The US has one of the largest military budgets in the world. People like you seem to critcize that all the time, except now, when you complain they don't spend enough?
The US has *the* largest military budget in the world. (Wikipedia: "The United States military budget is larger than the military budgets of the next twenty biggest spenders combined, and six times larger than China's, which places second.")
I also can't help but notice that the person you're responding to didn't say anything about spending more on defense.
OK, US also gives billions in aid to other countries, and has countless programs and scientists working to solve all these world hunger problems.
You *do* realize that "foreign aid" is not selfless giving to fund orphans, but essentially bribery of various governments to support US interests? Nothing inherently wrong with that -- it's a lot less damaging than attacking a country to make it do what you want -- but if you think that the USG is a bunch of angels running around handing out money to people because they need money, you're nuts.
The country has an obligation to enforce all of its laws. And being that capitalism is vital to the survival of the country, it has an interest in protecting the profits of companies.
The question is whether it has an obligation to enforce *other* countries' laws. US laws absolutely do not cover what a Chinese citizen does in China.
I know you want to steal music and movies, and don't think you should be held accountable for it
Nice use of "steal" instead of "infringe on copyright" to take advantage of emotional attachment. Very neutral.
Frankly, I don't think that music copyright should last longer than fifteen years or so, and software copyright even less. And I have no problem with people infringing on the copyrights of older music. Publishers don't think about profits fifteen years in the future when deciding whether to fund someone or not. Thus, profits do jack-all to encourage funding of music production. Thus, publishers shouldn't have had copyright extension at all in the first place, except for the fact that they can afford a powerful lobby. The only people who are out arguing that copyright should last ninety years or whatever are those who have been simply brainwashed by the industry into believing in some kind of moral imperative to keep throwing money at someone who once funded some music production.
You're the type of person used as a pawn by the powerful to get their way.
That's funny, because that is exactly what I was thinking about you.
Re:RAID virgin pops cherry...
on
Basics of RAID
·
· Score: 1
...during the copy I unplugged the SATA cable from a drive. The software quickly alerted me of the failure. Shortly after I plugged the SATA cable back in and rebooted.
Only in Japan would... sound reasonable Naked/petrified Natalie Portman (the origins of this predate me -- no idea what started this)... CowBoy Neal...
Now *that* is a cool idea (privoxy has a feature that lets fake cookies be sent back, or "jars" of cookies be exchanged with other users to screw up databases), but the idea of just corrupting all the cookies for sites not in a whitelist just makes me happy as a clam.
A client/server system without persistent client state is unuseably crippled.
See, I just don't feel that way.
On the few sites that I agree, I have a login and password. I know *exactly* what information I'm handing out. I don't use it, but Firefox has a Password Manager that can handle all that if I want a keychain-type interface. That way, *I* choose out when I want to be trackable. Not surprisingly, website producers want me to *always* be trackable, even though they have no real need other than marketing reasons.
I use mplayer. I've never used a hardware DVD player in my life. The only time I've ever seen an unskippable ad was when I was watching The Matrix on a friend's Windows computer, equipped with a DVDCA-approved player. I was astounded that anyone would put up with that kind of crap on the products they buy.
The only time they can get this information is if a third party has an Ad, or some other content on both sites (which is what makes cookies from ad sites more dangerous).
And I don't know which sites do this. Nor do I want to worry about it, nor do I want to worry about leaking a single bit of information. I want to be as close to an anonymous ghost browsing past everything as I can.
You know why customers don't like cookies? Because cookies take away a certain amount of their privacy. This has some value, both to the customer, and to the advertiser.
Now, sometimes a vendor can make a very fair, clear offer, where I know exactly what I'm giving away. The best example I can think of is grocery stores. They give me a discount that's probably about 5% on average, depending upon what I buy, and I give them a complete log of everything I buy. Each time I give them information, it is voluntary -- if I choose to buy something with cash and not use my store card on a given purchase, I have that ability.
Many people find that their personal information is worth more to the vendor than it is to them, and so sell it.
On the other hand, when I turn on cookies, I have *no idea* what information websites are able to compile. There's always a new, clever trick to take advantage of some new, ill-advised system that browser developers have added. Once upon a time, it was associating email addresses with cookies by having links to FTP sites for images and using the tendency of browsers (once benign and safe) to provide the user's email address as a password. Yesterday it was ad banners being used to combine multiple sources of identity accross sites. Who knows what it will be tomorrow? Why should I worry about it, when I can just turn off cookies, except for a whitelist?
Plus, once information is leaked, it's leaked forever; information wants to be free. Once Doubleclick can associate my Slashdot ID with my Freshmeat ID, they can associate my Freshmeat ID with my Democratic Underground ID, which they can associate with my UnderageLesbianGoatPorn.Com ID. And all those associations are going to stick with me for a lifetime in some database. Maybe it'll come to haunt me, maybe it won't. It'd sure be valuable to a political opponent if I decide to run for the Senate in twenty years. What about knowing that I'm the same guy that is constantly Googling for AIDs information? A health insurer would definitely like to have a potential red flag on me ahead of time; that's valuable information.
So, yes, cookies can be useful. But they represent a deal being made between the browser user and the website producer in which the browser user has no idea what exactly they are giving up. There have been some attempts to remedy this (such as via P3P), but nothing really dealt with it.
When it comes down to it, I don't really care whether it's easier or not for a website producer to require cookies. I don't care whether they can only make an IE-compatible site, either; I'll just go to a different site that can meet my requirements more.
Spyware wiping tools for Windows may not be a great solution, but they represent a huge backlash -- people are tired of computers representing some huge, complex black box that can be influenced by a vast number of people intent on siphoning away their privacy. Those people are getting quite irritated now. Privacy policies are not the answer -- I can't read the privacy policy of every website I go to, nor can I reasonably verify that the website is following the policy, and in any event, most have a clause stating that the policy may change at any time without warning. There's only one way that I can ensure that you aren't invading my privacy, and that's to make it damn hard for you to even get the information necessary to do so.
I'm fairly generous. I *do* allow cookies, but only on a per-session basis. Given the increasing amount of demand people have for no-cookies sites, I'm hoping that I can move to a whitelist-based system without too much pain soon.
Is playing WoW for 3 hours with my friends on TeamSpeak worse than Poker Night at my buddies house?
Depends. Poker is partly popular because it teaches (or at least appears to teach) the sort of skills that a negotiator would find handy.
Monday Night Football at my brothers?
I'd say that watching football is kind of not good either.
10 hour marathon D&D campaings back in Jr. High?
No, because in these you are stretching your mind and working together with a number of people.
Doesn't sound dangerous to me. I'm not saying it's better - just no worse.
It's all in whether, at the end of the day, you wind up a better/more fit/more skillful person as a result of your hobby or whether you just flushed huge chunks of your life away.
What you do to entertain yourself (provided you dont harm others)
Unless you infringe on copyright for something that you wouldn't have purchased, or download child porn. (Or whatever your particular country outlaws.)
That of course depends on the maturity of the gamer and his ability to prioritize.
Yeah. For instance, there are a lot of heroin users with absolutely *no* ability to prioritize whatsoever.
I remember Diablo. It looked like a pretty lame (but graphical) knockoff of Angband, but I figured that I'd give the demo a try, wanted to see what all the hullabuloo was about. The gameplay pretty much sucked, as I expected. I wandered around and got whacked in town by some invisible player using some kind of hack. I looked around on the Web, discovered that Blizzard had a pretty poor reputation for security, tried opening a debugger and increasing the amount of gold in a pile, discovered that it worked in single player, tried in on whatever demo server I was playing on, discovered (and was rather appalled by the fact that it worked). I was walking around with every possible slot filled with gold, got whacked by another invisible character in town, exploded in about eight million chunks of gold, and decided that maybe Diablo wasn't just a bad game, but a badly designed game. I returned to the good old standby of an occasional game of Angband for entertainment.
As a complete aside, I can't help but observe that a large number of people on Slashdot really hate TCPA and Palladium/NGSCB, since they're worried that it will force them to pay for their latest gaming fix...yet those are also the only mechanisms that stand much chance at completely eliminating cheating in all genres.
MMORPGs are pretty hard to secure (i.e. this single break doesn't seem that bad to me), but Blizzard also had a legitimately bad record going into WoW.
Seriously, almost every hobby gives you something useful when you're done -- you're more skillful at carving wood or you're more physically fit from playing volleyball. WoW just eats up a chunk of your life without giving you anything back. It's a huge loss.
Speaking of which, I have an old email that I think I'll quote here:
BEGIN:
I was reading a page about Medal of Honor recipients (there are only about 100 living MoH recipients today) that described what they did to earn the thing. It was sufficiently impressive that I wanted to pass on the three most impressive that I read about (of the 101st Airborne). These people, are to put it bluntly, insanely badass -- this is pretty clearly not a medal given out lightly:
[World War II] Joe E. Mann
Rank and organization: Private First Class, U.S. Army, Company H, 502d Parachute Infantry, 101st Airborne Division. Place and date: Best, Holland, 18 September 1944. Entered service at: Seattle, Wash. Birth: Rearden, Wash. G.O. No.: 73, 30 August 1945. Citation: He distinguished himself by conspicuous gallantry above and beyond the call of duty. On 18 September 1944, in the vicinity of Best., Holland, his platoon, attempting to seize the bridge across the Wilhelmina Canal, was surrounded and isolated by an enemy force greatly superior in personnel and firepower. Acting as lead scout, Pfc. Mann boldly crept to within rocket-launcher range of an enemy artillery position and, in the face of heavy enemy fire, destroyed an 88mm. gun and an ammunition dump. Completely disregarding the great danger involved, he remained in his exposed position, and, with his M-1 rifle, killed the enemy one by one until he was wounded 4 times. Taken to a covered position, he insisted on returning to a forward position to stand guard during the night. On the following morning the enemy launched a concerted attack and advanced to within a few yards of the position, throwing hand grenades as they approached. One of these landed within a few feet of Pfc. Mann. Unable to raise his arms, which were bandaged to his body, he yelled "grenade" and threw his body over the grenade, and as it exploded, died. His outstanding gallantry above and beyond the call of duty and his magnificent conduct were an everlasting inspiration to his comrades for whom he gave his life.
[Vietnam]
Michale John Fitzmaurice
Rank and organization: Specialist Fourth Class, U.S. Army, Troop D, 2d Squadron, 17th Cavalry, 101st Airborne Division. Place and date: Khe Sanh, Republic of Vietnam, 23 March 1971. Entered service at: Jamestown, N. Dak. Born: 9 March 1950, Jamestown, N. Dak . Citation: For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity in action at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty. Sp4c. Fitzmaurice, 3d Platoon, Troop D, distinguished himself at Khe Sanh. Sp4c. Fitzmaurice and 3 fellow soldiers were occupying a bunker when a company of North Vietnamese sappers infiltrated the area. At the onset of the attack Sp4c. Fitzmaurice observed 3 explosive charges which had been thrown into the bunker by the enemy. Realizing the imminent danger to his comrades, and with complete disregard for his personal safety, he hurled 2 of the charges out of the bunker. He then threw his flak vest and himself over the remaining charge. By this courageous act he absorbed the blast and shielded his fellow-soldiers. Although suffering from serious multiple wounds and partial loss of sight, he charged out of the bunker, and engaged the enemy until his rifle was damaged by the blast of an enemy hand grenade. While in search of another weapon, Sp4c. Fitzmaurice encountered and overcame an enemy sapper in hand-to-hand combat. Having obtained another weapon, he returned to his original fighting position and inflicted additional casualties on the attacking enemy. Although seriously wounded, Sp4c. Fitzmaurice refused to be medically evacuated, preferring to remain at his post. Sp4c. Fitzmaurice's extraordinary heroism in action at the risk of his life contributed significantly to the successful defense of the position and resulted in saving the lives of a number of his fellow soldiers. These ac
Sorry for the rant-- this stuff makes me incredibly angry.
All part of the free market. If you could live in a mud hut and farm instead of sitting in a cubicle designing software and recieve the same standard of living, people wouldn't be as deeply interested in getting their ass in that cubicle where it produces more value for society.
Are you Apple fans suckered by Apple or are you willfully ignoring the monitor, keyboard, and mouse every single time you quote Mac Mini prices in comparison to a PC?
I guarantee you that Joe User is not interested in buying peripherals to build a computer, nor does he have a clue what "DVI", "VGA", [whatever Apple is using for video today is], or USB is. He wants to buy a system that is supposed to work when he sticks it on his desk. Most users know about as much about computer components as I do about pro musician components (which is little-to-nothing).
Now, let's say they buy from the Apple store, and buy the cheapest (wired) mouse/keyboard pair listed on the mini page. That's $58. The cheapest monitor, incredibly, seems to be $800 (which I assume is too much). So at the least, Joe User needs to buy a headless box, add a mouse and keyboard to it, go to a totally different, unlinked page to locate any video adapters he wants for his Mac (on which I see DVI->ADC, ADC->DVI, ADC->VGA), and then he has to find some other vendor and purchase a monitor.
Good luck with that.
If I were going to realistically recommend a Joe User Mac, it would be the eMac. The $800 eMac is an very low-end system, and I think I'd at least upgrade the memory from 256MB of memory even for a basic user to save wear and tear on the hard drive.
Slashdot Mirror
It really hurts the credibility of the Slashdot.
Heh.
The US has one of the largest military budgets in the world. People like you seem to critcize that all the time, except now, when you complain they don't spend enough?
The US has *the* largest military budget in the world. (Wikipedia: "The United States military budget is larger than the military budgets of the next twenty biggest spenders combined, and six times larger than China's, which places second.")
I also can't help but notice that the person you're responding to didn't say anything about spending more on defense.
OK, US also gives billions in aid to other countries, and has countless programs and scientists working to solve all these world hunger problems.
You *do* realize that "foreign aid" is not selfless giving to fund orphans, but essentially bribery of various governments to support US interests? Nothing inherently wrong with that -- it's a lot less damaging than attacking a country to make it do what you want -- but if you think that the USG is a bunch of angels running around handing out money to people because they need money, you're nuts.
The country has an obligation to enforce all of its laws. And being that capitalism is vital to the survival of the country, it has an interest in protecting the profits of companies.
The question is whether it has an obligation to enforce *other* countries' laws. US laws absolutely do not cover what a Chinese citizen does in China.
I know you want to steal music and movies, and don't think you should be held accountable for it
Nice use of "steal" instead of "infringe on copyright" to take advantage of emotional attachment. Very neutral.
Frankly, I don't think that music copyright should last longer than fifteen years or so, and software copyright even less. And I have no problem with people infringing on the copyrights of older music. Publishers don't think about profits fifteen years in the future when deciding whether to fund someone or not. Thus, profits do jack-all to encourage funding of music production. Thus, publishers shouldn't have had copyright extension at all in the first place, except for the fact that they can afford a powerful lobby. The only people who are out arguing that copyright should last ninety years or whatever are those who have been simply brainwashed by the industry into believing in some kind of moral imperative to keep throwing money at someone who once funded some music production.
You're the type of person used as a pawn by the powerful to get their way.
That's funny, because that is exactly what I was thinking about you.
...during the copy I unplugged the SATA cable from a drive. The software quickly alerted me of the failure. Shortly after I plugged the SATA cable back in and rebooted.
Is SATA electrically safe to hot-plug?
Only in Japan would ... sound reasonable ... CowBoy Neal ...
Naked/petrified Natalie Portman (the origins of this predate me -- no idea what started this)
Hard to believe HP's cutting him loose.' Maybe Apple will hire him.
Or they might just wait until he comes up with something else revolutionary, swipe it, make it appealing to the masses, and sell it.
And then Microsoft will probably steal *that* and make it appealing to businesses and get even richer.
Now *that* is a cool idea (privoxy has a feature that lets fake cookies be sent back, or "jars" of cookies be exchanged with other users to screw up databases), but the idea of just corrupting all the cookies for sites not in a whitelist just makes me happy as a clam.
A client/server system without persistent client state is unuseably crippled.
See, I just don't feel that way.
On the few sites that I agree, I have a login and password. I know *exactly* what information I'm handing out. I don't use it, but Firefox has a Password Manager that can handle all that if I want a keychain-type interface. That way, *I* choose out when I want to be trackable. Not surprisingly, website producers want me to *always* be trackable, even though they have no real need other than marketing reasons.
I use mplayer. I've never used a hardware DVD player in my life. The only time I've ever seen an unskippable ad was when I was watching The Matrix on a friend's Windows computer, equipped with a DVDCA-approved player. I was astounded that anyone would put up with that kind of crap on the products they buy.
You know, I don't think most people really hate flash with the all-consuming, burning fearsome hate that you do.
You are correct. That set of non-hating people consists of the people who don't know what Flash is.
Of course, nowadays both stores were probably owned by a parent mega-corp of a different name...
And if non-invasive company makes more money than invasive company, said mega-corp has some interesting data to play with.
The only time they can get this information is if a third party has an Ad, or some other content on both sites (which is what makes cookies from ad sites more dangerous).
And I don't know which sites do this. Nor do I want to worry about it, nor do I want to worry about leaking a single bit of information. I want to be as close to an anonymous ghost browsing past everything as I can.
You know why customers don't like cookies? Because cookies take away a certain amount of their privacy. This has some value, both to the customer, and to the advertiser.
Now, sometimes a vendor can make a very fair, clear offer, where I know exactly what I'm giving away. The best example I can think of is grocery stores. They give me a discount that's probably about 5% on average, depending upon what I buy, and I give them a complete log of everything I buy. Each time I give them information, it is voluntary -- if I choose to buy something with cash and not use my store card on a given purchase, I have that ability.
Many people find that their personal information is worth more to the vendor than it is to them, and so sell it.
On the other hand, when I turn on cookies, I have *no idea* what information websites are able to compile. There's always a new, clever trick to take advantage of some new, ill-advised system that browser developers have added. Once upon a time, it was associating email addresses with cookies by having links to FTP sites for images and using the tendency of browsers (once benign and safe) to provide the user's email address as a password. Yesterday it was ad banners being used to combine multiple sources of identity accross sites. Who knows what it will be tomorrow? Why should I worry about it, when I can just turn off cookies, except for a whitelist?
Plus, once information is leaked, it's leaked forever; information wants to be free. Once Doubleclick can associate my Slashdot ID with my Freshmeat ID, they can associate my Freshmeat ID with my Democratic Underground ID, which they can associate with my UnderageLesbianGoatPorn.Com ID. And all those associations are going to stick with me for a lifetime in some database. Maybe it'll come to haunt me, maybe it won't. It'd sure be valuable to a political opponent if I decide to run for the Senate in twenty years. What about knowing that I'm the same guy that is constantly Googling for AIDs information? A health insurer would definitely like to have a potential red flag on me ahead of time; that's valuable information.
So, yes, cookies can be useful. But they represent a deal being made between the browser user and the website producer in which the browser user has no idea what exactly they are giving up. There have been some attempts to remedy this (such as via P3P), but nothing really dealt with it.
When it comes down to it, I don't really care whether it's easier or not for a website producer to require cookies. I don't care whether they can only make an IE-compatible site, either; I'll just go to a different site that can meet my requirements more.
Spyware wiping tools for Windows may not be a great solution, but they represent a huge backlash -- people are tired of computers representing some huge, complex black box that can be influenced by a vast number of people intent on siphoning away their privacy. Those people are getting quite irritated now. Privacy policies are not the answer -- I can't read the privacy policy of every website I go to, nor can I reasonably verify that the website is following the policy, and in any event, most have a clause stating that the policy may change at any time without warning. There's only one way that I can ensure that you aren't invading my privacy, and that's to make it damn hard for you to even get the information necessary to do so.
I'm fairly generous. I *do* allow cookies, but only on a per-session basis. Given the increasing amount of demand people have for no-cookies sites, I'm hoping that I can move to a whitelist-based system without too much pain soon.
Is playing WoW for 3 hours with my friends on TeamSpeak worse than Poker Night at my buddies house?
Depends. Poker is partly popular because it teaches (or at least appears to teach) the sort of skills that a negotiator would find handy.
Monday Night Football at my brothers?
I'd say that watching football is kind of not good either.
10 hour marathon D&D campaings back in Jr. High?
No, because in these you are stretching your mind and working together with a number of people.
Doesn't sound dangerous to me. I'm not saying it's better - just no worse.
It's all in whether, at the end of the day, you wind up a better/more fit/more skillful person as a result of your hobby or whether you just flushed huge chunks of your life away.
What you do to entertain yourself (provided you dont harm others)
Unless you infringe on copyright for something that you wouldn't have purchased, or download child porn. (Or whatever your particular country outlaws.)
That of course depends on the maturity of the gamer and his ability to prioritize.
Yeah. For instance, there are a lot of heroin users with absolutely *no* ability to prioritize whatsoever.
I remember Diablo. It looked like a pretty lame (but graphical) knockoff of Angband, but I figured that I'd give the demo a try, wanted to see what all the hullabuloo was about. The gameplay pretty much sucked, as I expected. I wandered around and got whacked in town by some invisible player using some kind of hack. I looked around on the Web, discovered that Blizzard had a pretty poor reputation for security, tried opening a debugger and increasing the amount of gold in a pile, discovered that it worked in single player, tried in on whatever demo server I was playing on, discovered (and was rather appalled by the fact that it worked). I was walking around with every possible slot filled with gold, got whacked by another invisible character in town, exploded in about eight million chunks of gold, and decided that maybe Diablo wasn't just a bad game, but a badly designed game. I returned to the good old standby of an occasional game of Angband for entertainment.
As a complete aside, I can't help but observe that a large number of people on Slashdot really hate TCPA and Palladium/NGSCB, since they're worried that it will force them to pay for their latest gaming fix...yet those are also the only mechanisms that stand much chance at completely eliminating cheating in all genres.
I don't have a whole lot of respect for people who spend their lives glued to a TV screen watching football either, to be honest.
Agreed.
MMORPGs are pretty hard to secure (i.e. this single break doesn't seem that bad to me), but Blizzard also had a legitimately bad record going into WoW.
Fewer people wasting time on World of Warcraft?
Seriously, almost every hobby gives you something useful when you're done -- you're more skillful at carving wood or you're more physically fit from playing volleyball. WoW just eats up a chunk of your life without giving you anything back. It's a huge loss.
Speaking of which, I have an old email that I think I'll quote here:
BEGIN:
I was reading a page about Medal of Honor recipients (there are only
about 100 living MoH recipients today) that described what they did to
earn the thing. It was sufficiently impressive that I wanted to pass
on the three most impressive that I read about (of the 101st
Airborne). These people, are to put it bluntly, insanely badass --
this is pretty clearly not a medal given out lightly:
[World War II]
Joe E. Mann
Rank and organization: Private First Class, U.S. Army, Company H, 502d
Parachute Infantry, 101st Airborne Division. Place and date: Best,
Holland, 18 September 1944. Entered service at: Seattle, Wash. Birth:
Rearden, Wash. G.O. No.: 73, 30 August 1945. Citation: He
distinguished himself by conspicuous gallantry above and beyond the
call of duty. On 18 September 1944, in the vicinity of Best., Holland,
his platoon, attempting to seize the bridge across the Wilhelmina
Canal, was surrounded and isolated by an enemy force greatly superior
in personnel and firepower. Acting as lead scout, Pfc. Mann boldly
crept to within rocket-launcher range of an enemy artillery position
and, in the face of heavy enemy fire, destroyed an 88mm. gun and an
ammunition dump. Completely disregarding the great danger involved, he
remained in his exposed position, and, with his M-1 rifle, killed the
enemy one by one until he was wounded 4 times. Taken to a covered
position, he insisted on returning to a forward position to stand
guard during the night. On the following morning the enemy launched a
concerted attack and advanced to within a few yards of the position,
throwing hand grenades as they approached. One of these landed within
a few feet of Pfc. Mann. Unable to raise his arms, which were bandaged
to his body, he yelled "grenade" and threw his body over the grenade,
and as it exploded, died. His outstanding gallantry above and beyond
the call of duty and his magnificent conduct were an everlasting
inspiration to his comrades for whom he gave his life.
[Vietnam]
Michale John Fitzmaurice
Rank and organization: Specialist Fourth Class, U.S. Army, Troop D, 2d
Squadron, 17th Cavalry, 101st Airborne Division. Place and date: Khe
Sanh, Republic of Vietnam, 23 March 1971. Entered service at:
Jamestown, N. Dak. Born: 9 March 1950, Jamestown, N. Dak . Citation:
For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity in action at the risk of his
life above and beyond the call of duty. Sp4c. Fitzmaurice, 3d Platoon,
Troop D, distinguished himself at Khe Sanh. Sp4c. Fitzmaurice and 3
fellow soldiers were occupying a bunker when a company of North
Vietnamese sappers infiltrated the area. At the onset of the attack
Sp4c. Fitzmaurice observed 3 explosive charges which had been thrown
into the bunker by the enemy. Realizing the imminent danger to his
comrades, and with complete disregard for his personal safety, he
hurled 2 of the charges out of the bunker. He then threw his flak vest
and himself over the remaining charge. By this courageous act he
absorbed the blast and shielded his fellow-soldiers. Although
suffering from serious multiple wounds and partial loss of sight, he
charged out of the bunker, and engaged the enemy until his rifle was
damaged by the blast of an enemy hand grenade. While in search of
another weapon, Sp4c. Fitzmaurice encountered and overcame an enemy
sapper in hand-to-hand combat. Having obtained another weapon, he
returned to his original fighting position and inflicted additional
casualties on the attacking enemy. Although seriously wounded,
Sp4c. Fitzmaurice refused to be medically evacuated, preferring to
remain at his post. Sp4c. Fitzmaurice's extraordinary heroism in
action at the risk of his life contributed significantly to the
successful defense of the position and resulted in saving the lives of
a number of his fellow soldiers. These ac
Well, I imagine that's one way to deal with a ruptured stomach..."Here, eat this clotting agent!" [makes face]
Next time I cut myself, I'm going to rub myself with shrimp. If it doesn't clot blood... I am sure I will smell lovely as I'm wheeled into the ER.
"My God! Dr. Whitby! Can you smell that? This man has clearly been attacked by a claw shrimp!"
and this one is mild enough to be used for *cosmetics*.
I dunno if that's a valid litmus. I don't think I'd eat every stick of lipstick and bottle of perfume I came across, you know?
Sorry for the rant-- this stuff makes me incredibly angry.
All part of the free market. If you could live in a mud hut and farm instead of sitting in a cubicle designing software and recieve the same standard of living, people wouldn't be as deeply interested in getting their ass in that cubicle where it produces more value for society.
nope , was part of a failed experiment to make synthetic gunsights.
Salt will at least have antibiotic properties.
I'm dubious as to the value of black pepper.
You'll sure learn to stop hurting yourself quickly, though.
Are you Apple fans suckered by Apple or are you willfully ignoring the monitor, keyboard, and mouse every single time you quote Mac Mini prices in comparison to a PC?
I guarantee you that Joe User is not interested in buying peripherals to build a computer, nor does he have a clue what "DVI", "VGA", [whatever Apple is using for video today is], or USB is. He wants to buy a system that is supposed to work when he sticks it on his desk. Most users know about as much about computer components as I do about pro musician components (which is little-to-nothing).
Now, let's say they buy from the Apple store, and buy the cheapest (wired) mouse/keyboard pair listed on the mini page. That's $58. The cheapest monitor, incredibly, seems to be $800 (which I assume is too much). So at the least, Joe User needs to buy a headless box, add a mouse and keyboard to it, go to a totally different, unlinked page to locate any video adapters he wants for his Mac (on which I see DVI->ADC, ADC->DVI, ADC->VGA), and then he has to find some other vendor and purchase a monitor.
Good luck with that.
If I were going to realistically recommend a Joe User Mac, it would be the eMac. The $800 eMac is an very low-end system, and I think I'd at least upgrade the memory from 256MB of memory even for a basic user to save wear and tear on the hard drive.
Hmm. I wonder how much, in financial terms, this means that Firefox provides in value?