I stopped doing the virus removals all together. I just wipe and reload every time now. 99% of the time if you scratch the virus removals you save everybody money because most of the time you end up failing to remove the virus. Even if you don't the machine isn't going to be 'like new' when you are done. I only want my customers to have a 'like new' computer when I am done. I NEVER want to have to come back. I don't feel right about charging someone twice. Even if it isn't really my fault. Even though I'm warning them... I do basically the same thing though as you. I ask them questions about how they use the computer, "do they you have the disks that came with it?", etc. and "then reason I ask is because there are different ways to resolve the problem and the one I usually recommend is wiping and reloading" . "It's quick, easy, and you end up with a system that is like new. If your system is slow now, it'll be as fast as it was when it was new when were done-or almost probably (as long as you have enough ram /w sp3 / etc av updates), and other problems that you might experience that are artefacts you might still experience from even a successful virus removal won't be present". The thing is though- I usually charge almost as much as the rip off scam artist places like like best buy. Although not the on-site pricing just the 'in-store' pricing. So it is a premium service in that respect at a really good deal considering what they are getting.

You are right about the beyond reasonable doubt. The catcher is that he could create reasonable doubt. The fact the device is going to have to be returned proved it isn't worth $5k. It is all the evidence that is needed to show it is the story that is worth $5k. Anyway. It wasn't goods that were exchanged. It was a story. In my opinion. I think the evidence shows it. I would agree with you on the fact that you would need to argue that- but none-the-less. This is why we have a court of law. Things aren't black and white. The law is suppose to require intent. He didn't have intent. I'm not convinced he needed the phone for publicity either. He needed certain information. Information that could have been provided without any crimed having been committed on his part.

Yea- if he actually dismantled the phone that might be a hard one. I didn't know he also had written in the article that he says he bought the phone. Maybe a good lawyer can get him out of it on fifth amendment grounds-or something like it. The argument could have gone he bought the story. I know what you are saying regarding the sufficient evidence. This is why you have lawyers and you bring in evidence and evidence to back up the fact you didn't hand money over for the device. The story is his evidence that he didn't pay for the device. The fact he says he does in the story might be arguable since you can't buy stolen property and his intentions were not to buy stolen property as the device is clearly not worth $5k to any consumer-but rather to write a story on it. A source is on the other hand worth $5k and that is in practice what he was paying for despite what is written. Then his lawyer would have to remind the jury that the client is not a lawyer and choice of words was only legally inaccurate.

What I still want to know is how do you prove what the money is for. If someone says "I am giving you $1.50 for the candy bar" and they get it on tape and it happens ok. Fine. If the one party gives the other $1.5 and the other gets a candy bar that doesn't prove the one is for the other. It suggests it. However it doesn't prove it. The average person doesn't spend $5k on a iPod even if it is a pre-release. This a is a special case and I question if a new source would too. They would buy the story for sure though. They wouldn't buy the pre-release intentionally and intent is suppose to be a required part of the law.

Interesting. As is the norm for Slashdot I didn't read the story- and definitely not the original material. I wonder if that could be thrown out on fifth amendment grounds somehow? He didn't know what he was saying? Or despite what he was saying it was not in actuality what the agreement was. Or maybe he paid for it- but is innocent on the grounds what he was actually was buying was the story, and never intended to retain the device, therefore he couldn't have actually purchased stolen goods despite what he wrote.

The problem is you haven't proven that he gave the device to Gizmodo for money. He also have Gizmodo a story. The pictures of the device and the story were what was valuable- not the device itself. Gizmodo publishes news- an device itself is worthless to them. As can be proven by the fact it was returned.

BasilBrush- your story doesn't add up at all. Gizmodo had no reason to ever own the phone. He didn't need to own the phone to get pictures and once he had pictures he certainly couldn't have ever owned it so he MUST have purchased the story rights only. The fact he possessed it doesn't mean he owned it. He could have gotten pictures without having possessed it. It makes more sense that he just bought the story for $5k and his source didn't want to be named for obvious reasons. Gizmodo then returned the phone. It would have been a brighter move for him to have seen the phone, checked it out, taken pictures, not retained it, and left. Not having ever known retained his source. Then nobody could even suggest he bought the phone- which any idiot can see doesn't even make sense regardless of if he continued to posses the phone (later returning it).

If it is a PCI compliance issue! Read the PCI compliance audit procedures again. If you read the PCI audit procedures on page 23 it says under requirement 5: Use and regularly update anti-virus software or programs the following: 5.1 Deploy anti-virus software on all systems commonly affected by viruses (particularly personal computers and servers) If you read that carefully it says "commonly affected"- which means not GNU/Linux or Unix systems and if you read under that it specifically excludes UNIX based systems: Systems commonly affected by viruses typically do not include UNIX-based operating systems or mainframes. So I was right about it all along. It doesn't require anti-virus on UNIX or GNU/Linux machines. Next time show him this and you should be off the hook.

This is so completely outrageous because if you read the law they basically force the schools into taking technological steps that have significant/and or insurmountable costs and/or incalculable collateral damage. The schools must impliment one of the folling technological solutions to inhibit piracy and it MUST work or they have to try another (with reviews). There are four categories of "technology-based deterrents" they can choose from: 1. Bandwidth shaping 2. Traffic monitoring to identify the largest bandwidth users 3. A vigorous program of accepting and responding to Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) notices 4. A variety of commercial products designed to reduce or block illegal file sharing Bandwidth shaping? This means that I'm screwed if I want to download an Ubuntu ISO. Traffic monitoring? I'm screwed if I want to download lots of GNU/Linux ISOs- not to mention my privacy. Respond to DMCA notices wouldn't be acceptable because of the insurmountable costs to forward notices to students unless you correctly interpret the law-at least my interpretation of it. That being if the school hosts the content on there servers they must act. If a student hosts it on their private servers the DMCA doesn't apply and they must bring a lawsuit. The university should still be protected under the DMCA since they still made a good faith effort to comply with correctly filed DMCA complaints. Lastly we all know that commercial products that are designed to reduce or block 'illegal file sharing' have both collateral damage on fair use rights and content that isn't held by the copyright owner in question claiming copyright whose copyright is being refused- not to mention degrading performance of the network. Interfering with network traffic should be illegal. It doesn't matter who does it. Neither ISP nor government should should interfere with a users traffic. We should all have unfiltered access to the internet without any firewalls and if the technology is shared bandwidth evenly distributed amongst users to whatever alotment they've purchased or otherwise obtained until it is utilized at which point they can be charged for more or be throttled. Of course bandwidth prices should never be costly- and the more you purchase in a given month the less it should cost as you are contributing more to the maintenance of the system- and therefore entitled to lower prices as is the case with ANY OTHER PRODUCT- when purchased in quantity (just about).

So did it help, hinder, or do absolutely nothing for them either way?

If you are in North America (USA only I think at the moment) ThinkPenguin.com is working on developing the free and open source market: http://www.thinkpenguin.com/ They make an effort to only sell systems with free and open source drivers/firmware (wifi, graphics, sound, etc.) as well as accessories like USB wifi sticks, printers, etc.

I think the BIOS is a work in progress. The problem right now is NONE of you are buying these systems. You need to actually hunker down and start supporting companies that are trying to support the GNU/Linux market-even when they are doing it with 'off the shelf' parts at 'ridiculous' prices. Right now we need more technical people working on developing supporting applications for GNU/Linux so that we can support non-technical GNU/Linux users better so that we can grow the market. If the market grows we'll be able to work on getting the LinuxBIOS onto these boards. People don't realize how expensive all this is in comparison to the number of people actually willing to put money down on this stuff. I know it's something that both Open PC, ThinkPenguin, and the founder of the LinuxBIOS project are interested in doing.

That wasn't the goal here. The goal was to put together a FREE system that worked out of the box for ordinary users and techy people alike without having to build it yourself. I shouldn't HAVE to build a computer myself. We don't all have the time to do this kind of thing. Some of us have more important things to do like design nuclear reactors.

Low-end isn't the same as crap. You've compared crap to something decent. Acer is crap. Having to replace something costs time, money, and knowledge. This system is more than capable for the majority of people and adding more ram would be overloading it. In your case adding more ram would be a necessity for most people and cost $150 in labour and parts offsetting any savings- not to mention the screen being too small and needing to be a separate keyboard, screen, and mouse and still only getting a barely functioning MS Windows system (or is this a Linux pre-install? still- probably not really designed for GNU/Linux-so.. barely functional). You are an idiot.

You miss the whole point of commercial efforts like this. By purchasing from small companies like this who are giving back you help create a market for GNU/Linux. That market increases the products that support GNU/Linux. You don't have to get this for yourself- especially if you are on a limited budget. Get it for a friend- or family member. This is a worthwhile cause-and not some gimmick by a large evil corporation. Dell's effort to support GNU/Linux is a total fraud. This one isn't.