The problem with those customer's though is that most of them are probably going to try to install linux for the first time (since it would support AOL and they heard linux was really good so they wanted to try it), probably use it for a week, say "Hey I can't do crap in this stupid OS", then go back to windows and tell everyone to stay away from linux.
You mean like, when I tell people "I can't do crap in this OS, I'm going back to Mac, don't use Windows?":)
Yeah, the concept definately does not work for all (or even most) movies. But there are some good movies out there, that I could understand being removed, to be more family friendly.
If only someone would come up with a business that removes all hint of a plot from porn.:) It is just useless filler, and is always horrible acting. If they were good actors, they wouldn't be in a porn.
I agree with you up to a point. But the bottom line is still its their right. If we take away their right to make a stupid decision, we lose ours too. This fight is not about their sensibilties or morals.. its about the rights of everyone.
Crap.. just read it again.. looks like you have to subscribe with another ISP too, to ulitize it. (aka, whats the point?) Well, maybe they can point you in the right direction. Maybe there is one out ther for less than $10, which would put you under the $30 range.
Also, just to piss you off, I currently subscribe to cable modem service thru CableVision. Although in the end, my company reimburses me the expense, I currently only pay $29.95 for what comes out to be about 3Mb/down 1Mb/up.
Sure, it would be a good idea to produce more movies which are "family friendly" as you suggest. I think its completely in your right to watch whatever you want, which applies to "self censored" movies as well.
My biggest complaint about your comment is that you want to exclude people from watching a certain movie because it contains one or more elements which they do not approve of. Let's take the movie "The Thomas Crown Affair" for example.. it was a great movie, and doesn't require Renee Russo to expose herself to maintain the plot. If an individual decides they don't want to see the naked body (which I for one am not offended, nor would I refuse to let my children see nudity, although I would restrict them from watching "sexual" matter at a young age) why should they not be allowed to watch a non-nude version??
Just because you don't agree with someone doesn't they don't have a right to think a certain way. And conversely, just because they hold a certain belief, doesn't mean its right.
Although I have no interest in the end product from Clean Flicks, I do believe they should have the right to offer these movies without the gore/nudity/whatever. There is obviously a need/want for these "Clean" films.
Why should a grown adult, who doesn't wish to view sex or violence have the only option be to watch classic Disney videos???
To me, the directors who are bitching sound way too much like the artist(s) who shit in jars and put them in galleries, and then cause a scene when people speak up and say "hey thats digusting".
"I'd pay $20 a month for something above 56k but below Cable/DSL, but such a thing doesn't exist, so I'll just wait until broadband is affordable. "
My mother subscribes to ADSL in Colorado for $19.95 a month, but it is capped at 128k. It sure beats dialup, and costs less than her AOL account she had prior to switching. In fact, the lower cost was the main reason for switching, although the increased speed (and reliability) was a definate plus.
This is all fine and dandy for the activist, (and really, eternal vigilance is always required) but for the end user, this really doesn't help them out at all.
True, but.. my point was more to something like (an example, not real figures) "if it takes 10 gallons of fuel to create 9 gallons of useable fuel, then it doesn't make sense to use it".
If you have to burn coal/gasoline/oil/etc to generate the energy to produce hydrogen, then your not helping much...
BUT, lets say my car gets 20 miles a gallon on current "87 grade" gasoline. If the process gets to where I can get 100 miles per equivalent to a gallon of gasoline, (ie, it took 1 gallon of gasoline to generate the specific amount of hydrogen) Then it would definately be reducing the pollution, even if you still have to generate it somewhere.
I know that things will never get to an absolute point of efficiency, because there is always a trade off.
Ahh, here is the real problem with fuel cell technology right now. Hydrogen can be made from water. Right now, it still takes more energy to produce it than you get back out of it.
With GM's "billion dollar bet", I hope that includes some sort of development of better hydrogen production.
If this new car design of GM's is at least as affordable as common cars today, and sources of hydrogen are easy to come by (inexpensively), I'd definately own one.
I purchased a Lexmark Z31 about 2 or 3 years ago, and I've had to change the cartridges only twice. This is with moderate printing, mind you. I've had a bitch of a time getting anything to print with it under Linux, but for the rest of my home computers, it works fine. Seems to me that it did everything it advertised and more. So far I've been happy with pretty much any Lexmark I've used at both work and home. I can not say the same with any other printer except for the HP *jet line. With the only major thing being price setting the HP and Lexmarks apart in my eye, Lexmark wins hands down.
I can go out and buy a new system which is capable of running a decent desktop system with Linux for about $400 to $500. The entry for a Mac system starts at $800. But typically its even cheaper for Linux, because your recycling a computer to run Linux, whereas with Windows or the latest MacOS, you have to go top of the line.
Sure, I remember having fun playing D&D as a teenager. But that doesn't mean that I should be sad that its a market that isn't doing so well anymore. Ultimately, its a business. THEIR business. Things get replaced. Things go out of style. Oh well.
Sun's stance is wrong. They should not be allowed to force MS to integrate their Java into Windows. No company should be required to do such a thing. But, MS shouldn't be allowed to break the compatibility standards which Sun has copyrighted. I full respect that aspect, and agree that they have splintered Java because of it.
It seems to me that this pissing contest will only make things worse off for everybody. It's letting MS get away with what they are REALLY doing wrong, Sun comes out looking like the bad guy, and all the customers get shafted.
And this is exactly why I fear for my family in the future. People from all over the US are being scared by government FUD into giving up freedoms. I live in NJ, and all I hear about is how the local NY/NJ people are fighting over if and how big of a memorial should be built.
Are there any people left in the US who have a clue of whats going on???
I'm sorry, but these guys were not acting as tipsters.
They went in prodding with the intent to see how far they could get. It makes no difference how well or how bad they secured the site, its not only illegal to do what they did, but also very STUPID.
If they had noticed a potential problem, they should have escalated it immediately, not probed further. That would go for any target, not just a Government one.
Slashdot Mirror
It seems like just yesterday that people were running around like chicken little complaining about global warming and how its getting too hot.
Is it just me, or now are people running back in the opposite direction?
be happy you got anything... sniveling little whiny bitch.
The problem with those customer's though is that most of them are probably going to try to install linux for the first time (since it would support AOL and they heard linux was really good so they wanted to try it), probably use it for a week, say "Hey I can't do crap in this stupid OS", then go back to windows and tell everyone to stay away from linux.
:)
You mean like, when I tell people "I can't do crap in this OS, I'm going back to Mac, don't use Windows?"
Yeah, the concept definately does not work for all (or even most) movies. But there are some good movies out there, that I could understand being removed, to be more family friendly.
:) It is just useless filler, and is always horrible acting. If they were good actors, they wouldn't be in a porn.
If only someone would come up with a business that removes all hint of a plot from porn.
I agree with you up to a point. But the bottom line is still its their right. If we take away their right to make a stupid decision, we lose ours too. This fight is not about their sensibilties or morals.. its about the rights of everyone.
Crap.. just read it again.. looks like you have to subscribe with another ISP too, to ulitize it. (aka, whats the point?) Well, maybe they can point you in the right direction. Maybe there is one out ther for less than $10, which would put you under the $30 range.
Also, just to piss you off, I currently subscribe to cable modem service thru CableVision. Although in the end, my company reimburses me the expense, I currently only pay $29.95 for what comes out to be about 3Mb/down 1Mb/up.
I am pretty sure it was through USWest.
3 54 ,537_1_11,00.html
Check this page out. 256k for $21.95 a month... that sounds like your price range.
http://www.uswest.com/pcat/for_home/product/1,1
Amen Brother!
Sure, it would be a good idea to produce more movies which are "family friendly" as you suggest. I think its completely in your right to watch whatever you want, which applies to "self censored" movies as well.
My biggest complaint about your comment is that you want to exclude people from watching a certain movie because it contains one or more elements which they do not approve of. Let's take the movie "The Thomas Crown Affair" for example.. it was a great movie, and doesn't require Renee Russo to expose herself to maintain the plot. If an individual decides they don't want to see the naked body (which I for one am not offended, nor would I refuse to let my children see nudity, although I would restrict them from watching "sexual" matter at a young age) why should they not be allowed to watch a non-nude version??
Just because you don't agree with someone doesn't they don't have a right to think a certain way. And conversely, just because they hold a certain belief, doesn't mean its right.
Although I have no interest in the end product from Clean Flicks, I do believe they should have the right to offer these movies without the gore/nudity/whatever. There is obviously a need/want for these "Clean" films.
Why should a grown adult, who doesn't wish to view sex or violence have the only option be to watch classic Disney videos???
To me, the directors who are bitching sound way too much like the artist(s) who shit in jars and put them in galleries, and then cause a scene when people speak up and say "hey thats digusting".
"I'd pay $20 a month for something above 56k but below Cable/DSL, but such a thing doesn't exist, so I'll just wait until broadband is affordable. "
My mother subscribes to ADSL in Colorado for $19.95 a month, but it is capped at 128k. It sure beats dialup, and costs less than her AOL account she had prior to switching. In fact, the lower cost was the main reason for switching, although the increased speed (and reliability) was a definate plus.
Normally I don't think very highly of california, but I do agree with them on this.
it IS a touchy subject, but one which I feel Bush does not have the right to butt into.
Does anybody believe in States Rights anymore?
Ok, who else read the subject line and thought, Why are they patenting midgets?
:)
Who knows, it could be some company trying to clone the genetic code for midgets.
I hope its not optional for that bus full of people.
If i had a spare billion.. I'd hire assassins to kill off those 500 black market clones of myself.. damnit, there can be only one!
This is all fine and dandy for the activist, (and really, eternal vigilance is always required) but for the end user, this really doesn't help them out at all.
True, but.. my point was more to something like (an example, not real figures) "if it takes 10 gallons of fuel to create 9 gallons of useable fuel, then it doesn't make sense to use it".
If you have to burn coal/gasoline/oil/etc to generate the energy to produce hydrogen, then your not helping much...
BUT, lets say my car gets 20 miles a gallon on current "87 grade" gasoline. If the process gets to where I can get 100 miles per equivalent to a gallon of gasoline, (ie, it took 1 gallon of gasoline to generate the specific amount of hydrogen) Then it would definately be reducing the pollution, even if you still have to generate it somewhere.
I know that things will never get to an absolute point of efficiency, because there is always a trade off.
Ahh, here is the real problem with fuel cell technology right now. Hydrogen can be made from water. Right now, it still takes more energy to produce it than you get back out of it.
With GM's "billion dollar bet", I hope that includes some sort of development of better hydrogen production.
If this new car design of GM's is at least as affordable as common cars today, and sources of hydrogen are easy to come by (inexpensively), I'd definately own one.
I bet this guy has a ton of these old laptops. Now he can unload them to all the Slashdot geeks on Ebay...
I purchased a Lexmark Z31 about 2 or 3 years ago, and I've had to change the cartridges only twice. This is with moderate printing, mind you. I've had a bitch of a time getting anything to print with it under Linux, but for the rest of my home computers, it works fine. Seems to me that it did everything it advertised and more. So far I've been happy with pretty much any Lexmark I've used at both work and home. I can not say the same with any other printer except for the HP *jet line. With the only major thing being price setting the HP and Lexmarks apart in my eye, Lexmark wins hands down.
I can go out and buy a new system which is capable of running a decent desktop system with Linux for about $400 to $500. The entry for a Mac system starts at $800. But typically its even cheaper for Linux, because your recycling a computer to run Linux, whereas with Windows or the latest MacOS, you have to go top of the line.
Things come and go...
Sure, I remember having fun playing D&D as a teenager. But that doesn't mean that I should be sad that its a market that isn't doing so well anymore. Ultimately, its a business. THEIR business. Things get replaced. Things go out of style. Oh well.
Sun's stance is wrong. They should not be allowed to force MS to integrate their Java into Windows. No company should be required to do such a thing. But, MS shouldn't be allowed to break the compatibility standards which Sun has copyrighted. I full respect that aspect, and agree that they have splintered Java because of it.
It seems to me that this pissing contest will only make things worse off for everybody. It's letting MS get away with what they are REALLY doing wrong, Sun comes out looking like the bad guy, and all the customers get shafted.
And this is exactly why I fear for my family in the future. People from all over the US are being scared by government FUD into giving up freedoms. I live in NJ, and all I hear about is how the local NY/NJ people are fighting over if and how big of a memorial should be built.
Are there any people left in the US who have a clue of whats going on???
I'm sorry, but these guys were not acting as tipsters.
They went in prodding with the intent to see how far they could get. It makes no difference how well or how bad they secured the site, its not only illegal to do what they did, but also very STUPID.
If they had noticed a potential problem, they should have escalated it immediately, not probed further. That would go for any target, not just a Government one.