Everyone I know that's gone to broadband from AOL did it as much to escape the confines/ads/annoyances of the AOL software as for the speed. Why would you voluntarily restrict yourself to using their browser when you could be using Firefox?
Furthermore, the people that have broadband (granted, not as much today, but still) are the people that are a bit more technically savvy and want more out of their internet connection/experience. Why on earth would any of these people want AOL?
The following is the God's honest truth, I am not exaggerating in any way:
OK, so I do work for this auto garage, and the owner is a pretty cool guy, but his 13 year old fat son is strange. He looks exactly like the kid from King of the Hill. He's always watching exactly what I do on the computer, and asking all these really odd questions (Do you know how to hack computers? Because I dropped mine down the stairs once...) (wtf).
Anyway, one day I'm working at the garage, and the owner mentions that something's wrong with his home PC. I've got a slow day, so I offer to ride over there and check it out. "Oh, I'll send my son with you to show you where everything is". SH*T So the kid and I get in the car, and drive over to the house.
So we get there, and the computer is full of spyware. But the internet temp files are all full of porn, porn bookmarks, etc. So I think this is because of the spyware, but the kid is standing over my shoulder, and starts going on about how he loves these blowup dolls that are in his bookmarks. So I'm like ok, whatever, I'm deleting these, don't go to them again.
So the kid leaves, and I'm going about cleaning off the PC. I hear a noise behind me, the kid is back, but this time, HE'S WEARING HIS MOM'S LINGERIE. A lacy bra and panties and nothing else! He's got toilet paper stuffed in the bra, and he starts dancing around making noises and talking about blowup dolls. At this point I tell him to put some clothes on, and that I'm leaving now. I start to get up and leave as soon as humanly possible, and he's like "wait, I'll leave". So he runs out of the room.
Against my better judgement I stay to finish the computer (it's almost clean). 3 minutes later I hear the door open again...and it's gotten worse. The kid is NAKED! And he starts singing/screaming and gyrating around, his fat flapping against himself. At this point I leap out of my chair and sprint from the house, as he chases me naked and singing.
Needless to say, I never went back to that house, and I stopped doing the work for the garage.
Ah yes, unless he was cleverly punning on the word "sadist", implying that the government takes pleasure in causing us pain.
Nice Freudian slip WCD_Thor:)
I also didn't really find it funny. The speech basically consisted of Colbert making jokes that totally did not resonate with his audience, half pausing for a laugh, realizing it wasn't coming, and pressing on with the speech.
Basically, 95% of his jokes feel flat on their faces.
Apperantly the "sosumi" thing is a running joke over at Apple, it goes back to 1991, when the Beatles were suing Apple Computer.
More info (as always) at WikiPedia
In addition, courts of law make extensive use of previous decisions as guidelines and precidence for current cases.
See Sony v. Betamax for an example.
Except in this case, it looks like it is feasible that the lawyer is telling the truth.
She's 80 years old, PCs didn't become widespread (and ceratinly not practical) until she was about 60. I know plenty of 80 year olds in nursing homes that still listen to the RADIO, because they prefer it to TV. Not everyone is moving as rapidly into the "technology age" as Slashdot readers.
Doesn't this prove something about the RIAA's investigative methods? Let's assume that the woman is telling the truth, she has in fact never touched a computer in her life, therefore she has not downloaded the music in question. Meaning she has been FALSLY IDENTIFIED by the RIAA's investigative methods (whatever those may consist of).
My question is, now that this obvious inconsistency has been exposed, what does this mean to those that have already been convicted? Isn't it to say, if you incorrectly fingered this woman as a pirate, how can you prove that you accurately identified me as a pirate?
Slashdot Mirror
I dont understand why anyone would do this.
Everyone I know that's gone to broadband from AOL did it as much to escape the confines/ads/annoyances of the AOL software as for the speed. Why would you voluntarily restrict yourself to using their browser when you could be using Firefox?
Furthermore, the people that have broadband (granted, not as much today, but still) are the people that are a bit more technically savvy and want more out of their internet connection/experience. Why on earth would any of these people want AOL?
The following is the God's honest truth, I am not exaggerating in any way:
OK, so I do work for this auto garage, and the owner is a pretty cool guy, but his 13 year old fat son is strange. He looks exactly like the kid from King of the Hill. He's always watching exactly what I do on the computer, and asking all these really odd questions (Do you know how to hack computers? Because I dropped mine down the stairs once...) (wtf).
Anyway, one day I'm working at the garage, and the owner mentions that something's wrong with his home PC. I've got a slow day, so I offer to ride over there and check it out. "Oh, I'll send my son with you to show you where everything is". SH*T So the kid and I get in the car, and drive over to the house. So we get there, and the computer is full of spyware. But the internet temp files are all full of porn, porn bookmarks, etc. So I think this is because of the spyware, but the kid is standing over my shoulder, and starts going on about how he loves these blowup dolls that are in his bookmarks. So I'm like ok, whatever, I'm deleting these, don't go to them again.
So the kid leaves, and I'm going about cleaning off the PC. I hear a noise behind me, the kid is back, but this time, HE'S WEARING HIS MOM'S LINGERIE. A lacy bra and panties and nothing else! He's got toilet paper stuffed in the bra, and he starts dancing around making noises and talking about blowup dolls. At this point I tell him to put some clothes on, and that I'm leaving now. I start to get up and leave as soon as humanly possible, and he's like "wait, I'll leave". So he runs out of the room.
Against my better judgement I stay to finish the computer (it's almost clean). 3 minutes later I hear the door open again...and it's gotten worse. The kid is NAKED! And he starts singing/screaming and gyrating around, his fat flapping against himself. At this point I leap out of my chair and sprint from the house, as he chases me naked and singing.
Needless to say, I never went back to that house, and I stopped doing the work for the garage.
Curses! Beaten to the punch by seconds!
As of July 5th, 2006: 567 days * 2.51 million per day = $1.423 BILLION Is there any way to avoid this fine?
Ah yes, unless he was cleverly punning on the word "sadist", implying that the government takes pleasure in causing us pain. Nice Freudian slip WCD_Thor :)
"the email postal address is..." Must be going to Ted Stevens' office.
I also didn't really find it funny. The speech basically consisted of Colbert making jokes that totally did not resonate with his audience, half pausing for a laugh, realizing it wasn't coming, and pressing on with the speech. Basically, 95% of his jokes feel flat on their faces.
Apperantly the "sosumi" thing is a running joke over at Apple, it goes back to 1991, when the Beatles were suing Apple Computer. More info (as always) at WikiPedia
In addition, courts of law make extensive use of previous decisions as guidelines and precidence for current cases. See Sony v. Betamax for an example.
Except in this case, it looks like it is feasible that the lawyer is telling the truth. She's 80 years old, PCs didn't become widespread (and ceratinly not practical) until she was about 60. I know plenty of 80 year olds in nursing homes that still listen to the RADIO, because they prefer it to TV. Not everyone is moving as rapidly into the "technology age" as Slashdot readers.
Doesn't this prove something about the RIAA's investigative methods? Let's assume that the woman is telling the truth, she has in fact never touched a computer in her life, therefore she has not downloaded the music in question. Meaning she has been FALSLY IDENTIFIED by the RIAA's investigative methods (whatever those may consist of).
My question is, now that this obvious inconsistency has been exposed, what does this mean to those that have already been convicted? Isn't it to say, if you incorrectly fingered this woman as a pirate, how can you prove that you accurately identified me as a pirate?