughly $10 for a shirt, compare that to Britney Spears, [or even the mall]).
Everything they do, they do for themselves and for the love of music, not for money.
Clearly, you did not read the entire article...if you would have read it, you would have noticed:
P.S.: Some readers have pointed out that my lanuage above was unclear in one respect. It is perfectly legal for Microsoft to have lifted code from BSD. But we only know about this because the way TCP/IP implementations respond to certain odd packet types is underspecified in the standard, and it is possible to build family trees of code derivation through behavioral analysis.
The point is this: Microsoft (legally) took BSD code, and the only way we know about it is through behavioural analysis. So how do we know commercial outfits haven't taken code illegally?
And to quote you: Yes, I think he should have taken a deep breath and counted to ten before replying:^)
Uh-huh. He definitely should have. Maybe you should have, too.
Given the proper education about vegetarianism/veganism, it is far healthier than many people would have you believe. Quite frankly, I'm sick and tired of meat eaters claiming that vegeterianism is a dangerous way of life unless you "work really hard" at it, or you "do your homework." Claiming that is so blatantly obvious, it's pathetic. That's only a "valid argument" because vegetarianism is not the norm. If the tables were turned, and everyone on the planet was a vegan, yet there was this new "hip subculture" of people who ate meat, I guarantee you that every vegan would be saying, "Yes, eating meat can be a viable lifestyle, but you have to know how to do it. You can't eat all meat. The meat of humans, for example, will make you sick. And naerly 75% of chicken sold in the U.S. is infected with salmonella, so you have to know how to cook it. Furthermore, you must be sure to balance it out by still eating plenty of grains and vegetables, or your hair will fall out." It's only necessary to "work really hard" at being vegan/vegetarian, because the food industry, especially the fast food and restaraunt industries, do not give people any alternatives to eating greasy carcasses for lunch. A vegan lifestyle is far healthier than whatever you're living now, it just requires more work, but not because humans are intended to eat meat, rather, it's what's primarily available.
Whether you like it or not, this idiotic argument is precisely the same as saying, "Yes, you can run Linux, but you have to do your homework, and be very careful not to IRC as root."
Bottom line is that anything worth doing requires work.
Since it's being slashdotted, I figured I'd post it here...
I recently spent the better part of a week working with the latest version of the open-source GNOME graphical desktop environment on Linux. I've decided that the only way to explain the regression of GNOME over the years is that Microsoft and/or SCO moles have infiltrated the GNOME leadership in a covert effort to destroy any possibility that Linux could compete with Windows on the desktop.
To paraphrase the humorist Peter Schickele, who was describing what it was like to discover a new music manuscript by the (fictional) inept composer P.D.Q. Bach, "Each time I get a new version of GNOME, there's this feeling of anticipation and exhilaration -- a feeling that this new version of GNOME can't possibly turn out to be as bad as the last one. But so far, each new version lives down to the same low standards set by the previous one."
By the time a software project gets to Version 2.6, a user might reasonably expect that he wouldn't have to adapt to yet another paradigm shift in basic user-interface design, especially when it comes to something as fundamental as how you navigate through desktop folders. Yet this is precisely what users will have to relearn with this latest version of GNOME.
The GNOME file manager, Nautilus, no longer allows users to navigate through folders as one might use a Web browser or Windows Explorer. You no longer browse with all your options accessible in a single window or a split window with a directory tree on the left and icons on the right. Instead, each double-click on a folder icon opens a new window on the screen. If this sounds familiar, it's because this was the default behavior of Windows 95, OS/2 and early versions of Mac OS. The fact that this isn't the default behavior of any mature desktop operating system might have served as a warning sign to GNOME's developers, but never mind that.
Having used OS/2 for years, I found GNOME's retro approach to be a rather pleasantly nostalgic experience. But now that I'm used to navigating folders the way one does on virtually every other desktop, however, I decided to tell the file manager not to open a new window for every folder. But it turns out there is no preference setting that tells Nautilus to use a single window to browse folders.
The only way to change the default behavior of Nautilus is to set an obscure registry key via the command line or the registry editor. Not even that abomination of operating systems, Windows 95, made users retreat to the registry editor to use a single window to navigate folders. I can only assume that the GNOME developers decided to make Nautilus a worse Windows than Windows. I toast their rousing success.
Granted, there are myriad unintuitive keystrokes and shift-key/mouse-click operations you can use to make it easier to navigate folders, all of which will mean squat to the daft simpletons the GNOME developers say they are targeting as their users. But GNOME developers have long since abandoned logic when defending their design choices. For example, one GNOME developer says there's a good reason why users can't change individual colors in desktop themes: Someone might accidentally make both the text and background white, thus rendering the text unreadable.
Of course, this flaw has nothing to do with the inflexibility of the primitive graphical tool kit upon which GNOME was based. It was deliberately designed to protect users who are invariably too incompetent to pick their own colors but are smart enough to memorize shift-clicks and keystrokes or edit the registry to get Nautilus to work the way they like.
Of all the criticisms one might lodge against GNOME, it's the hypocrisy of its design philosophy that looms largest. GNOME grew out of the desire to free people from Microsoft's ability to dictate what users can or can't do. Yet GNOME is built on the premise that its developers are so much wiser than users when it comes to navigating folders and setting colors
I just left a seven-month stint (read: hell) at Best Buy. Emachines are still far better than Compaq and HP combined. I had seen HPs that came directly CUSTOM-ORDERED from the factory (Mexico) that had the harddrives just LAYING inside the case. This happened twice. Once, it was in there, cabled, but not mounted in the cutesy little green plastic cage (Dell ripoff). The second time, it wasn't even cabled. Don't ever say HP makes a quality product. Sure, they might design a quality product, but even that only goes as far as "Hey, Bob, what harddrive manufacturer should we put in our XFACTOR XTREME EDITIONXXX?"
From the article: An official from the Recording Industry Association of America said that some hackers even obtain albums that have been recorded but not yet released.
So because I (HYPOTHETICALLY) got Amnesiac two months before it hit store shelves, I'm a hacker? I'm a terrorist? I trade child porn?
It's a real shame, I once took the NYT with a shred of credibility. I should have learned to completely ignore their bullshit after the whole Jayson Blair fiasco.
Slashdot Mirror
The word is "its", goddammit. Possessive pronouns never use an apostrophe to display their possessiveness.
Would you use her's, his's, them's, or their's?
No.
So don't fucking use "it's".
Why not just use PGP or GPG? I for one, would like to see greater implementation (read: any implementation whatsoever) of these systems in the more common web-based/free email systems such as Yahoo and Hotmail.
A 5200 is NOT a "badass video card."
With each chipset release, NVidia has a complete line of cards that run on said platform. This time around, it's the FX-series, named after the CineFX GPU. Just because the 5200 uses the FX, it does not necessarily mean the card is a "badass video card."
To further compare, for your amusement:
Chipset/Core Speed: nVIDIA GeForce FX5200/250MHz
Memory/Effective Speed: 128MB DDR/332MHz
To compare this now, against my dated GF3Ti200: (output of nvclock -s)
Card: nVidia Geforce 3 Titanium 200
Card number: 1
Memory speed: 400.904 MHz
Core speed: 174.997 MHz
As you can see, the core speed of the GPU for the 5200 is about 75Mhz faster (<sarcasm>OH WOW </sarcasm>), but, MORE IMPORTANTLY, the clock speed of the memory is nearly 75Mhz SLOWER.
Given that, if you were to pit my gf3ti200 against a brand-new 5200, my card would outperform the 5200 in every test.
The Bottom Line:If you are considering an upgrade to play Doom III: Buying anything less powerful (fuck the numbers, marketing, and prices, check the specs) than a 5950 or 5900XT (or, for ATI folk, a 9600XT or better) is a complete waste of money.
With the recent stories of Winex's cedega, and that other little startup who claimed to magically have 100% windows interoperability, it sounds like we're trading software titles like baseball cards.
Linux Community: "I'll give ya grep and less, for Photoshop."
Microsoft: "Uhh...how about you throw in sendmail, and we give you notepad?"
Linux Community: "WHAT?! No way, you give me Outlook, if you want sendmail!"
Microsoft (chuckling, because they know Outlook is a shit deal): "Yeah, man! You got a deal!"
PNG alpha transparency is KEY. For example, compare my latest website design in IE5/6, then look at it in Mozilla/Firefox/Konqueror/Galeon[insert other standards-compliant browser here].
As highly slathered with boring right wing cliches as your post is, I must say I completely agree with your notion to enforce a .XXX TLD.
However, the Court's ruling is perfectly justified; it is their job to uphold the First Amendment, not to pander to a few "rich old white men" who have one unified view of the country as this 1950's suburb, all aglow with happy faces and puppies.
That being said, I completely disagree with the unfair moderation of your post as flamebait.
p.s. "My aunt's neice" . . . isn't that a bit circular? Isn't that your sister or cousin?
Huh?
UT2004 runs on Linux natively. Read: "doesn't need an emulator," and "runs really good."
Where the hell have you been for the past six months?
Has anyone ever seen a worthwhile reply from an AC? Why are AC's still permitted?
If not, who cares.
There's no reason today's game companies can't release games for Linux. Just look at UT2004.
That is hardly "enough new features."
Where's the CSS2 support?
Hell, for that matter, where's the fixes to fully implement CSS1 (i.e., NOT PROPRIETARY EXTENSIONS).
Where's tabbed-browsing?
A service pack is not a release. It's a patch. It's an addon. It's a, well, SERVICE PACK.
So...wait, let me get this straight...people still use Internet Explorer? You shouldn't even have to link to Mozilla.
/me checks the date...
yep, it's 2004. The last version of IE (not counting patches, of course) came out in late summer of 2001. TWO THOUSAND AND ONE. We're going on THREE YEARS, people.
Time to MOVE ON.
Same thing with Blaster...if you didn't install the patches from a CD, as soon as you got online, you would get infected. Perhaps the situation is better now, but that's how it was last Fall.
I had the misfortune of working as a technician (I know, it's idiotic -- some of us have bills to pay) at Best Buy during that time, and we had to patch every single new machine that was sold off the floor.
Of course, we charged a $25 fee for this service.
And, of course, people bitched that it was a scam, but, hey, we didn't write the virus. And we sure as hell didn't make Windows insecure by default.
Sure enough, people that refused to pay the extra $25 came back a week later, crying that they were infected.
We did some testing (nothing scientific, I assure you) and the fastest we saw a machine get infected was within thirty seconds of being on a dial-up network.
So claiming that Windows is insecure has nothing to do with the stupidity of its users (although that factor does play a role).
You think it's coincidental that Microsoft released a patch CD for free last October? (Which, btw, was FAR TOO LATE to do jack shit about intercepting Blaster's wrath.)
I couldn't agree more.
I've had the same Debian sid installation on this machine since early 2002.
It has gone through two processor upgrades, one motherboard upgrade, two video cards, two harddrives.
The most important of these being the motherboard, of course.
It's the modularity of Linux that keeps me on it. The fact that I can upgrade hardware, or even move files from one harddrive to a new harddrive, without losing an OUNCE of data, is what really does it for me.
Ever do a motherboard upgrade in Windows? It breaks horribly.
Ever try to move all files from harddrive to another? It breaks horribly.
On top of having the same Debian install, I've had the same ~/ since 2000, from when I was on redhat.
Now that's portability.
Quoting:
KDE apps has down right painful startup times, especially if you don't run KDE.
Very true statement, aside from the fact that you say (indirectly) that it still takes long, even if you are in KDE. Firstly, the reason KDE apps take so long to load outside of KDE, is because KDE applications are made to run inside KDE, i.e., they expect to be able to connect to DCOPServer, they expect kdeinit to already be running. But, if those things (and other little 'background-loaded and cached hacks', as the parent first noted) are not running, they must first be loaded, and then your KDE app can run freely.
To view the other side of the proverbial coin, start up a full-fledged KDE3.2 (3.2 being far more responsive than ANY KDE predecessor) and then, after the desktop has completely loaded, start up Konqueror. On my box, [Athlon XP 2000+, 768M DDR, UDMA133], it takes one second.
And so, to reply the parent:
Aparently, windows caches a bunch of stuff and has a bunch other little hacks that allows this. So why can't linux and the kde people do this. They've copied everything else, why not this?
Upgrade your KDE build. They do what you asked for.
The best way to avoid all this mess is to only listen to independant music. And by "independant," I don't mean "indie." Indie is a genre, not a fiscal model. Any band on an independant label is bound to be superior to "for-money" bands. For example, I'm into hardcore, a subgenre of punk rock. All real hardcore bands typically don't make any money whatsoever. In fact, some do it on the side of their day jobs, such as snapcase. Members of snapcase are software engineers and jet engine technicians, and the band has been around for well over ten years, with four full-length albums and legions of rabid fans. The shows they (and other hardcore bands) play are typically in tiny clubs, for tiny cover charges. Their merchandise (thirts, etc) is also cheap (roughly $10 for a shirt, compare that to Britney Spears, [or even the mall]).
Everything they do, they do for themselves and for the love of music, not for money.
Clearly, you did not read the entire article...if you would have read it, you would have noticed:
:^)
P.S.: Some readers have pointed out that my lanuage above was unclear in one respect. It is perfectly legal for Microsoft to have lifted code from BSD. But we only know about this because the way TCP/IP implementations respond to certain odd packet types is underspecified in the standard, and it is possible to build family trees of code derivation through behavioral analysis.
The point is this: Microsoft (legally) took BSD code, and the only way we know about it is through behavioural analysis. So how do we know commercial outfits haven't taken code illegally?
And to quote you: Yes, I think he should have taken a deep breath and counted to ten before replying
Uh-huh. He definitely should have. Maybe you should have, too.
I've never been to a desert that had any cheese on it.
Desserts, however...
Isn't funding your own prosecution a bit of a conflict of interest?
I wasn't alive in March of 1981, therefore the Universe did not exist and it does not concern me.
"Current gas prices (in the U.S. at any rate) are higher than they have been in a decade or so . . . "
Actually, current gas prices are higher than they have ever been.
Given the proper education about vegetarianism/veganism, it is far healthier than many people would have you believe. Quite frankly, I'm sick and tired of meat eaters claiming that vegeterianism is a dangerous way of life unless you "work really hard" at it, or you "do your homework." Claiming that is so blatantly obvious, it's pathetic. That's only a "valid argument" because vegetarianism is not the norm. If the tables were turned, and everyone on the planet was a vegan, yet there was this new "hip subculture" of people who ate meat, I guarantee you that every vegan would be saying, "Yes, eating meat can be a viable lifestyle, but you have to know how to do it. You can't eat all meat. The meat of humans, for example, will make you sick. And naerly 75% of chicken sold in the U.S. is infected with salmonella, so you have to know how to cook it. Furthermore, you must be sure to balance it out by still eating plenty of grains and vegetables, or your hair will fall out." It's only necessary to "work really hard" at being vegan/vegetarian, because the food industry, especially the fast food and restaraunt industries, do not give people any alternatives to eating greasy carcasses for lunch. A vegan lifestyle is far healthier than whatever you're living now, it just requires more work, but not because humans are intended to eat meat, rather, it's what's primarily available.
Whether you like it or not, this idiotic argument is precisely the same as saying, "Yes, you can run Linux, but you have to do your homework, and be very careful not to IRC as root."
Bottom line is that anything worth doing requires work.
Since it's being slashdotted, I figured I'd post it here...
I recently spent the better part of a week working with the latest version of the open-source GNOME graphical desktop environment on Linux. I've decided that the only way to explain the regression of GNOME over the years is that Microsoft and/or SCO moles have infiltrated the GNOME leadership in a covert effort to destroy any possibility that Linux could compete with Windows on the desktop.
To paraphrase the humorist Peter Schickele, who was describing what it was like to discover a new music manuscript by the (fictional) inept composer P.D.Q. Bach, "Each time I get a new version of GNOME, there's this feeling of anticipation and exhilaration -- a feeling that this new version of GNOME can't possibly turn out to be as bad as the last one. But so far, each new version lives down to the same low standards set by the previous one."
By the time a software project gets to Version 2.6, a user might reasonably expect that he wouldn't have to adapt to yet another paradigm shift in basic user-interface design, especially when it comes to something as fundamental as how you navigate through desktop folders. Yet this is precisely what users will have to relearn with this latest version of GNOME.
The GNOME file manager, Nautilus, no longer allows users to navigate through folders as one might use a Web browser or Windows Explorer. You no longer browse with all your options accessible in a single window or a split window with a directory tree on the left and icons on the right. Instead, each double-click on a folder icon opens a new window on the screen. If this sounds familiar, it's because this was the default behavior of Windows 95, OS/2 and early versions of Mac OS. The fact that this isn't the default behavior of any mature desktop operating system might have served as a warning sign to GNOME's developers, but never mind that.
Having used OS/2 for years, I found GNOME's retro approach to be a rather pleasantly nostalgic experience. But now that I'm used to navigating folders the way one does on virtually every other desktop, however, I decided to tell the file manager not to open a new window for every folder. But it turns out there is no preference setting that tells Nautilus to use a single window to browse folders.
The only way to change the default behavior of Nautilus is to set an obscure registry key via the command line or the registry editor. Not even that abomination of operating systems, Windows 95, made users retreat to the registry editor to use a single window to navigate folders. I can only assume that the GNOME developers decided to make Nautilus a worse Windows than Windows. I toast their rousing success.
Granted, there are myriad unintuitive keystrokes and shift-key/mouse-click operations you can use to make it easier to navigate folders, all of which will mean squat to the daft simpletons the GNOME developers say they are targeting as their users. But GNOME developers have long since abandoned logic when defending their design choices. For example, one GNOME developer says there's a good reason why users can't change individual colors in desktop themes: Someone might accidentally make both the text and background white, thus rendering the text unreadable.
Of course, this flaw has nothing to do with the inflexibility of the primitive graphical tool kit upon which GNOME was based. It was deliberately designed to protect users who are invariably too incompetent to pick their own colors but are smart enough to memorize shift-clicks and keystrokes or edit the registry to get Nautilus to work the way they like.
Of all the criticisms one might lodge against GNOME, it's the hypocrisy of its design philosophy that looms largest. GNOME grew out of the desire to free people from Microsoft's ability to dictate what users can or can't do. Yet GNOME is built on the premise that its developers are so much wiser than users when it comes to navigating folders and setting colors
I just left a seven-month stint (read: hell) at Best Buy. Emachines are still far better than Compaq and HP combined. I had seen HPs that came directly CUSTOM-ORDERED from the factory (Mexico) that had the harddrives just LAYING inside the case. This happened twice. Once, it was in there, cabled, but not mounted in the cutesy little green plastic cage (Dell ripoff). The second time, it wasn't even cabled. Don't ever say HP makes a quality product. Sure, they might design a quality product, but even that only goes as far as "Hey, Bob, what harddrive manufacturer should we put in our XFACTOR XTREME EDITIONXXX?"
From the article: An official from the Recording Industry Association of America said that some hackers even obtain albums that have been recorded but not yet released.
So because I (HYPOTHETICALLY) got Amnesiac two months before it hit store shelves, I'm a hacker? I'm a terrorist? I trade child porn?
It's a real shame, I once took the NYT with a shred of credibility. I should have learned to completely ignore their bullshit after the whole Jayson Blair fiasco.
Because they get a lot more money now that the market is inundated with it. Did you have to ask?