Hannibal

And how would you know that? You wouldn't :D

For what it's worth, there are bittorrent links here, should you prefer: http://bittorrent.mozilla.org/

addons.mozilla.com redirects, so that's not really a problem. As for user/developer content... that's hard not to separate in open source development. The problem is that people need a way to give feedback. This has the unfortunate result that sometimes developers get bogged down by dumb user feedback, such as repeated requests to implement feature X while the development team already decided they wouldn't do it (for whatever reason), or simply bothering someone on a bug they're fixing in order to get them to fix other bugs as well. A horrible example of that is this bug (read comment #233), as well as this bug. Both of those would make you think that it may be better to separate the ignorant users from the developers - the problem is, people will not be happy with that because for some reason they seem to think that 'Open Source' means 'Developers will fix anything I need/want/am annoyed with within a few days, for free'. They'd complain on Mozillazine or elsewhere, only moving the problem. I can sort of see the point you're trying to make about separating users and developers, but I think that's exactly what they're trying to do by putting Firefox and Thunderbird downloads away from bugzilla.mozilla.org. As far as I can tell they want to put the development on http://www.mozilla.com . andyizcool, yes I know. That happened on August 20 already, so it's been like that for over 3 months. Yes, I knew they were and still are http://www.mozilla.org . I work on one of the Mozilla projects in my free time (well, some of it). So yeah. As for Firefox 1.5RC3 vs. Firefox 1.5, had serious problems been found in Firefox 1.5RC3, then they would have released a new RC, hence it would not have been Firefox 1.5.

To put it in the words of the devs: So, go get it at http://www.getfirefox.com . (Note that those of you who are running 1.5RC3 need not update - 1.5RC3 is identical to 1.5)

Only the Viewer is installed so that is impossible ;) Have you not heard of Windows Firewall? It works wonders... Fair enough then. I would try it, but I care a twitch too much about my comp. I'm fine with having AVG on it, even though it has never really found anything worthwhile.

Fun. You're running VNC, so people can remote desktop into your machine, but you think you don't need antivirus to stop them planting nasties in it? Nor a Firewall to stop people remote-networking into your machine? I suppose you're rather trusting.

I think any media player with a wireless keyboard with extra keys to control the media player is even better than that.

alienware costs twice as much as dell Key word in the posts you quoted: used. Aka, refurbished, second-hand, etc. etc.

Logitech LX501 Wireless desktop set. Mouse is pretty decent, but not overly expensive or good.

You realize that's about as specific as saying the Mount Everest is 'high', right? :D

That is completly illogical. Capital punishment is only used for criminals who would be sentenced for a life sentence, not just anyone who goes to jail. The Constitution protects us from cruel and unusual punishment and never did I say anything about punishments that are no life in prison instead - aka, punishments for capital offences. I'm not following you. If capital punishment is only used for criminals who would be sentenced for a life sentence, then why does that invalidate my point? My point was that a life in jail keeps people away just as well as killing them, and keeping them in jail keeps them alive, hence I prefer that. Are you comparing the deaths of inncocent people to the deaths of murderers? I can't even follow you on that train of thinking. That's a nice argument coming from someone who said that he'd rather have murderers killed than innocent civilians in a breakout. Which is the exact same thing as comparing the deaths of innocent people to those of murderers. So you are a consciousness objector and you would never ever support war under any circumstances, and you would never ever defend your own life or your family's life if it meant killing someone else. That's what you just said if you are going to use the "everyone always has a right to life" argument. At least Maddy qualified it. That's not what I said at all. I said everyone has a right to life. That includes me and my family. Choosing between the death of two people is a decision nobody should have to face, but in this case, I'm quite sure that my emotional attachment to my family is greater than to someone who is about to murder them (meaning, I will kill them). Just because I value life doesn't mean I have to sit around and watch people get killed. It means the exact opposite; Stop as many people from getting killed as possible. I'm also confused why you drag war into the matter, I never mentioned war in the paragraph you're quoting either. You're overstating what I said. (I think you also missed a quote tag in the above, I've edited it slightly) If you are not familiar with the American judicial system - please do not try and make any points. I will not even comment if you think that people do not appeal life in prison sentences in America. Again, you are overstating what I said. I said there are *some* people who do not appeal when convicted to life in prison. And in general appeals last shorter than appeals against the death penalty, also because of all the opportunities for high notables (state governor, etc.) granting clemence. That's fact, if looking at statistics published by states themselves. As for your 'please do not try and make any points' argument, that's ad hominem. What or who I am should not matter; my arguments do. I'm basing my arguments on statistics and what I'm learning about the American judicial system. Sorry for not being taught about it since highschool, like you have been. I'm not telling you off for not knowing the details of the regulations we have in place to control drug use, because I can't expect you to know the Dutch constitution and other laws. Same applies to me: I never learned about your judicial system, but there are plenty of sources with factual information, as I'm sure you know. Once again, appeals will happen anyway. Fair enough, but appeals for prison sentences last longer than ones for death sentences. Hence the judge makes less hours. Hence, he/she will be paid less, according to you. Okay, but I'm still holding on to my point: your statistics are not useful, since what you are comparing to is determined after the trial, and Mad already argued that the people and cases that get tried are biased, and that black/hispanics tend to get poor lawyers, meaning they're more likely to be convicted. I could also bring up the Oil for Food scandel What, we equal the red cross now? Dear me... So. Should any American citizen be trialed here because of any of said things (most if not all are violations of the Geneva convention), then your president reserves the right to drop his military forces on the beach of Scheveningen and free that person from the Scheveningen prison. In spite of all the conventions and treaties he signed (he actually signed the Rome Statute), your president and your Congress insist on immunity on rules that apply to the most part of the rest of the world. That's not just agreeing to European standards, it's agreeing to world standards and then abolishing them as soon as possible. Which is a disgrace to your country, because I do hope that you agree that people who commit genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes or crimes of agression should be tried (and maybe sentenced to death, hrm?). I don't think America 'should' be promoting our values, I think they can promote whatever they want, but I also think America should stick to its word, and not abuse its power. Which it is currently doing, in my eyes, for example by what I explained above. Your president, incidentally, also struggled very hard (I don't quite know if he succeeded) to get an exception on the law against torture for the CIA and related security services. When used in wartime, that is a violation of the Geneva convention as outlined above. Attempting to decrease the econonmic extremes. Germany. Right. So I suppose this is too off-topic for this thread, but I'm assuming you are human enough to agree that a country should not let its people die because they are too poor to take care of themselves? Most of the socialist states in the EU (including Holland) have been taking down their social security system piece by piece anyway, so right now it means barely more than that. I grew up in a house where my dad was a substance abuse therapist. He saw the consquences of smoking pot on a daily basis and that is where I draw my information from. I have read all of his books about drugs, consequences, and etc. and yes I know all the statistics about pot. I live in Kentucky, the state that would draw the most economically from legalizing pot and I have enough information to make me think it shouldn't be legal. I'm not bashing your country's anymore than you are bashing mine. Okay. That's a fair argument, but don't you think that the people who came to see your father were the ones actually having problems with the drugs? Meaning, do you think all people who took the drugs came to see your father or some other therapist? I'm quite sure there are plenty of people who 'use' without problems. Thanks, agreed, and the same to you. :)

Daan, I'm not sure everybody knows what an arthouse movie is (well, I don't :P ), so perhaps you could explain what it is? Hence asking for it in english........ Arthouse is the English word for it. So you're still being stupid, really. See http://www.google.com/search?q=define:arthouse Anywho. I've seen Am̮̩̉̉lie, and still have to see Memento in full. I've also seen Lola rennt, I believe (quite some time ago), and the thing about people in Russia which I can't remember the name of. Something with Lenin, I think? @How2pk: We talked about it recently, I think... I said I didn't really like that one :P I'm a fan of Am̮̩̉̉lie, though, but I don't generally visit the arthouse cinema's. Tend to see them later on, when they're out on dvd. We saw Am̮̩̉̉lie with school, just like the other films, really. We also saw Jean de Florette and part of Manon de Sources in French class, they were rather good (maybe I should say 'it was rather good', since they're two parts of the story that got split up into two movies because the director didn't want to cut anything out and thought that 4 hours would be too long for any cinema audience :) )

IRC > Flash chatrooms, really :?, primarily because of control you have as an operator of the room to kick/ban nasty folks if necessary.

It comes with optional advertisements, which you can turn off easily if you read the installer questions. Most people don't, though, and then go and complain on forums. *cough*

Pwnt, IE r now not teh leetz0r! But in all seriousness, I love your explaination.... Firefox is for newbies :lol: Meh. True, to an extent. I prefer Firefox over IE because on Firefox I can develop webpages easier, work on software, debug software, use tabs, and generally have a better browsing experience. That's just me though, most users don't need these features, though a lot of people like them once they get used to them.

Ah, this topic is still alive. Let's hope it stays that way until I get a digital piano (presumably I'll go with a digital one in the end). It won't just be a keyboard though, probably a Yamaha Clavinova of some sort. Either that or a used piano, but the problem is that given the location in which it would be (fair amount of temperature changes and humidity), it would have to be tuned often, and that's expensive (can't tune a piano myself, wouldn't know how to do it or what I'd need for it). So, probably a clavinova. Looking at how much I want to spend, my parents are helping and I have a decent amount of savings. Still, don't want to be broke after getting it ;)

I thought capital punishment was for punishment. If we supposedly need capital punishment to keep those people permanently away, why do we put criminals in jail at all? Doesn't that do the same thing? Well, if not, I suppose we'll kill all of them! In other words, that argument is nonsensical imho... Yes, there will be people escaping from jails. I'm betting, however, that if you'd spend half of those 50 million bucks spent on death sentence on better prison security instead, that problem would be helped. (A few weeks ago someone bypassed security personnel by waving his attorney's id and walking past the gate check. Room for improvement, I say.) However, if you're being statistical... we could have 25 executions a year (source: Texas death row statistics, average 27 over the 2000-2004 period), or have one prison escape resulting in a violent crime every 5 years (most people who escape jail are sensible enough not to commit a crime again immediately, because that gets them caught earlier, I haven't been able to find statistics on this). That's 125 people or 1 person killed. Before you go and say those 125 people were criminals, statistics prove that at least 12 of them are not. So that argument is not really sensible either. The fact is that many prisons are corporate, and you don't pay a lot for that at all. Anyhow, yes, I do want my tax dollars supporting a murderer's wellbeing. The fact that I pay tax euro's is beside the question; I can't believe that you fail to see that no matter what people do, they have a right to life. That's in the Human Rights declaration, which the US signed as well. Just like I want my tax dollars paying welfare moms, I want them paying prison maintenance. I want to pay the state to keep prisoners away from me, I don't want to pay them to commit murder. I'm afraid I'm not very familiar with the judicial system in the US. However, a bit of google and wikipedia tells me there are extra checks necessary before a death verdict can be made, in general jury sessions last longer, there are more appeals (anyone appeals when sentenced to death, not all will do so when sentenced to life in prison - at least they get to keep their life). And, if there is an appeal, a judge will have to work more hours, hence will be paid more salary, hence the trial cost is more expensive. Anyhow, Mad` posted statistics. I doubt these reports lie. (although of course, there's lies, worse lies and statistics ;) ) Saying we should kill people so we save money on appeal costs is stupid at best. Those appeals will be there if there is additional evidence, no matter the sentence. Abolishing the death penalty wouldn't increase that amount, only in the case where the convict has already been killed. In which case I'd gladly spend extra money instead of killing him before knowing what he did, for sure. You're missing half of her point, by doing nearly the same thing she did. How do you know if a black or white man/woman commited a murder? You'll have to have a trial, and by the time that is over you know for sure what race the offender was. Comparing these statistics to death row statistics is hence rather futile, as part of the reason these people are convicted as the murderers is (according to the point raised in Mad`'s post) their bad lawyers and to prejudiced prosecutors. First of all, it may not be your job to 'keep up with the rest of the world'. However, it is your job to abide by the conventions you signed, and as the most powerful country on this planet (militarily, and to some extent, economically), it is your job to set an example on how to handle such power. The fact that in your country, a 19-year old can go into a walmart, buy a shotgun, and proceed to shoot his girlfriend, her father and then himself, whenever he feels like it, is pathetic. Fortunately the killing bit is not allowed by law (arguably killing yourself isn't entirely legal either (Terri Schiavo, anyone?)) The fact that your government is allowed to kill people regardless is even more pathetic, imho. I could give more arguments about your war in Iraq, and the far-fetched resolutions your government has taken to exempt its soldiers from following the Geneva conventions standards, but seeing as that's off topic, I won't. So, apart from that, I kinda don't like your examples. First, define: 'socialism' the way it's meant in your post, and name an example of a western country that practices it. As for smoking pot, I'm assuming you mean my country, Holland. I have never smoked pot, nor normal cigarettes. I have CARA (a form of Asthma), so I don't like being around people who smoke either. But I do agree with the law and the government's position on this. This is wildly off-topic, but please listen to reason before wildly drawing conclusions about something you hardly know. I think making smoking pot a criminal offense is stupid, because it means that the drugs will be used illegally, so under less control. Here, you can smoke pot in legal 'coffeeshops', which are controlled by government, and have to comply to regulations. Meaning that the people there know what to do if something goes wrong ('bad trip'), and that what you're smoking isn't as likely to make you sick as it if you buy from some dodgy dealer on the streets of Harlem. There's also lots of information about the consequences of smoking cigarettes and smoking pot in highschool classes, which helps people make their own educated decision. In general, I think this hurts way less people than the "let's ban it all" approach of the US. Incidentally, did you know pot is much less likely to cause cancer than cigarettes? And that it can be (and is) used for medicinal purposes? So before you bash us for legalizing pot, think about what you're saying, please. Apologies for the long post. Anyone apart from GhostRanger (who's plenty intelligent enough to do so), please don't bash part of my post without reading the entire thing. Thanks. Also, let's try and not turn this thread into a personal flamewar? It's an interesting topic :) Oh, and in case anyone missed it, I agree with mad entirely :)

Finish uni, learn about AI and try to do something useful with it (help the world in the broader sense of the word, I guess). Help people in any way I can, live life to the fullest. Not much more, really... I don't need to be rich (money-wise). I want to have enough money to stay alive, but the only thing I want to be rich in is experience.

How is the music stored on your computer, if not in mp3 format? Windows Media Audio files? Ogg Vorbis? Quicktime audio? AKA: more info please! Oh, and of course: http://www.google.com . Doh.

I agree. PS: No sarcasm from me though. :? I prefer Firefox because of its extensions, but yes, IE is a good browser - if configured properly. The problem is that not everyone knows how to do this, and you two (Chris and Sharper, seeing as I'm quite sure you both know perfectly well how to secure IE properly) are outnumbered by a vast amount of people who don't know that. Take a look at the number of 'I got hacked' posts in RS general if you don't believe me ;)

I'm going to build on Stuart's post. I like most of what he suggested, but I think the power supply is not necessary. The system suggested isn't top notch-I-buy-the-best-money-can-buy, so it definitely doesn't need such a heavy-duty power supply. Then I personally prefer ASUS for motherboards. All the pc's I've owned had one, and none of them failed (even if up to 10 years old (where I hadn't been the owner the full 10 years, obviously)). The fan and/or other hardware might fail at times. The motherboards definitely didn't. As for the Athlon... I'd actually suggest a P4 if you're not going to do too much gaming. That may hang on personal preferences though :).

Surprised nobody got 50 cent yet. The floating half dollar on the left :)

You have Norton, but it didn't do anything against weatherbug? Oddness. http://securityresponse.symantec.com/av ... erbug.html

Do you have a tool to reconfigure package installs? And how did you install the new/old drivers? rpm? compile? manufacturer download + executable/script? On Debian, I'd use dpkg-reconfigure, I think. And apt, of course. I'm assuming FC4 has similar tools, but I don't know much about it. Try posting in fedora core forum? :)

I still need to see both of them. Was going to see HP this friday but tickets were sold out when I tried booking some :(. Not for all shows, but I was going to go with my friend (late bday present), and he couldn't go. Sooo... some other time, I guess :) So before that, no favourite movies from me. Though I still want to see Elizabethtown as well, the soundtrack is pretty damn good at any rate. :)