And don't give me that crap about hurting others. That would be true in some place where you had no choice but to go,but now the owner of the building can't even decide for himself if he wants to cater to smokers,WTF? I do see where you are coming from with the hurting others parts. In many cases people cry about hurting others when it is really not true. I must disagree in this situation however.
Second hand smoke kills... I am not sure if I can give an equivalent example for second hand obesity however.
And do NOT even begin to bring up the fact that people can just go to other places if they want a non smoking environment. There are way too many variables involved to hold up that argument.
The *average* person will not go 5 extra blocks to get a smoothie just to avoid some passive second hand smoke. Thus being harmed in the process. I call bullshit on your wiki article. Can you show me one single death that is due to second hand smoke? I know the article says "studies show" but I have not heard of a single case of secondhand smoke killing anyone, especially second hand smoke from public places.
Non-smoking laws are about freedom! It's about one group trying to control the actions of another.
Smoking is a nasty and disgusting habit. I'm not a smoker, never have been. I'm an asthmatic but cigarette smoke doesn't bother me. But smoking is disgusting and offensive in public places.
In Colorado smoking is now prohibited in most public places, and it's great. Feel free to smoke in the comfort of your own home, or your car, or even walking down the sidewalk. But you have to be pretty arrogant and selfish to think you have any right to light a fire and blow smoke into other people in public places.
Smoking should not be illegal and should not be subject to additional taxes beyond sales tax. But you should definitely have to smoke where it doesn't bother other people in a public place--most of whom do not smoke and who have only tolerated it because we have no choice but to put up with the bad manners of smokers who only think of themselves.
If you feel otherwise, well, next time I see you smoking in a public place maybe I'll just get a half dozen of my closest friends to go over to where you are and let loose some juicy, smelly farts. After all, it's freedom of choice and there's no law against it.
If smokers had been more CONSIDERATE of non-smokers, I'll bet you wouldn't have seen so many places passing laws that legislate consideration and good manners.
You say smoking is a nasty habit and shouldn't be allowed around you? Well, I think that those little asthma inhalers are nasty. So should I be allowed to restrict where you use you inhaler? I know you say that you NEED your inhaler, but I call bullshit. You don't need your inhaler around me. If you want to use your inhaler, you go outside or do it in the comfort of your own home!
How's it feel to have someone come into a place where you have been and suddenly start telling you what to do? Here's a clue, if you don't like smoke, go to a place that doesn't allow it, end of fuckin' story.
Maybe curse words offend me, can I tell you how to speak? Maybe short skirts offend me, do I tell you how to dress? What if the smell of those perfume soaps offends me, should I tell you how to shower? I can do this all day, but the fact is that you need to learn to tolerate others, let them have their freedom just as you want yours and above all, DON'T TRY TO CONTROL THE LIVES OF OTHER PEOPLE! Stop telling me what to fuckin' do! It's none of your business how I live my life so stop trying to make it!
You say, But you should definitely have to smoke where it doesn't bother other people in a public place--most of whom do not smoke and who have only tolerated it because we have no choice but to put up with the bad manners of smokers who only think of themselves.
Where is that place? It used to be grocery stores, bars, restaurants, airplanes, buses wherever. Then it became bars and designated smoking areas. Then it became just bars, and now, it's nowhere. Now, people are telling smokers that they can't smoke on their balcony because the neighbors might be downwind. Then they are told they can't smoke IN THEIR HOME because it may seep out under the door into the hallway or make the apartment stink. Smoking in a car is now illegal in many places. So you can ask smokers to only smoke where no one minds, but you keep taking those places away and digging deeper and deeper to find someone who is offended wherever a smoker might light up!
And if you and all your friends come up to me and fart, then I'll leave or deal with it! Just like we are telling you to do if a bunch of my friends light up!
I think that it's a combination of 2 and 5: minorities tend to be poorer, and thus can't afford high quality legal counsel.
Point 2 probably partially leads to point 5. Discrimination tends to help keep oppressed people down. Oppressed people tend to be poorer and have fewer opportunities, and tend to be discriminated against for being poor, as well as being a minority. Well, first, not all poor people are minorities and not all minorities are poor. However, I have noticed that many of the people who are poor tend to blame others for their lot in life. These same people do not see a problem with "taking" things that don't belong to them because in their eyes, it WAS TAKEN FROM THEM, or at least they were prevented from getting it (The MAN is holding me down!)
Next, minorities have more opportunities than I do, as whitie. There is no scholarship fund that discriminates against black people, unless it is for some other minority, such as Hispanic. I have yet to see a college fund for white people, exclusively (United Cracker College Fund?). Unfortunately, people believing your point 2 is actually a major factor in the problem (see my first point)
Well, there was one scholarship writing competition for African Americans. A white guy won it, but they wouldn't give him the scholarship, even though he moved to the US from South Africa and was therefor a true African American (probably the only one in the competition)!
If you did, should I then be convicted of bestiality?
The woman is not a nice person, no question. But you really need some perspective. It's nice to feel outraged, but when that outrage starts making it a felony to just fail to abide by somebody's random terms of service on their website? That'll fuck over society as a whole. Hard. And fails to assign the blame on the parents and the people who cared about that girl, because they didn't step in before this happened. Shit doesn't happen in a vacuum. Suicide is VERY rarely a spur of the moment decision. It's something that brews for a long time, building on lots of other emotional problems that can't be surmounted. Her family and friends failed her by not providing her the tools she needed to deal with her problems. Her family's failure is NOT a reason to charge a jackass with being... well, a jackass. First, I believe you could be liable if you told a 10-yr-old child to go fuck a goat and he did. IANAL, so I don't know what law you'd be breaking, but there are laws to protect children from predators like this lady. You can't give a kid a cigarette. You can't give a kid a beer. You can't give a kid drugs, illegal or not. I would guess that it's safe to assume that you can't tell a kid to kill herself.
This isn't about terms of service. It's about an adult acquiring a false persona in order to form a romantic relationship with a little girl for the sole purpose of hurting that child. Unfortunately, it worked much better than she anticipated!
IMHO, this falls under the same category as pulling up your van to the local elementary school and telling a little kid, "I'm a friend of your mother and she asked me to come pick you up." This could also fall under "To Catch a Predator" since she did have a "romantic" relationship with this kid, even though it wasn't sexual.
Granted, this girl had issues beyond what the old bitch did, but the old bitch was the straw that broke the camel's back. That makes her liable. It would not be as bad if she just played the boyfriend and dumped her, but she literally told the girl "the world would be a better place without you". She practically told the girl to kill herself which is exactly what happened. I also have a feeling that suicide was discussed between these two as her comment is not the kind of thing you just bring up at random (pure speculation, of course). It would be interesting to see if any chat logs were kept.
It's true that modern processors do have many more power saving features built in. I'm just thinking that my old P75 didn't even need a fan. My next machine was an AMD K6@300 and it did, although nothing like what is needed on the modern C2D or Opteron. This is why I'm thinking that modern, high performing chips use more power; they produce more heat!
Although I've never tested my theory, just compared the noise level.
Also, you are probably correct if you are comparing a modern notebook to an older one. It's very likely that the modern notebook would use less power than the old clunker. However, I was comparing old notebooks to modern desktops with constantly running case fans and hard drives and so on such.
I certainly understand the rage, but she was 13 and you left her alone, in her life and on the internet. Your fault as least as much as the woman's (if she did it, let's not forget the current state of the judicial process here.) Sure! This girl's parents do share some of the responsibility, but not nearly as much as the woman who played the boy. That's like saying that if someone picks up a child at the bus stop and kills him, then the parents deserve the death penalty as well for leaving the kid there!
Parents need to give their kids some freedom, but these parents should have seen that something was wrong and taken action.
Nobody in this thread denied that someone doing this should "share a good bit of responsibility". But it is not murder, which is a pretty precisely defined crime. You are correct. However, if some c**t did this to my little girl, there would be a murder alright, only she wouldn't be the one being charged. I could probably have my charges dropped to manslaughter, however.
where a power efficient, portable computer can be used How power-efficient are these old laptops really? For a start, they don't do frequency scaling like newer processors do. For example, my Core 2 Duo goes from 1.66 GHz all the way down to 100MHz when idle. That should save quite a bit of power by itself. And other components are probably better thought out now than they were then (power-wise at least). I think you are missing a zero in there. My Core2Duo scales from 1.6GHz down to 1.0GHz. A 266MHz processor uses less power than a 1000MHz processor. Also, a notebook HDD is going to use less power than a desktop HDD, not counting spin downs (which your desktop will also do). For that matter, nearly every component in that notebook, while outdated, is designed for power efficiency much more so than a desktop PC.
And while I won't say that it's murder Actually, you did. That's whole reason I replied to your nonsense. Really? Where?
If it's against the law for me to go online posing as a 14-yr old to lure a 13-yr old girl into a "relationship" It's illegal for you to proposition a minor for sex. Having contact with a minor isn't illegal, yet. While IANAL, I believe you may be wrong here. This woman was this girl's boyfriend. While we don't know if any "hot-chat" was involved, it was certainly an "inappropriate" relationship.
but the laws should be written to prevent an adult from contacting a minor online, especially under a false identity and with malicious intent That's a slipperly slope you're trodding there Mr.I Hate The 1st Amendment. First, this is not a 1st Amendment issue, so you can stick that red herring the up only place that smells worse. The fact that you even tried that shit shows me that you are grasping at straws. Neither fraud nor abusing children are protected under the 1st Amendment.
Next, it's not a slippery slope. No one is saying to lock up any adult who speaks to a minor. However, I don't think it's legal for an adult to make contact with and form a romantic relationship with a minor, sexual or otherwise, especially under a false pseudonym.
If nothing else, this woman should be charged with child abuse. Assuming she was the one who created and/or used the fake online identity, she did so with the intent of causing emotional harm to this little girl. This goes beyond bullying and could/should be considered assault at the very least. I see no reason why a good prosecutor could not lock this bitch up on child predator charges since she literally preyed on a child.
I use old laptops for things like serving up web pages, running an FTP site, portable web-cam host, print server, file server, repeater, router or whatever other services where a power efficient, portable computer can be used. If you have it set up to run a single service or two, then performance is not going to be that big of an issue.
For a web server, for example. I install a low-overhead Linux distro with Apache, ssh and maybe vnc and copy my www directory to it. BAM! Web server! It uses less power than any of my PC's, and it allows me to reboot my "real" machine without taking the web page down.
References? Case law? Oh that's right you don't have any because you're spouting bullshit.
It's harassment at best. If it's against the law for me to go online posing as a 14-yr old to lure a 13-yr old girl into a "relationship", then how is this different. Isn't that EXACTLY what this woman did? Granted, it's not "Catch a Predator", but the laws should be written to prevent an adult from contacting a minor online, especially under a false identity and with malicious intent.
And while I won't say that it's murder, but are there any laws against talking someone into jumping off a bridge?
You need not have meant to kill them. Just as you can be charged with murder if you shoot someone and they die, even if you didn't mean to kill them. Can you be charged with murder if you lay off an employee, and then the former employee cannot find another job, exhausts the six months of unemployment insurance, becomes homeless, and dies? If you lay someone off who has obvious emotional problems by saying, "The world will be a better place without you" and the person commits suicide, then yeah, you share a good bit of responsibility.
Causality does not imply responsibility. Maybe hundred thousands died in Burma because I yawned a month ago. That doesn't make me responsible.
Alternatively I could ask the cab tomorrow : "make a right after all". And bam, he'll hit someone. My opening my mouth to give direction belongs in a causal chain leading to this death. It doesn't make me responsible.
Responsibility comes when the action you did was intrinsically a crime (regardless of the consequences). This woman, under a fake screen persona, "allegedly" told this little girl that the world would be a better place without her. In other words, "Kill yourself", which is exactly what the girl did. I think that makes her at least somewhat responsible.
As for the rest of, unfortunately, there no law against being a C**T! However, there may be something they can do about her being a C**T to a 13-yr-old girl.
oh and add an extra fuck you. when you build it yourself, nothing comes standard and nothing is guaranteed to work. and lets not forget the time. obviously yours isn't particularly important/expensive. Well, that's where you are wrong. When I build a PC, it is guaranteed to work. If it doesn't, I find that part that is causing the failure and I exchange it for a working part. It's really not that big of a deal.
And time? I can plan, purchase and build a PC in about 3 hrs. One of those hours is spent in Fry's buying the parts (which is also where I do most of my planning). 20 minutes to drive it all home and rest is assembly and OS installation. It would take me at least two hours to find a PC that does most what I want and compare that one to the rest of them. So, that extra hour or two saves me about $1000. How much do YOU make an hr? I doubt it's $500.
They dont want that nightmare. the PC can be a mishmash of really bad hardware. I have fixed many PC's by removing that new Winmodem or USB card that someone bought and installed themselves. Crap ram causing random crashes, and the 65,000 different motherboard makers some work some are crap (I'll never buy PCChips and MSI again) and attaching OSX to the non-stable world of PC is something that jobs and Apple does not want.
They want to give you an "experience" and no not the experience that the Pc world offers.
Look at the fight that Linux has, OSX would have the same fight. What's stopping Apple from saying, "OK. We are releasing OSX for $200 that you can install on any PC you wish. We have posted a HCL on our website. While it no longer requires Apple hardware to run, if you wish to receive support from Apple, you MUST RUN IT ON APPLE HARDWARE! For non-Apple hardware, may we direct you to our user-run forums. Thank you, and have a nice day."
Hell, Apple could even sell support contracts to pad their wallets a bit further if they thought it would be profitable.
I got the same thing with LinuxMint, an Ubuntu based distro. Here is the note I got from MintUpdate:
Some of the OpenSSH server host keys on this system were generated with a version of OpenSSL that had a broken random number generator. As a result, these host keys are from a well-known set, are subject to brute-force attacks, and must be regenerated.
Users of this system should be informed of this change, as they will be prompted about the host key change the next time they log in. Use 'ssh-keygen -l -f HOST_KEY_FILE' after the upgrade has changed to print the fingerprints of the new host keys.
The affected host keys are:/etc/ssh/ssh_host_rsa_key/etc/ssh/ssh_host_dsa_key
User keys may also be affected by this problem. The 'ssh-vulnkey' command may be used as a partial test for this. See/usr/share/doc/openssh-server/README.compromised-keys.gz for more details.
I'm pretty sure that if an embryo were left to its own devices it would decay rapidly.
So... if you have an embryo in a lab, are you morally bound to implant it into a host? If there are no volunteers are you morally bound to impregnate someone against their will?
It would be an interesting question if there were not people starving to death on our planet. Sticky little ethical paradoxes like that one is why we don't experiment on humans against their will, EVER, EVER, EVER AGAIN!
The very minute you are able to declare who is human and who is not is the minute you give someone with German accent the ability to claim that someone with a star made of triangles patch on their clothes is not human and start shipping them off to labor camps, gas showers and... wait for it... medical experimentation.
I hate to invoke Godwin, but when I read "Never Again", I take it seriously.
> You are presenting one side of an issue as the only side. You've chosen the side that embryos are human and alive and thus this is murder.
Forget whether it's "murder" or not for a second (that's an emotive word that will only derail discussion) and focus on the "human" aspect of things, please.
Fertilized embryos and zygotes are living homo sapien organisms--not some other species, right? They're becoming something we all recognize as human, or would given food and shelter?
So what's the other side of that (and ONLY that--no "murder" discussion, please)? They can't feel or understand pain so it's speciesist to give them special treatment merely because they're homo sapiens. Or perhaps, "What's the difference between them and cell cultures removed from your body? Especially if we could clone those?", ignoring that fertilized embryos are becoming human and samples are not?
I merely want to understand, so no flames please. I would like to hear your reasoning and your philosophy, not your anger. Human tissue is a part of a human. Tissue, by design will not naturally form a new human being.
An embryo is the whole human, although just very young. In its natural state, it WILL grow, form a personality and wreck daddy's car in about 17 years.
You are presenting one side of an issue as the only side. You've chosen the side that embryos are human and alive and thus this is murder. From the other side, these are not humans and/or not alive. Religion seems to come in on this since one of the most vocal religious groups (christians) tend to side with you. It isn't really a religious debate, but many people view it as one due to that. I think what you need to ask is, "What makes something human?" If someone called the police because of biological pile of pink slime was in their living room, how would the cops determine if it's human or not? If you apply that same test to this embryo, how would it score?
And, YOU saying these embryos are not human carries about the same weight as me saying YOU are not human. Fortunately for you, that is 0%. Personally, when it comes to determining if something that passes a human DNA test is human or not, I try to err on the side of caution and say that it is. I do so because I don't want someone determining I am not human, I have no rights and I am available for scientific research based solely on my age. I guess you don't give others the same consideration you expect to receive.
Those empty spots in Ohio are called "farms." That's where we grow our food. If we reduce the empty space, we reduce the amount of food we can grow. Also, there's a big empty space a bit to the west where we can't grow food and is a bit lacking in water. It would be difficult to live there. Really? They looked like prairies and fields to me. Wait, are they farming grass?
Where are the bees? The bees were being killed off by a natural fungus or a parasite, also 100% natural.
Unfortunately I'm not surprised that you are so quick to blame man. You are no different than so many creationists who think that whenever we don't know the cause of something, it must be God's work. Instead of blaming/crediting God, you attribute everything to man when no other reason is known. Sometimes, even when the answer IS known, man is STILL blamed ("Man Made" Global Warming causing tsunamis is a good example. Hell Global Warming itself is a good example!).
The scientists in Russia was of course FORCED to work, and the scientists in USA were happy to do it! I hope you misread his post because if you didn't, you intentionally distorted it. He said the formerly Nazi German Scientists were forced to work. There was a huge difference between a captured scientist from a defeated country and a native one, in the eyes of the Soviets.
And yes, many German scientists were seeking out American soldiers toward the end of WWII because they feared what the Russians would make them do.
You have turned me around.. I just look at what them Cubans are doing there in Guantanamo and I think your right.
Seriously. I don't think anyone believes that the Castro government is righteous, or condones them.. but to blindly ignore our own shortcomings or worse yet to be proud or justify them is sad.
To exaggerate ours and ignore theirs is even sadder. The OP claimed that the US had controlled media when comparing the US to Cuba. Seriously? You're OK with that? You defend that type of mischaracterization? That's like saying the US treats Jews badly when comparing the US to Nazi Germany!
Slashdot Mirror
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_smoking
Second hand smoke kills... I am not sure if I can give an equivalent example for second hand obesity however.
And do NOT even begin to bring up the fact that people can just go to other places if they want a non smoking environment. There are way too many variables involved to hold up that argument.
The *average* person will not go 5 extra blocks to get a smoothie just to avoid some passive second hand smoke. Thus being harmed in the process. I call bullshit on your wiki article. Can you show me one single death that is due to second hand smoke? I know the article says "studies show" but I have not heard of a single case of secondhand smoke killing anyone, especially second hand smoke from public places.
Non-smoking laws are about freedom! It's about one group trying to control the actions of another.
Smoking is a nasty and disgusting habit. I'm not a smoker, never have been. I'm an asthmatic but cigarette smoke doesn't bother me. But smoking is disgusting and offensive in public places.
In Colorado smoking is now prohibited in most public places, and it's great. Feel free to smoke in the comfort of your own home, or your car, or even walking down the sidewalk. But you have to be pretty arrogant and selfish to think you have any right to light a fire and blow smoke into other people in public places.
Smoking should not be illegal and should not be subject to additional taxes beyond sales tax. But you should definitely have to smoke where it doesn't bother other people in a public place--most of whom do not smoke and who have only tolerated it because we have no choice but to put up with the bad manners of smokers who only think of themselves.
If you feel otherwise, well, next time I see you smoking in a public place maybe I'll just get a half dozen of my closest friends to go over to where you are and let loose some juicy, smelly farts. After all, it's freedom of choice and there's no law against it.
If smokers had been more CONSIDERATE of non-smokers, I'll bet you wouldn't have seen so many places passing laws that legislate consideration and good manners.
You say smoking is a nasty habit and shouldn't be allowed around you? Well, I think that those little asthma inhalers are nasty. So should I be allowed to restrict where you use you inhaler? I know you say that you NEED your inhaler, but I call bullshit. You don't need your inhaler around me. If you want to use your inhaler, you go outside or do it in the comfort of your own home!How's it feel to have someone come into a place where you have been and suddenly start telling you what to do? Here's a clue, if you don't like smoke, go to a place that doesn't allow it, end of fuckin' story.
Maybe curse words offend me, can I tell you how to speak? Maybe short skirts offend me, do I tell you how to dress? What if the smell of those perfume soaps offends me, should I tell you how to shower? I can do this all day, but the fact is that you need to learn to tolerate others, let them have their freedom just as you want yours and above all, DON'T TRY TO CONTROL THE LIVES OF OTHER PEOPLE! Stop telling me what to fuckin' do! It's none of your business how I live my life so stop trying to make it!
You say, But you should definitely have to smoke where it doesn't bother other people in a public place--most of whom do not smoke and who have only tolerated it because we have no choice but to put up with the bad manners of smokers who only think of themselves.
Where is that place? It used to be grocery stores, bars, restaurants, airplanes, buses wherever. Then it became bars and designated smoking areas. Then it became just bars, and now, it's nowhere. Now, people are telling smokers that they can't smoke on their balcony because the neighbors might be downwind. Then they are told they can't smoke IN THEIR HOME because it may seep out under the door into the hallway or make the apartment stink. Smoking in a car is now illegal in many places. So you can ask smokers to only smoke where no one minds, but you keep taking those places away and digging deeper and deeper to find someone who is offended wherever a smoker might light up!
And if you and all your friends come up to me and fart, then I'll leave or deal with it! Just like we are telling you to do if a bunch of my friends light up!
minorities tend to be poorer, and thus can't afford high quality legal counsel.
Point 2 probably partially leads to point 5. Discrimination tends to help keep oppressed people down. Oppressed people tend to be poorer and have fewer opportunities, and tend to be discriminated against for being poor, as well as being a minority. Well, first, not all poor people are minorities and not all minorities are poor. However, I have noticed that many of the people who are poor tend to blame others for their lot in life. These same people do not see a problem with "taking" things that don't belong to them because in their eyes, it WAS TAKEN FROM THEM, or at least they were prevented from getting it (The MAN is holding me down!)
Next, minorities have more opportunities than I do, as whitie. There is no scholarship fund that discriminates against black people, unless it is for some other minority, such as Hispanic. I have yet to see a college fund for white people, exclusively (United Cracker College Fund?). Unfortunately, people believing your point 2 is actually a major factor in the problem (see my first point)
Well, there was one scholarship writing competition for African Americans. A white guy won it, but they wouldn't give him the scholarship, even though he moved to the US from South Africa and was therefor a true African American (probably the only one in the competition)!
If you did, should I then be convicted of bestiality?
The woman is not a nice person, no question. But you really need some perspective. It's nice to feel outraged, but when that outrage starts making it a felony to just fail to abide by somebody's random terms of service on their website? That'll fuck over society as a whole. Hard. And fails to assign the blame on the parents and the people who cared about that girl, because they didn't step in before this happened. Shit doesn't happen in a vacuum. Suicide is VERY rarely a spur of the moment decision. It's something that brews for a long time, building on lots of other emotional problems that can't be surmounted. Her family and friends failed her by not providing her the tools she needed to deal with her problems. Her family's failure is NOT a reason to charge a jackass with being... well, a jackass. First, I believe you could be liable if you told a 10-yr-old child to go fuck a goat and he did. IANAL, so I don't know what law you'd be breaking, but there are laws to protect children from predators like this lady. You can't give a kid a cigarette. You can't give a kid a beer. You can't give a kid drugs, illegal or not. I would guess that it's safe to assume that you can't tell a kid to kill herself.
This isn't about terms of service. It's about an adult acquiring a false persona in order to form a romantic relationship with a little girl for the sole purpose of hurting that child. Unfortunately, it worked much better than she anticipated!
IMHO, this falls under the same category as pulling up your van to the local elementary school and telling a little kid, "I'm a friend of your mother and she asked me to come pick you up." This could also fall under "To Catch a Predator" since she did have a "romantic" relationship with this kid, even though it wasn't sexual.
Granted, this girl had issues beyond what the old bitch did, but the old bitch was the straw that broke the camel's back. That makes her liable. It would not be as bad if she just played the boyfriend and dumped her, but she literally told the girl "the world would be a better place without you". She practically told the girl to kill herself which is exactly what happened. I also have a feeling that suicide was discussed between these two as her comment is not the kind of thing you just bring up at random (pure speculation, of course). It would be interesting to see if any chat logs were kept.
It's true that modern processors do have many more power saving features built in. I'm just thinking that my old P75 didn't even need a fan. My next machine was an AMD K6@300 and it did, although nothing like what is needed on the modern C2D or Opteron. This is why I'm thinking that modern, high performing chips use more power; they produce more heat!
Although I've never tested my theory, just compared the noise level.
Also, you are probably correct if you are comparing a modern notebook to an older one. It's very likely that the modern notebook would use less power than the old clunker. However, I was comparing old notebooks to modern desktops with constantly running case fans and hard drives and so on such.
Parents need to give their kids some freedom, but these parents should have seen that something was wrong and taken action.
Next, it's not a slippery slope. No one is saying to lock up any adult who speaks to a minor. However, I don't think it's legal for an adult to make contact with and form a romantic relationship with a minor, sexual or otherwise, especially under a false pseudonym.
If nothing else, this woman should be charged with child abuse. Assuming she was the one who created and/or used the fake online identity, she did so with the intent of causing emotional harm to this little girl. This goes beyond bullying and could/should be considered assault at the very least. I see no reason why a good prosecutor could not lock this bitch up on child predator charges since she literally preyed on a child.
I use old laptops for things like serving up web pages, running an FTP site, portable web-cam host, print server, file server, repeater, router or whatever other services where a power efficient, portable computer can be used. If you have it set up to run a single service or two, then performance is not going to be that big of an issue.
For a web server, for example. I install a low-overhead Linux distro with Apache, ssh and maybe vnc and copy my www directory to it. BAM! Web server! It uses less power than any of my PC's, and it allows me to reboot my "real" machine without taking the web page down.
It's harassment at best. If it's against the law for me to go online posing as a 14-yr old to lure a 13-yr old girl into a "relationship", then how is this different. Isn't that EXACTLY what this woman did? Granted, it's not "Catch a Predator", but the laws should be written to prevent an adult from contacting a minor online, especially under a false identity and with malicious intent.
And while I won't say that it's murder, but are there any laws against talking someone into jumping off a bridge?
Alternatively I could ask the cab tomorrow : "make a right after all". And bam, he'll hit someone. My opening my mouth to give direction belongs in a causal chain leading to this death. It doesn't make me responsible.
Responsibility comes when the action you did was intrinsically a crime (regardless of the consequences). This woman, under a fake screen persona, "allegedly" told this little girl that the world would be a better place without her. In other words, "Kill yourself", which is exactly what the girl did. I think that makes her at least somewhat responsible.
As for the rest of, unfortunately, there no law against being a C**T! However, there may be something they can do about her being a C**T to a 13-yr-old girl.
oh and add an extra fuck you. when you build it yourself, nothing comes standard and nothing is guaranteed to work. and lets not forget the time. obviously yours isn't particularly important/expensive. Well, that's where you are wrong. When I build a PC, it is guaranteed to work. If it doesn't, I find that part that is causing the failure and I exchange it for a working part. It's really not that big of a deal.
And time? I can plan, purchase and build a PC in about 3 hrs. One of those hours is spent in Fry's buying the parts (which is also where I do most of my planning). 20 minutes to drive it all home and rest is assembly and OS installation. It would take me at least two hours to find a PC that does most what I want and compare that one to the rest of them. So, that extra hour or two saves me about $1000. How much do YOU make an hr? I doubt it's $500.
They want to give you an "experience" and no not the experience that the Pc world offers.
Look at the fight that Linux has, OSX would have the same fight. What's stopping Apple from saying, "OK. We are releasing OSX for $200 that you can install on any PC you wish. We have posted a HCL on our website. While it no longer requires Apple hardware to run, if you wish to receive support from Apple, you MUST RUN IT ON APPLE HARDWARE! For non-Apple hardware, may we direct you to our user-run forums. Thank you, and have a nice day."
Hell, Apple could even sell support contracts to pad their wallets a bit further if they thought it would be profitable.
show me a workstation with multiple firewire800 and firewire400 ports standard That's easy!
The one I built myself!
Users of this system should be informed of this change, as they will be prompted about the host key change the next time they log in. Use 'ssh-keygen -l -f HOST_KEY_FILE' after the upgrade has changed to print the fingerprints of the new host keys.
The affected host keys are:
User keys may also be affected by this problem. The 'ssh-vulnkey' command may be used as a partial test for this. See
So... if you have an embryo in a lab, are you morally bound to implant it into a host? If there are no volunteers are you morally bound to impregnate someone against their will?
It would be an interesting question if there were not people starving to death on our planet. Sticky little ethical paradoxes like that one is why we don't experiment on humans against their will, EVER, EVER, EVER AGAIN!
The very minute you are able to declare who is human and who is not is the minute you give someone with German accent the ability to claim that someone with a star made of triangles patch on their clothes is not human and start shipping them off to labor camps, gas showers and
I hate to invoke Godwin, but when I read "Never Again", I take it seriously.
Forget whether it's "murder" or not for a second (that's an emotive word that will only derail discussion) and focus on the "human" aspect of things, please.
Fertilized embryos and zygotes are living homo sapien organisms--not some other species, right? They're becoming something we all recognize as human, or would given food and shelter?
So what's the other side of that (and ONLY that--no "murder" discussion, please)? They can't feel or understand pain so it's speciesist to give them special treatment merely because they're homo sapiens. Or perhaps, "What's the difference between them and cell cultures removed from your body? Especially if we could clone those?", ignoring that fertilized embryos are becoming human and samples are not?
I merely want to understand, so no flames please. I would like to hear your reasoning and your philosophy, not your anger. Human tissue is a part of a human. Tissue, by design will not naturally form a new human being.
An embryo is the whole human, although just very young. In its natural state, it WILL grow, form a personality and wreck daddy's car in about 17 years.
That help?
And, YOU saying these embryos are not human carries about the same weight as me saying YOU are not human. Fortunately for you, that is 0%. Personally, when it comes to determining if something that passes a human DNA test is human or not, I try to err on the side of caution and say that it is. I do so because I don't want someone determining I am not human, I have no rights and I am available for scientific research based solely on my age. I guess you don't give others the same consideration you expect to receive.
You know, like an older sibling. Ah, memories. My big brother and I used to get high before school. I wonder if this device will help with that!
Unfortunately I'm not surprised that you are so quick to blame man. You are no different than so many creationists who think that whenever we don't know the cause of something, it must be God's work. Instead of blaming/crediting God, you attribute everything to man when no other reason is known. Sometimes, even when the answer IS known, man is STILL blamed ("Man Made" Global Warming causing tsunamis is a good example. Hell Global Warming itself is a good example!).
And yes, many German scientists were seeking out American soldiers toward the end of WWII because they feared what the Russians would make them do.
To exaggerate ours and ignore theirs is even sadder. The OP claimed that the US had controlled media when comparing the US to Cuba. Seriously? You're OK with that? You defend that type of mischaracterization? That's like saying the US treats Jews badly when comparing the US to Nazi Germany!Seriously. I don't think anyone believes that the Castro government is righteous, or condones them.. but to blindly ignore our own shortcomings or worse yet to be proud or justify them is sad.