Eh, it has nothing to do with where you're from. My family is pretty much the same way, and I'm at least a 4th generation American. We don't even own a themometer. My opinion is that your body hurts for a reason, and taking pills to mask the symptoms is only going to make you unaware when you're hurting it more. I caught the flu a couple weeks ago from my girlfriend, and the strongest medicine I used was some Asprin, and only because my joints were aching too much to sleep. Other than that I just took lots of tea, crackers, and juice.
And on the other end of the spectrum you have my girlfriend - the one who gave me the flu. She gets these extremely powerful antibiotics ('z-pak') prescribed for _anything_. Even just a light cold. She always says they must work, because it's a 5 day treatment and by the end of the 5 days she feels better. But of course, it's a cold. It's only gonna last 5 days anyway. She also takes three Motrin damn near every morning, and wakes up with a headache every other day. And she uses hand sanitizer several times a day. Basically, she's _always_ sick. She's the most fragile person I know. And her parents are the same way. I blame it on the fact that her family is very wealthy - like, her aunt is 'rent a private jet to fly up to Nantucket for a few weeks' wealthy. Her parents go to Hawaii every year. They could afford to watch their child constantly and enforce 'good hygiene' 24/7. And with their status in society they can't ever been seen as being dirty. Plus it's easy for them to get meds - they call up their good family friend and he calls in the order to the nearest pharmacy. It's just too easy for them to be super clean all the time and assume modern medicine can take care of anything. And ads for products like Purell and Lysol certainly don't help any.
My only issue with the death penalty is the fact that no justice system is 100% perfect, although I'm not convinced that spending your entire life behind bars for a crime that you didn't commit is anymore humane than being executed for it.
The question usually isn't people who we never discover are innocent - the question is those cases where we do. Look at Troy Davis - the only evidence against him was the testimony of 9 witnesses. 7 of those have since claimed that their testimony was coerced by the police, and several even implicated one of the remaining two witnesses as the true killer. Yet even after this was discovered he remains on death row. The Georgia courts have refused to examine this new evidence. Thankfully his case got national media attention and he has received several stays of execution, with the supreme court finally ordering a federal district court to reexamine his case. But not everyone gets so lucky. A significant percentage of people that we execute we discover after the fact that they are innocent. Sure, losing 40 years of your life for a crime you didn't commit is horrific, but it's a hell of a lot better than dying for it.
It's really not that much of a hassle to bring your laptop. I found that I never actually needed to change my wifi card region in London and Nuremberg when I was there over the summer, and since your laptop can most likely handle 240V already, you just need a very small power adapter. The one I used was just slightly more than one cubic inch and could convert between any combination of British, European, US, and what I think was Australian power. Shouldn't cost you much either.
The balance for one. They're too easy. I beat TW in under a week. Yet I've played the original countless times and I still don't think I've ever actually beaten it without taking advantage of game bugs ('sandbag trick' anyone?). It's actually a _challenge_. TW and RA3 are just a grind. Sure, the missions had a bit more depth to them - a few more objectives and larger enemy bases, but in the end it all boiled down to building a shitload of one unit and storming the enemy with it. What fun is that? That shit doesn't work in the original games. There is no one unit that can kill everything. Mammoth tanks come close, but their speed makes them quite vulnerable to a small team of infantry. And hell, the game just plain lasts longer. I've had _single missions_ in the original C&C or Red Alert that have taken longer to beat than _the entire TW or RA3 games_. And I'm not even talking about the final missions - hell, I've had mission 6 for the soviets in RA (pretty sure it's 6...) last me a week. And yet they were still fun to play.
Yup...I miss the old Westwood so much. Command & Conquer was such a great series before EA got their hands on it. I was actually recently playing over the original again after downloading it from an abandonware site*, and it's still far better than most of the recent ones. Generals isn't bad, though the whole 'generals abilities' thing and unlimited cashflow buildings take a lot out of the game. But C&C3 and RA3 are both complete garbage. Such a huge loss...
I still remember playing on...what the hell was it called? Westwood chat? Whatever the hell it was, I remember playing those games online over dial-up back when I was only 8 years old. Ahh, the good old days:)
And nurple maps...and how incredibly easy it was to mod those games - hell, even at 8 years old I could figure out how to create new units just by editing the rules.ini file. I did always prefer Red Alert though, mostly for the skirmish play.
*I downloaded it only because it was more convenient. I do actually own the game - 3 copies of it in fact. Two of them are the original DOS version, the third is C&C Gold.
...I fail to see the problem. Perhaps they've changed something, but when I google bing I get bing.com as the first result then a bunch of other stuff. And when I put google in to ping I get only one result, google.com, along with links for images, videos, maps, etc.
Re:You can't pay a negative amount
on
Less Than Free
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Mathematically you can - any time someone pays you you are effectively paying them a negative amount. Sure, physically you can't, but when has that ever stopped a slashdotter's argument?:)
That's also the only possible way 'less than free' would make any kind of sense at all. And 'more than free' can't possibly be what's being referred to in this article - I mean, if the price is more than free then the price has some positive value, so you are paying for it.
Re:More than free?
on
Less Than Free
·
· Score: 2, Informative
No. You get more, yes. But free doesn't describe what you get, it describes what you pay. And you are paying a negative amount. Therefore it is less than free.
Like Japan wasn't bombing civilians? Or Germany? Or Britain? Or Russia? Or _ANYONE ELSE_?
That's how wars were fought in those days. Get over it. We didn't have smart bombs, we couldn't take out a specific building, or even a specific city block. And their war industries were located right in the middle of their major cities. We had no other choices. The only way to stop their military was to carpet bomb their cities, or though a direct ground assault. And do you realize how many _more_ people would have died had we not dropped those bombs? We would have kept carpet-bombing their cities (killing civilians), we would have been stuck in war taking these tiny little islands for _months_, possibly _years_ (killing hundreds of thousands of soldiers, and plenty more civilians), and with the Japanese mindset at the time we likely would have had to march our troops right up to the emperor's palace before they would have surrendered. These are the same people who were using Kamikaze aircraft. Do you really think they would have surrendered, ever? Yes, it was a horrible act, but it was the best option we had at the time - though I will admit we should have waited before dropping the second bomb - from what I've heard they didn't even fully know what the first one did before we dropped the second. From what I've heard they basically ignored the initial reports because they didn't think such a thing was even possible.
Today, yes, killing civilians is a horrible thing to do. But that's pretty easy to say when you have the capability to fire a missile from hundreds of miles away and take out a single room of a building without harming anything around it. It's easy to criticize when you're 60 years away. But by your logic every single army in history, including those acting in defense, and civilian militias, are guilty of horrific and cowardly atrocities. In those days, when a nation went to war, _the entire nation_ went to war. There really were no civilians in the sense that there are today. Every single citizen was in some way involved in the war effort.
It was _once_ responsible for 1/3 of the spam. By the time the researchers got to it and took it out it had already dropped to only 4% for other reasons.
Damn, I thought he'd figured out a direct way to interface with the google voice recognition software. THAT is something I could really use right now. A project that does it through the phone though....not so much.
On a related note, anyone know of any very good and easy to interface with free (open source is very highly preferred, but free beer is ok too) voice recognition software? I'm currently looking at Sphinx-4, but I have absolutely no experience in this area.
Usually, no. Not unless I'm looking for a physics formula or something. Otherwise I want to know the _context_ of the statement. I want to know where the information is coming from. For example, there's this really good quote from LEAP (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition) stating that before the Harrison Anti-drug act, 1.3% of the population was addicted to drugs. Before the War on Drugs, 1.3% of the population was addicted to drugs. And today, 1.3% of the population is addicted to drugs. I've been looking for the real source of that for days, still with no luck, and I refuse to use it until I find one. Not because I don't trust LEAP, but simply because they're hardly an unbiased source. I've finally decided to try to contact them about it, and am awaiting a reply. But seriously, I know a _lot_ of people will use facts without bothering to check out anything about it, but personally I refuse to state something as a fact until I know exactly where it's coming from and in what context. Otherwise you're just spreading rumors - and from the small blurb that Google gives you, that's all you can really do. Until google is able to trace the source of whatever it's telling you, those blurbs are only useful for determining which link to click - as they are intended.
Plus, have you ever really searched something with 4 or 5 terms? Google tries to show you the context of as many terms as possible in that 2 or 3 line blurb, so you end up getting 4 or 5 words around each one. Pretty much useless.
Yes, I realize both of those. But it still costs money to get music to movies, TV, and radio. Advertising. Promotional material. Sure, they're not directly paying radio stations to play their music, but sending a CD out to every radio station in the country isn't exactly cheap. Sure, a small indie band could maybe get some local college stations to play their stuff, but they don't have near the weight that a big name studio has.
If they play a local show and people like to hear them, they'll get requested and more people will hear them.
That's seriously how you think it works? People just get gig after gig and work their way up and eventually [major label] just starts throwing money and contracts at them?
Where you live, who you know, and how much free time and money you have matters a _lot_ more than how good you are. Sure, talent can eventually get you there too, but for most bands it doesn't. Your options are either to have some contacts that can get you in front of someone important quickly, or to have a shitload of money so you can do nothing but tour for a while. Because even a really good band will likely take a couple years to start getting enough money to live off of from their music - if they ever do.
Besides, record labels aren't interested in signing good bands, and they aren't interested in signing lots of bands. They're interested in signing as few bands as possible while pushing out as many of those records as possible. And they'll spend billions of dollars getting airtime and advertising to do that. Popular music is not what people like, popular music is what the record companies pay to have on every radio station, in every movie and TV show, every commercial...everywhere. I can't remember the last time I actually listened to music on the radio - or met anyone else who did. Yet somehow that still defines what is popular.
The problem, IMO, is likely that drive-by-wire systems have too much unnecessary complication. Now, I know absolutely nothing about cars, so I could be completely wrong here, but based on how these things happen in other industries, I would imagine that general-purpose microcontrollers are far cheaper than building their own, so that's what they're using, and they're doing everything in software. That's fine in theory, but when you throw in general purpose hardware like that, you introduce a huge number of unnecessary systems that have the potential to interfere with the control system. Sure, nothing _should_ go wrong....but that just reminds me of a story in The Jargon File ("A story about 'Magic'") http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/magic-story.html
Eh, I don't run antivirus on anything. Definitely not Linux, but even when I run Windows (usually XP, SP0) I don't bother. But then, I'm always behind a NAT, and I do at the least usually have the Windows firewall on. It's been years since I've had a virus. If you aren't half retarded and have _some_ kind of firewall, you'll be fine.
Well, some distros seem to do quite well at that - Ubuntu is far from the most professional distro in any sense of the word. But it's tough, and it's tough for many reasons. First of all, people blame Linux for hardware issues quite frequently. If you install Windows and your printer doesn't work...well you go download the printer drivers. But if you install Linux and that same printer doesn't work, or is flaky, people tend to blame Linux because it worked fine on Windows, when really the problem is the printer manufacturer for releasing no (or crappy) drivers.
Secondly, it's a matter of release cycles. Microsoft took _7 years_ to get Vista out the door. They spent 6 months working on Karmic. Again, there are some distros that take the time to make sure everything works when they ship, but the more desktop-oriented ones for some reason tend to focus more on releasing quickly and getting the latest and greatest out to the users rather than heaps of quality control. Besides, it's tough to get people to test for bugs for free. If you want a well tested distro, you'll probably have to pay for it.
No, if you want them to use OS X then they must also just use 'Windows Vista' or 'Windows 7', along with 'Ubuntu Linux 9.10' or 'Mandriva Linux 2009.1'. If they're just saying 'Windows' and 'Linux' then they should also just be saying 'Mac OS'...and personally I don't think anyone is gonna confuse 'Mac' and 'Mac OS' in this context.
What you're saying is equivalent to saying that they should be talking about HP, Sony, and tro 1000 for the hardware. (tro being half of 'Vostro')
The company is Apple, the product is Mac OS, and the version is X.
Just like there was such a flurry of hacks to get cheap access thorough the Peek? Granted, I don't think it's 3G and it _is_ still $15 a month, but it's also incredibly cheap (both initially and per month). And like that frenzy of hacks for the Amazon Kindle? I mean that thing has free 3G....
Besides, all they'll have to do is put in some kind of bandwidth limit...or simply limit the connection to specific sites. I mean it's being used to download games, there's no reason not to lock it in to only be allowed data to the nintendo store.
I'm not sure anymore, but I know older versions of Mandriva (Well, Mandrake - try to find 9.2 or earlier) could boot from a floppy and install over the network. I installed directly from a mirror a couple times back in the day. Worth looking into. I believe carroll.cac.psu.edu still has the files for older Mandrake distros.
Yea...if you want to say that anyone you arrest on certain charges is instantly shot without any trial....then sure, you could round up all the Bad Guys and take them all out for about $100. Hell you could probably just post a list somewhere and say 'there will be no charge for murdering the following individuals' and let people take care of it themselves. Then it'd practically be free. But that's not the way society works. In the real world, we have trials. We give people a chance to attempt to disprove their guilt. And in the real world, it's been proven many, many times that it is far cheaper to keep someone in prison than to execute them.
Add to that list that it's more expensive to kill someone than to give them life in prison. From a utilitarian perspective, unless the person has a high risk of somehow escaping or continuing their crimes from inside prison, the death penalty really makes no sense.
Slashdot Mirror
Eh, it has nothing to do with where you're from. My family is pretty much the same way, and I'm at least a 4th generation American. We don't even own a themometer. My opinion is that your body hurts for a reason, and taking pills to mask the symptoms is only going to make you unaware when you're hurting it more. I caught the flu a couple weeks ago from my girlfriend, and the strongest medicine I used was some Asprin, and only because my joints were aching too much to sleep. Other than that I just took lots of tea, crackers, and juice.
And on the other end of the spectrum you have my girlfriend - the one who gave me the flu. She gets these extremely powerful antibiotics ('z-pak') prescribed for _anything_. Even just a light cold. She always says they must work, because it's a 5 day treatment and by the end of the 5 days she feels better. But of course, it's a cold. It's only gonna last 5 days anyway. She also takes three Motrin damn near every morning, and wakes up with a headache every other day. And she uses hand sanitizer several times a day. Basically, she's _always_ sick. She's the most fragile person I know. And her parents are the same way. I blame it on the fact that her family is very wealthy - like, her aunt is 'rent a private jet to fly up to Nantucket for a few weeks' wealthy. Her parents go to Hawaii every year. They could afford to watch their child constantly and enforce 'good hygiene' 24/7. And with their status in society they can't ever been seen as being dirty. Plus it's easy for them to get meds - they call up their good family friend and he calls in the order to the nearest pharmacy. It's just too easy for them to be super clean all the time and assume modern medicine can take care of anything. And ads for products like Purell and Lysol certainly don't help any.
My only issue with the death penalty is the fact that no justice system is 100% perfect, although I'm not convinced that spending your entire life behind bars for a crime that you didn't commit is anymore humane than being executed for it.
The question usually isn't people who we never discover are innocent - the question is those cases where we do. Look at Troy Davis - the only evidence against him was the testimony of 9 witnesses. 7 of those have since claimed that their testimony was coerced by the police, and several even implicated one of the remaining two witnesses as the true killer. Yet even after this was discovered he remains on death row. The Georgia courts have refused to examine this new evidence. Thankfully his case got national media attention and he has received several stays of execution, with the supreme court finally ordering a federal district court to reexamine his case. But not everyone gets so lucky. A significant percentage of people that we execute we discover after the fact that they are innocent. Sure, losing 40 years of your life for a crime you didn't commit is horrific, but it's a hell of a lot better than dying for it.
It's really not that much of a hassle to bring your laptop. I found that I never actually needed to change my wifi card region in London and Nuremberg when I was there over the summer, and since your laptop can most likely handle 240V already, you just need a very small power adapter. The one I used was just slightly more than one cubic inch and could convert between any combination of British, European, US, and what I think was Australian power. Shouldn't cost you much either.
The balance for one. They're too easy. I beat TW in under a week. Yet I've played the original countless times and I still don't think I've ever actually beaten it without taking advantage of game bugs ('sandbag trick' anyone?). It's actually a _challenge_. TW and RA3 are just a grind. Sure, the missions had a bit more depth to them - a few more objectives and larger enemy bases, but in the end it all boiled down to building a shitload of one unit and storming the enemy with it. What fun is that? That shit doesn't work in the original games. There is no one unit that can kill everything. Mammoth tanks come close, but their speed makes them quite vulnerable to a small team of infantry. And hell, the game just plain lasts longer. I've had _single missions_ in the original C&C or Red Alert that have taken longer to beat than _the entire TW or RA3 games_. And I'm not even talking about the final missions - hell, I've had mission 6 for the soviets in RA (pretty sure it's 6...) last me a week. And yet they were still fun to play.
Yup...I miss the old Westwood so much. Command & Conquer was such a great series before EA got their hands on it. I was actually recently playing over the original again after downloading it from an abandonware site*, and it's still far better than most of the recent ones. Generals isn't bad, though the whole 'generals abilities' thing and unlimited cashflow buildings take a lot out of the game. But C&C3 and RA3 are both complete garbage. Such a huge loss...
I still remember playing on...what the hell was it called? Westwood chat? Whatever the hell it was, I remember playing those games online over dial-up back when I was only 8 years old. Ahh, the good old days :)
And nurple maps...and how incredibly easy it was to mod those games - hell, even at 8 years old I could figure out how to create new units just by editing the rules.ini file. I did always prefer Red Alert though, mostly for the skirmish play.
*I downloaded it only because it was more convenient. I do actually own the game - 3 copies of it in fact. Two of them are the original DOS version, the third is C&C Gold.
...I fail to see the problem. Perhaps they've changed something, but when I google bing I get bing.com as the first result then a bunch of other stuff. And when I put google in to ping I get only one result, google.com, along with links for images, videos, maps, etc.
Mathematically you can - any time someone pays you you are effectively paying them a negative amount. Sure, physically you can't, but when has that ever stopped a slashdotter's argument? :)
That's also the only possible way 'less than free' would make any kind of sense at all. And 'more than free' can't possibly be what's being referred to in this article - I mean, if the price is more than free then the price has some positive value, so you are paying for it.
No. You get more, yes. But free doesn't describe what you get, it describes what you pay. And you are paying a negative amount. Therefore it is less than free.
You mean something like wikibooks?
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Main_Page
Yea, and Libertarianism is more of a "true conservativism"
Like Japan wasn't bombing civilians? Or Germany? Or Britain? Or Russia? Or _ANYONE ELSE_?
That's how wars were fought in those days. Get over it. We didn't have smart bombs, we couldn't take out a specific building, or even a specific city block. And their war industries were located right in the middle of their major cities. We had no other choices. The only way to stop their military was to carpet bomb their cities, or though a direct ground assault. And do you realize how many _more_ people would have died had we not dropped those bombs? We would have kept carpet-bombing their cities (killing civilians), we would have been stuck in war taking these tiny little islands for _months_, possibly _years_ (killing hundreds of thousands of soldiers, and plenty more civilians), and with the Japanese mindset at the time we likely would have had to march our troops right up to the emperor's palace before they would have surrendered. These are the same people who were using Kamikaze aircraft. Do you really think they would have surrendered, ever? Yes, it was a horrible act, but it was the best option we had at the time - though I will admit we should have waited before dropping the second bomb - from what I've heard they didn't even fully know what the first one did before we dropped the second. From what I've heard they basically ignored the initial reports because they didn't think such a thing was even possible.
Today, yes, killing civilians is a horrible thing to do. But that's pretty easy to say when you have the capability to fire a missile from hundreds of miles away and take out a single room of a building without harming anything around it. It's easy to criticize when you're 60 years away. But by your logic every single army in history, including those acting in defense, and civilian militias, are guilty of horrific and cowardly atrocities. In those days, when a nation went to war, _the entire nation_ went to war. There really were no civilians in the sense that there are today. Every single citizen was in some way involved in the war effort.
It was _once_ responsible for 1/3 of the spam. By the time the researchers got to it and took it out it had already dropped to only 4% for other reasons.
Damn, I thought he'd figured out a direct way to interface with the google voice recognition software. THAT is something I could really use right now. A project that does it through the phone though....not so much.
On a related note, anyone know of any very good and easy to interface with free (open source is very highly preferred, but free beer is ok too) voice recognition software? I'm currently looking at Sphinx-4, but I have absolutely no experience in this area.
Usually, no. Not unless I'm looking for a physics formula or something. Otherwise I want to know the _context_ of the statement. I want to know where the information is coming from. For example, there's this really good quote from LEAP (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition) stating that before the Harrison Anti-drug act, 1.3% of the population was addicted to drugs. Before the War on Drugs, 1.3% of the population was addicted to drugs. And today, 1.3% of the population is addicted to drugs. I've been looking for the real source of that for days, still with no luck, and I refuse to use it until I find one. Not because I don't trust LEAP, but simply because they're hardly an unbiased source. I've finally decided to try to contact them about it, and am awaiting a reply. But seriously, I know a _lot_ of people will use facts without bothering to check out anything about it, but personally I refuse to state something as a fact until I know exactly where it's coming from and in what context. Otherwise you're just spreading rumors - and from the small blurb that Google gives you, that's all you can really do. Until google is able to trace the source of whatever it's telling you, those blurbs are only useful for determining which link to click - as they are intended.
Plus, have you ever really searched something with 4 or 5 terms? Google tries to show you the context of as many terms as possible in that 2 or 3 line blurb, so you end up getting 4 or 5 words around each one. Pretty much useless.
Yes, I realize both of those. But it still costs money to get music to movies, TV, and radio. Advertising. Promotional material. Sure, they're not directly paying radio stations to play their music, but sending a CD out to every radio station in the country isn't exactly cheap. Sure, a small indie band could maybe get some local college stations to play their stuff, but they don't have near the weight that a big name studio has.
If they play a local show and people like to hear them, they'll get requested and more people will hear them.
That's seriously how you think it works? People just get gig after gig and work their way up and eventually [major label] just starts throwing money and contracts at them?
Where you live, who you know, and how much free time and money you have matters a _lot_ more than how good you are. Sure, talent can eventually get you there too, but for most bands it doesn't. Your options are either to have some contacts that can get you in front of someone important quickly, or to have a shitload of money so you can do nothing but tour for a while. Because even a really good band will likely take a couple years to start getting enough money to live off of from their music - if they ever do.
Besides, record labels aren't interested in signing good bands, and they aren't interested in signing lots of bands. They're interested in signing as few bands as possible while pushing out as many of those records as possible. And they'll spend billions of dollars getting airtime and advertising to do that. Popular music is not what people like, popular music is what the record companies pay to have on every radio station, in every movie and TV show, every commercial...everywhere. I can't remember the last time I actually listened to music on the radio - or met anyone else who did. Yet somehow that still defines what is popular.
I agree. Mandrake 10 and Mandriva 2006 were both complete crap - but everything that I've used before or after that has been excellent.
The problem, IMO, is likely that drive-by-wire systems have too much unnecessary complication. Now, I know absolutely nothing about cars, so I could be completely wrong here, but based on how these things happen in other industries, I would imagine that general-purpose microcontrollers are far cheaper than building their own, so that's what they're using, and they're doing everything in software. That's fine in theory, but when you throw in general purpose hardware like that, you introduce a huge number of unnecessary systems that have the potential to interfere with the control system. Sure, nothing _should_ go wrong....but that just reminds me of a story in The Jargon File ("A story about 'Magic'") http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/magic-story.html
Eh, I don't run antivirus on anything. Definitely not Linux, but even when I run Windows (usually XP, SP0) I don't bother. But then, I'm always behind a NAT, and I do at the least usually have the Windows firewall on. It's been years since I've had a virus. If you aren't half retarded and have _some_ kind of firewall, you'll be fine.
Well, some distros seem to do quite well at that - Ubuntu is far from the most professional distro in any sense of the word. But it's tough, and it's tough for many reasons. First of all, people blame Linux for hardware issues quite frequently. If you install Windows and your printer doesn't work...well you go download the printer drivers. But if you install Linux and that same printer doesn't work, or is flaky, people tend to blame Linux because it worked fine on Windows, when really the problem is the printer manufacturer for releasing no (or crappy) drivers.
Secondly, it's a matter of release cycles. Microsoft took _7 years_ to get Vista out the door. They spent 6 months working on Karmic. Again, there are some distros that take the time to make sure everything works when they ship, but the more desktop-oriented ones for some reason tend to focus more on releasing quickly and getting the latest and greatest out to the users rather than heaps of quality control. Besides, it's tough to get people to test for bugs for free. If you want a well tested distro, you'll probably have to pay for it.
No, if you want them to use OS X then they must also just use 'Windows Vista' or 'Windows 7', along with 'Ubuntu Linux 9.10' or 'Mandriva Linux 2009.1'. If they're just saying 'Windows' and 'Linux' then they should also just be saying 'Mac OS'...and personally I don't think anyone is gonna confuse 'Mac' and 'Mac OS' in this context.
What you're saying is equivalent to saying that they should be talking about HP, Sony, and tro 1000 for the hardware. (tro being half of 'Vostro')
The company is Apple, the product is Mac OS, and the version is X.
Just like there was such a flurry of hacks to get cheap access thorough the Peek? Granted, I don't think it's 3G and it _is_ still $15 a month, but it's also incredibly cheap (both initially and per month). And like that frenzy of hacks for the Amazon Kindle? I mean that thing has free 3G....
Besides, all they'll have to do is put in some kind of bandwidth limit...or simply limit the connection to specific sites. I mean it's being used to download games, there's no reason not to lock it in to only be allowed data to the nintendo store.
I'm not sure anymore, but I know older versions of Mandriva (Well, Mandrake - try to find 9.2 or earlier) could boot from a floppy and install over the network. I installed directly from a mirror a couple times back in the day. Worth looking into. I believe carroll.cac.psu.edu still has the files for older Mandrake distros.
Yea...if you want to say that anyone you arrest on certain charges is instantly shot without any trial....then sure, you could round up all the Bad Guys and take them all out for about $100. Hell you could probably just post a list somewhere and say 'there will be no charge for murdering the following individuals' and let people take care of it themselves. Then it'd practically be free. But that's not the way society works. In the real world, we have trials. We give people a chance to attempt to disprove their guilt. And in the real world, it's been proven many, many times that it is far cheaper to keep someone in prison than to execute them.
Add to that list that it's more expensive to kill someone than to give them life in prison. From a utilitarian perspective, unless the person has a high risk of somehow escaping or continuing their crimes from inside prison, the death penalty really makes no sense.