Does anybody see a pattern here? Most people thought XP was rubbish for the first couple of years that it was out for, and now those same people are proclaiming it to be Microsoft's best OS to date.
I think you can attribute that asstistic to the fact that Service Pack 2 was released.
And apparently Toshiba's only honouring the warranty now if none of the original bundled software has been removed.
Dear [deity], what?!? So, even if you remove the crapware trial software, upgrade to an open driver, remove crap Windows services, etc, you're screwed?
If this is true, I think this point alone should be front page news.
Every machine I've ordered from CDW has been preloaded with Windows XP, for which I thank them with my continued business. Vista has no place here.
Agreed. Our office has ordered around 120 PCs in the past few months, all with XP preloaded. We wipe and reimage them before the end users see them, but the gesture is appreciated.
So, not only is it going to be a horrible day when your house is broken into and ransacked for valuables, you also lose the next month's pay because your company wants to "crack down" on employees.
I'm for getting rid of the brain-dead moderation system here. At the very least, make moderation public so we can hunt down and flame those idiots who abuse their mod points like the scummy little punks they are.
Where does it say in the US constitution that it only applies to actions taking place on US soil or applies only to US citizens? Where does this meme come from? Is it really in the constitution or is it something that was cooked up in later legislation or judicial decisions, or just pure Orwellian BS?
Many years of judicial interpretation.
For instance looking at Article II, the executive branch, various powers are granted, but nowhere does it say, "outside the borders, do as you please".
That's a whole different section applying to a completely different scenario
Article I.8 is also interesting.
Then there's the "lost" amendment, #10:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
How does amendment 10 have anything to do with this?
I didn't threaten anyone. I simply expressed the level of regard that I have for scumbags such as this, and what I consider an appropriate response. I do hope the guy who got his life screwed up takes care of the guy though. Be nice to read a follow up about how he got run over in a hit and run and didn't survive.
Really, now. Because the following quote, from "ShieldW0lf", uid 601553 on http://slashdot.org/ seems to convey his intent to murder the individual referenced. I have a feeling that individual is Jason Fortuny.
As for the malicious asshole who likes to pretend he's a woman and shame people for recreation, well, he belongs in a shallow grave. He's malicious, and a coward, and a liar, and he screws peoples lives up for sport. I'd quite happily shoot him in the head with my own hand and go back to eating my lunch.
If I were to lose my SO in such a way, I might be upset about the cheating, but I'd be even more upset about losing my SO, whom I care for very deeply..
Then don't leave your SO when he/she cheats. That's your choice.
That said, I do think they had a reasonable expectation of privacy, which was broken. Fortuny could have got his point across just fine by smudging the photos before posting them.
I'm not sure if you can expect to much privacy when responding to a stranger on an anonymous forum to engage in acts of borderline legality.
You can clearly see the definition of the word. No, that must be incorrect, right? Why not link a list of blog posts, news comments, and sites in SPANISH? That should prove your point on the correct use of a word, right?
Perhaps someone else thought it'd be fun to reply to an ad on craigslist in their friend's name and enclose a photo of their friend? That sounds like a pretty likely scenario amongst friends who play jokes on one another. Imagine if one of your friends did that and before you even found it, your 'reply' to a sex ad was posted on an internet site and gathering thousands of hits.
ooh, the fun one can have with their boss' personal info and an anonymous email account...
So sure, I could go into a public restroom at my office every day, snap covert pictures of my co-workers who have small dicks, and post them on the internet. But I don't. You know why? BECAUSE I'M NOT A HUGE FLAMING DOUCHEBAG!
But, what if your coworkers snapped pics of their own junk, then emailed them to a stranger on the Internet?
if someone thinks something is wrong and seeks justice on an issue, they are being a vigilante. doesn't matter what is actually legal or illegal, what matters is what they think is right and wrong
if you start shooting people who do a poor job at parallel parking, you are a "vigilante" in search of "justice" in your mind, regardless of the fact that poor parallel parking skills are not illegal
which is one of the reasons why vigilante justice is wrong: it is determined by the vigiliante, which, as you note, often delineates sharply from society-wide definitions and laws about right and wrong
so i don't know why you think it is valid to point out that someone is not a vigilante because they aren't dutifully following actual laws on the books. as if such a consideration ever had anything to do with what motivates any vigilante, ever, or has anything to do with the criteria for labelling someone a vigilante
You keep using this word "vigilante." I do not think it means what you think it means.
From Dictionary.com:
-noun 1. a member of a vigilance committee.
2. any person who takes the law into his or her own hands, as by avenging a crime.
-adjective
3. done violently and summarily, without recourse to lawful procedures: vigilante justice.
He does not appear to be a member of a vigilance committee. He is not taking law enforcement into his own hands. He did not conduct himself in a violent manner.
The only venue in which I've heard of anyone having success with Craigslist is anonymous forums. Like this one. Not knowing anything about who you are, it's just as likely that you personally rip people off and want to keep the money train rolling as it is that you legitimately use the service. Your referral, therefore, means nothing.
You seem to be quite paranoid about these con-artists. Paranoid to the point of believing that anyone who doesn't condemn Craigslist is likely a con-artist himself, and is trying to lure you back into their organized crime ring.
Do you also believe that the government is monitoring your brain waves?
Slashdot Mirror
Does anybody see a pattern here? Most people thought XP was rubbish for the first couple of years that it was out for, and now those same people are proclaiming it to be Microsoft's best OS to date.
I think you can attribute that asstistic to the fact that Service Pack 2 was released.
And apparently Toshiba's only honouring the warranty now if none of the original bundled software has been removed.
Dear [deity], what?!? So, even if you remove the crapware trial software, upgrade to an open driver, remove crap Windows services, etc, you're screwed?
If this is true, I think this point alone should be front page news.
Every machine I've ordered from CDW has been preloaded with Windows XP, for which I thank them with my continued business. Vista has no place here.
Agreed. Our office has ordered around 120 PCs in the past few months, all with XP preloaded. We wipe and reimage them before the end users see them, but the gesture is appreciated.
whooooooosh. Just sayin'.
You must be quite an important person to be able to speak for and represent nearly 90% of the world's population. Why hide like a coward?
Yes, because a spouse could never ruin your credit score. Identity theft is also never an issue for those with a high IQ.
You don't have to prove it in civil court. At least in the U.S., only criminal courts require proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
All you need is a stronger case, even if it's marginally better and based on circumstantial evidence.
That's why you can't get a government security clearance if you have a sufficiently poor credit score, regardless of how heroic or brilliant you are.
So THAT is what that movie is about. Hm. Maybe I'll actually have to go rent it, sometime.
So, not only is it going to be a horrible day when your house is broken into and ransacked for valuables, you also lose the next month's pay because your company wants to "crack down" on employees.
I think you are mistaking the job titles of "System Administrator" and "Someone Who Has More Than A Passing Chance Of Affecting Change In Policy"
(modified, since some moron continues his sentence from the subject line)
a vigilante... is a self-appointed protector of justice
I can't find that exact definition anywhere. Care to point out which reference book or site I may find it in?
Just because you use a word one way, does not make it correct.
I'm for getting rid of the brain-dead moderation system here. At the very least, make moderation public so we can hunt down and flame those idiots who abuse their mod points like the scummy little punks they are.
How about those scummy Anonymous Cowards, too?
Where does it say in the US constitution that it only applies to actions taking place on US soil or applies only to US citizens? Where does this meme come from? Is it really in the constitution or is it something that was cooked up in later legislation or judicial decisions, or just pure Orwellian BS?
Many years of judicial interpretation.
For instance looking at Article II, the executive branch, various powers are granted, but nowhere does it say, "outside the borders, do as you please".
That's a whole different section applying to a completely different scenario
Article I.8 is also interesting.
Then there's the "lost" amendment, #10: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
How does amendment 10 have anything to do with this?
I didn't threaten anyone. I simply expressed the level of regard that I have for scumbags such as this, and what I consider an appropriate response. I do hope the guy who got his life screwed up takes care of the guy though. Be nice to read a follow up about how he got run over in a hit and run and didn't survive.
Really, now. Because the following quote, from "ShieldW0lf", uid 601553 on http://slashdot.org/ seems to convey his intent to murder the individual referenced. I have a feeling that individual is Jason Fortuny.
As for the malicious asshole who likes to pretend he's a woman and shame people for recreation, well, he belongs in a shallow grave. He's malicious, and a coward, and a liar, and he screws peoples lives up for sport. I'd quite happily shoot him in the head with my own hand and go back to eating my lunch.
If I were to lose my SO in such a way, I might be upset about the cheating, but I'd be even more upset about losing my SO, whom I care for very deeply..
Then don't leave your SO when he/she cheats. That's your choice.
That said, I do think they had a reasonable expectation of privacy, which was broken. Fortuny could have got his point across just fine by smudging the photos before posting them.
I'm not sure if you can expect to much privacy when responding to a stranger on an anonymous forum to engage in acts of borderline legality.
You can clearly see the definition of the word. No, that must be incorrect, right? Why not link a list of blog posts, news comments, and sites in SPANISH? That should prove your point on the correct use of a word, right?
Perhaps someone else thought it'd be fun to reply to an ad on craigslist in their friend's name and enclose a photo of their friend? That sounds like a pretty likely scenario amongst friends who play jokes on one another. Imagine if one of your friends did that and before you even found it, your 'reply' to a sex ad was posted on an internet site and gathering thousands of hits.
ooh, the fun one can have with their boss' personal info and an anonymous email account...
So sure, I could go into a public restroom at my office every day, snap covert pictures of my co-workers who have small dicks, and post them on the internet. But I don't. You know why? BECAUSE I'M NOT A HUGE FLAMING DOUCHEBAG!
But, what if your coworkers snapped pics of their own junk, then emailed them to a stranger on the Internet?
I'd quite happily shoot him in the head with my own hand and go back to eating my lunch.
Does it make you feel tough to threaten people on the Internet? Do you suddenly feel like you finally have real power over someone else?
Or, did your wife leave you because she found out that you weren't quite as faithful as you claimed?
Either way, you seem way too emotionally involved in this.
The only way they'll get him is in a civil suit for harrassment or libel.
I don't think you could be sued for libel if you posted someone's own message verbatim.
if someone thinks something is wrong and seeks justice on an issue, they are being a vigilante. doesn't matter what is actually legal or illegal, what matters is what they think is right and wrong
if you start shooting people who do a poor job at parallel parking, you are a "vigilante" in search of "justice" in your mind, regardless of the fact that poor parallel parking skills are not illegal
which is one of the reasons why vigilante justice is wrong: it is determined by the vigiliante, which, as you note, often delineates sharply from society-wide definitions and laws about right and wrong
so i don't know why you think it is valid to point out that someone is not a vigilante because they aren't dutifully following actual laws on the books. as if such a consideration ever had anything to do with what motivates any vigilante, ever, or has anything to do with the criteria for labelling someone a vigilante
You keep using this word "vigilante." I do not think it means what you think it means.
From Dictionary.com:
-noun
1. a member of a vigilance committee.
2. any person who takes the law into his or her own hands, as by avenging a crime.
-adjective
3. done violently and summarily, without recourse to lawful procedures: vigilante justice.
He does not appear to be a member of a vigilance committee. He is not taking law enforcement into his own hands. He did not conduct himself in a violent manner.
Sounds like the Comedian who went to a telemarketers conference and started calling all the hotel rooms at 3 am and published the results.
Got a link for that?
I would pay to see that.
The only venue in which I've heard of anyone having success with Craigslist is anonymous forums. Like this one. Not knowing anything about who you are, it's just as likely that you personally rip people off and want to keep the money train rolling as it is that you legitimately use the service. Your referral, therefore, means nothing.
You seem to be quite paranoid about these con-artists. Paranoid to the point of believing that anyone who doesn't condemn Craigslist is likely a con-artist himself, and is trying to lure you back into their organized crime ring.
Do you also believe that the government is monitoring your brain waves?