aardvark baguette
-
Posts
11,296 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
9
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by aardvark baguette
-
-
That is correct. I wouldn't recommend that anyone buy one of those drives.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/07/western_digital_drm_crippled_harddrive/
WD can go straight to hell.
-
This would be a royal pita to do often, but you could consider using MOZY online backup, and doing a simple 'web restore' on your computer at work, downloading a specific album you wanted to hear that day, then playing it. You'd just have to have your hard drive connected to a computer to do the initial upload. You'd probably want to bring the drive to work for that part. A benefit to this obviously is offsite backup, incase your hard drive goes kaput. MOZY uses 448 bit 'blowfish' encryption, so its as secure as its ever going to be online.
I've tried this at my office (the web restore part, not the playback part) and it works (even if my home computer is connected at the same time).
Probably not your best bet, but its relatively cheap and I think its full of ass kickery.
-
Oh I see, you only have the one computer.
Hmmm...that I can't help you with. I can't imagine it working without some kind of NAS or something.
-
I dont know the names, nor do I have one, but there are programs you can get (at least for windows) that allow you to basically log in to your home computer over the net, and view the desktop as it appears at your home computer. From there you can access files, etc. Obviously iTunes would have to be installed in both places, I'd imagine. I think the name is desktop mirror, or something similar. I think there is a monthly fee.
-
I love taking pics w/ my iphone. I have better results w/ it than the 8 MP digital camera I never bothered to learn, because the iphone takes less blurry images. I cant take a clear pic w/ the real camera to save my pathetic life. I also can't find the tripod.
-
YAY. Got to leave work early today 'cause of the white stuff
I snapped some pics w/ my iphone while driving.
This is Beech Drive in Rockville, Maryland, BTW.
-
-
the freedom of a person to use drugs is more valid than the freedom of someone to try to prevent another person from taking drugs.
Based on what drugs are, the danger they cause, and their benefits, I don't think I will ever, ever agree with that statement.
**cliche --But I defend to the death your right to say it.--**/cliche
I see your logic, really I do, but I just view it the opposite way. I think the person not doing drugs takes priority of freedom, however deserving both parties may be.
Lets examine the gains and losses of both. In my scenario, the drug user forfeits his/her right to self medicate with a potentially harmful material. A material that affects one's state of mind, and thus the behavior, motor skills and reaction time of that individual. Due to other freedoms, i.e. drivers license, that person, if allowed to enter that state, would pose a serious threat to others who have not altered their state of mind, motor skills, etc. The non-user gains the added protection from that threat.
In your scenario, the drug user gains the right to inject whatever they want into their body. The non-user loses their right to protection from that threat. In this isolated case, I believe freedom of protection is more important than freedom of choice. It doesn't work universally in all applications for me, but it does in this case.
The only compromise I could see is that a person could be to partake in such substances, so long as they are excluded from society during the effects of said substance. They would have to be in a controlled environment of some sort. But even that is a stretch, as it probably wouldn't work.
Its kind of like gun laws. I think the decision to deny some individuals/groups the right to own fully automatic M-16s is a fair compromise, as it provides others protection from those guns. Just like making drugs illegal, it has not completely removed the threat, but it certainly is hard to get an M-16 these days at the local K-mart.
-
-
-
-
-
:kitty: I doubt I would be on that side. I feel strongly on certain topics, but its not across-the-board for all issues. For example, I consider myself Republican (**crickets chirping**) but I am in favor of stem cell research, and have a neutral stance on homosexuality. Hell, I even have homosexual friends. There are some issues that make me hate the government. Almost to the point of being a libertarian. So I don't think I really get pigeonholed in any global camp. The issues are too complicated for that.
-
of course your opinions are valid, i'm simply disagreeing with you in the strongest terms possible. nothing personal (hate totalitarianism, not the totalitarianist).
OK. That I have no problem with. We are allowed to disagree with each other. Its bound to happen from time to time in society
-
you stated that you held totalitarian ideals, that makes you a totalitarian. sorry.
Supposing I am...does that somehow mean my opinions are no longer valid?
Or is it just merley an observation.
'cause saying someone's opinions are not valid is kinda....fascist.
I'm not saying thats definitely implied in your statement, but I am a little curious.
-
-
Functional government is impossible when all of your citizens are goddamn stupid. They'll either vote stupid people into office that make stupid decisions or be stupid and overthrow a good government for stupid reasons, because they're stupid and have no foresight, or ability to think about the whole instead of themselves. On average we're "more intelligent" than the average person from a few centuries ago, but all of that raw material is wasted, it seems. I'd expand on this but I'm stupid and need to think about it more.
So, yeah. Which candidates support eugenics, retard holocaust, isolationism, self-sufficient economy, birthing licenses, drastically reducing carbon footprint, and demoting Oregon to occupied territory?
People's political opinion's don't make them stupid. Isn't everyone entitled to have an opinion? I thought democrats were supposed to be 'open minded', but so far all I've seen is childish name calling towards those that think and feel differently.
I never heard anything about Oregon. Whats the story there?
-
Since I know nothing of this report, are they basing numbers on percentage of population, or just numerically compared to USA?
I also noticed that they said "not normally arrest"...what are the differences when they do?
Also, marijuana is a long way from crystal meth. I don't really care about that, its the harder drugs that scare me the most.
-
Making drugs illegal wasn't radical. It was racist. Because it was the blacks doing drugs when drugs were first made illegal. It was also to protect domestic synthetic rope makers against the external hemp rope makers. And the paper industry. It became a fund raising opportunity for police departments and prisons. And protected intoxicants as being the realm of big tobacco and the alcohol industry, while protecting the medical pharmas from self medication. So yah, not radical.
The result is immoral. The result of the drug war is a police state, rampant drug gangs, "gateway drugs", meth lab toxic impacts, etc. The war on drugs doesn't benefit the people.
...Guess we can't do anything about it then.
All I can honestly say is that I'm anti drugs. Regardless of who initially made drugs illegal, and regardless of their motivation or purpose. Even if it was rope companies, rail road companies, Microsoft, martians or my next door neighbor's cat. To make drugs legal for the purposes of eliminating the legislated morality once imposed on our nation, to me seems ludicrous. I don't deny there was legislated morality, sometimes there is little you can do about that. And yes, I'm sure I support it when I don't even realized I'm doing it. But I believe its in the best interests of the majority of Americans. I don't believe my intentions are quite as severe as the Nazis genocide of the Jews, or any of those other crutches people fall back on. I truly believe keeping drugs illegal has more benefit than legalizing for the purpose of morality purging, for lack of a better term.
-
I have no idea what they mean by server grade. Maybe a 32 mb cache?
-
I think at some point you have to balance lack of moralizing with adequate protection, even if that means the addition of moralization. A society with no rules is a society in chaos, as far as I'm concerned. I don't see making drugs illegal as radical. There are far more radical things in life. I think its a reasonable compromise.
If the government isn't here to protect, than what the hell are they good for?
-
why would they? cooking meth is not the same thing as brewing a few gallons of beer or running a still out in the woods.
I dont know why they would, I just know it would happen. People do stupid things.
I really dont see how we can turn a blind eye to the whole thing, but I guess I'm just brainwashed.
-
-
The violence of drug gangs is far worse, I'll agree. The problem, as I see it, with simply giving up, is that it sets precedent. If drugs are legal, gangs are out of a job. So they will inevitably turn to the next illegal activity and specialize in that. Then we'll make that legal. Where does it stop?
:kitty: 
slow forum
in Off Topic
Posted
I can see this in the next great American bank heist.
[arnold voice] Now you'll take me seriously [/arnold voice]