Slashdot Mirror
Xbox Security Keys Changed
anth writes: "A couple a months ago we discussed some reverse engineering of the Xbox which discovered the security code. The last paragraph of this letter from Nvidia says MS changed the code, and that they had to write off chips with old code as a result."
MS has the right to update and fix any software bit automaticcaly. :P
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
just when i was going to buy one, they go and mess with a good thing.
They didn't "have to" do anything. Microsoft wants to give law enforcement an excuse for stifling free speech in the name of corporate profits. Since the security codes were insecure before, they are no more secure now. Tell your government not to fall for this ruse.
At some point the technology is just going to progress to the point that these silly hacks are not worth the time nor the money.
I have been pwned because my
We never blamed Xbox.
Yes, Microsoft is the one. I never blame Windows or Visual Studio.
Surely the nVidia Lawyer types should have seen this kind of thing coming, and keeping that in mind, should have built a clause into their contract with Micro$haft stating that they would receive a certain acceptable minimum notice of a Code-Change, so that the manufacturing losses (and hence financial losses) were minimised?
Hindsight, it seems, once again has 20-20 vision!
Disclaimer: I meant what I thought, not what I wrote! What? You can't read my Mind? Oh dear!
I doubt they changed the key as it would be hacked just as easily as the last one. What they've probably done is changed the encryption method to make it harder to do so.. I mean if you're going to scrap a whole lot of chips, you better do it right.
Hey since they had to get rid of em, who wants to go to MS and look through the trash for some Xboxes... Me Me ME ME!
O poor monopoly powers. Entire chip lines and console plans changed by a lone MIT student.
I love it.
If for the software this changes nothing (and probably does, after all, the games must still play on the console), it probably changes something in the MOD chip. So that means that the new XBOX that is shipped will not be compatible with the old mocdhips. The result? MOD Chip installers will have to thrown away their old supply of mod chips to make new ones, unless there's a simple way to change the keys in the MOD chip. This is surely going to hurt the mod chip companies who will have to throw away their old mod chips and buy new ones. If Microsoft keeps changing the keys in the hardware often enough, the mod chippers are going to run in a lot of troubles determining which mod chip is needed for which XBOX. This is a brilliant move.
Even a close partner such as Nvidia could be fscked up hard this way, I wonder people would still trust other proprietary security control by MS.
:)
A slight changes in code could do such a damage, no wonder why MS want to push DRM and Palladium.
"My girlfriend and I spent friday night in the lab together"
:( i wish i had a girlfriend like that. actually... i wish i had a girlfriend lol.
Oh man
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
Belief is the currency of delusion.
Is the web site still up? Anyone know the URL?
Doesn't this just prove that anyone who banks millions or billions on having encryption that won't be hacked is a fool? And that's not even to speak of one who believes that their product cannot be reverse-engineered. I swear, the DMCA is setting up an unreasonable belief in companies that their products will never, ever be hacked. Regardless of the morality of the situation, anything more technologically complex than an abacus WILL be hacked by someone, and I have no sympathy at all for people who proceed believing that's not the case.
It's less a matter of blaming Xbox than of BLAM!ing Xbox, don't you think?
Have a look here: Open Xbox - PC - Bioxx
Odd that it's just now coming out, eh? ;-)
Next
The next time they have to write off inventory because of a needed security change. Sure, hackers might not be the best friends to that contractual agreemnt NVidia has going, but at some point, they're going to get tired of writing off inventory and flushing money down the toilet just because Microsoft doesn't want people using the Xbox for ANYTHING but an XBox.
-Restil
Play with my webcams and lights here
There is something Orwelian newspeak about the parent post.. You must do your part and give up your freedoms so that we can be truly free.
Probably more freedoms will be lost to this battle cry then will ever be taken from us by a terrorist.
JoeW.
I am who I am and thats who I am
This really sucks for Nvidia. They had the Xbox chips ready to go and MS, instead of using up the current supply and then transitioning, forces Nvidia to scrap the line and go with their newly resecured chips.
An analagy to this would be if MS upgraded our operating system in the run of the night and billed us for it; even though we did not consent for them to do this.
What is really funny is that modding consoles does no damage to the companies bottom line. MS makes money from developer fees, developers make money from the games they sell, and hackers get to have fun and maybe download a hacked game. (this assumes they have a dvd burner, which many don't). By doing this MS has made the XBOX look bad to hardware devlopers [who loose when they have to scrap technology], software developers [wouldn't want MS to change something games rely on], and the tech elite[who don't like MS anyway].
Of course this really doesn't matter much when it comes to Xbox sales and games. As the old sayings go, the games speak for themselves. Too bad the Xbox family lacks vocal cords.
Secondsun
There is nothing wrong with being gay. It's getting caught where the trouble lies.
excess in nForce chipsets that we built in anticipation of higher demand of Athlon-based PCs..
Never mind that the nForce was hype that never really beat out older motherboards.
I blame the former everytime Forte4Java goes on a flicker fest at work.
I blame the latter for not updating J++ since beta 1, forcing me to use such a powerful app as forte on such a shitty OS such as Windows.
All I can say is:
Forte damn well better run as good the iBook I'm about to get as it does on my Linux server.
You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
Modchips cost $5. .bin work fine.
29F040 chips loaded with a proper
dunno how much money im loosing here....
And when the next xbox rev. is hacked, and the next chips costs $5 as well, everyone will be laughing, because we all know Microsoft can't create a secure system if their lives depended on it
The abacus is so fscking simple that we keep looking for deeper meaning.
I honestly think that the next encryption standard will be pig-latin or ceaser-cypher based. Those that break the encryption will still be called "criminals" and "anti-capitalists". Whoever "makes" the standard will sue, and the source code, or napkin drawings, will be confiscated and kept from the general public.
That said, it would take us a lot longer to crack a ceaser-cypher than it would take us to crack a DES messsage. Security in Simplicity.
You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
This is a great tax write off for them, just think of what they can claim per chip, and the R&D cost.
This SIG pulled due to lack of funding. (This damn war is costing too much!)
One thing I never understood is why do companies label all the circuits and chips that they put out for productions. I can't think of any reason that a consumer would want the model/serial number of the chips on the printed board, or information about which control lines do what. This only helps in reverse engineering, which most companies do not want. Wouldn't it make more sense to paint with an opaque nonconductive layer and remove the model numbers from any chips that are there?
I am curious why Nvidia didn't just tell M$ to stick it. Microsoft can't very well switch GPU providers at this point. AFAIK, Nvidia also only gets a kickback on the consoles sold (nothing from licensing fees), so they couldn't care less if the boxes get modded or not. An army of Linux Xbox servers would be great for them.
There is a huge threat of terrorism in America, the land of the free, right now and you folks are not helping by spreading this illegal material around.
First off, Lets get a "few" things straight.
1. I go out and work my ass off everyday to get money to buy things like CDs, Video Game Consoles, DVDs, DVD Players, etc....
2. I now OWN these items that I have purchased. I am told I can't copy my CDs, rip my DVD's to make a "backup" copy and burn it to a CDR media. Also, I am not allowed to modify any hardware that I own.. (Which by the way it sounds like to me.. That since I bought a computer that runs at a clock speed of 1.4GHz I am not able to overclock it to 1.6Ghz if I want to because it was sold to me as running at 1.4GHz, I dont like that.)
3. Soon if all of this DRM crap goes through I will not beable to install anything that is not approved by certain companies (i.e. Microsoft). Meaning I can't install Linux on a computer that I purchased with Microsoft Windows on it. Even though I OWN the damn thing. I won't beable to add new hardware as I want to, I will have to call Microsoft to let them know I changed my hardware configuration (Windows XP does this now).
When I BUY something, I like to know that I own it and can do anything to it I want. If I want to take it out back and beat it to a pile of junk (Office space senario with copy machine). I should be able to, If I want to change a few settings in the hardware, I should be able to. It is MINE. I PAID for it. I am NOT renting it. If I want to rent something I will go to Blockbuster, or go look for an apartment.
You dont rent your car do you? Atleast with a lease you have an option to BUY it after the lease is up. This is like "insert favorate car manufacturer here" saying you CAN'T change your exhaust on your car that you bought from us, even though you own it now, Oh yea BTW that factory radio you have, you are NOT allowed to put that in either. When you get a flat tire, YOU will put on said brand of tires or we will sue the crap out of you. Do you like being told that crap? I know I do not like it.
So please explain to me how this is "illegal", or any part of "terrorism"? Please also feel free to explain how this is "the land of the free", if I am not able to do any of the above.
- br0ken
Comment removed based on user account deletion
It has already been discussed by people active in looking at the X-Box here, including a comment by bunnie, the original Hacking God. The current feeling is that until they stop using a commodity CPU, whatever they do can be worked around in greater or lesser time.
I'm curious how they could have done this for the Xbox. They can't change the security keys as they already have a widely established installed base that uses the old hardware and keys.
AFAIK, the security codes were a mechanism of authenticating the Xbox software to be genuine - to stop pirate / unauthorised games from being played on the Xbox. There are already a significant number of titles (and machines) out that will use the "old" security codes, presumably the ones that have been cracked.
If they change the codes - suddenly they're going to have new machines out that won't play the old games. Likewise, if they bring out new games - they must be capable of running on the old machines.
Like I said - it doesn't make 100% sense.
point 1
Not only does MS screw its competitors, MS is causing a ruckus with its *partners*.
Kind of like killing the hen that lays golden eggs....
They have the muscle to be able to do this, but its baad bad business.
=====
point 2
Why wasn't Nvidia thinking ahead on this issue either?
They could use a CMOS-like chip containing the security key/algorhythm, that would be far less costly to produce, especially if its likely it will need to be changed in the future.
Maybe use a Complex Programmable Logic Device?
Yes MS kind of screwed Nvidia, but Nvidia appearing to be a "forward thinking" company... why did they get themselves in this position to begin with.
I was playing Shogo: MAD today, and I thought to myself "Damn I need an XBox because I'm still playing this 4 year old game!". I then realized that I can't afford an XBox, so I'll stick with Shogo: MAD.
You can repogram alot of FPGA's via a simple parallel cable.. but you are of course correct, joe public wont be doing this.
I thought it was pretty thoughtless and unoriginal.
But then, I'm no fan of trolling. Or slashdot. Remind me why I read this filth?
Ok, let's work from there. It's apparent that you support piracy and posession, trafficking, and manufacture of illegal hacking tools. Do you also oppose the drug laws and do you oppose banning the private ownership of firearms? There may be hope for you if you support both of the above. If not then you're a nutcase.
Everybody's commenting about how all the parts of this story don't add up, that these megacorps wouldn't make such obvious blunders, or handle them so crudely. Hmm. While the old "follow the money" trick may not directly apply in this case, it's close enough.
What is the upshot of this incident, once you filter out all the distractions?
1) Hacker bypasses DRM-type security
2) Company "forced" to retool/change security
3) Direct, demonstrable monetary losses
They need to set precedents that exposing obvious security gaffes (unencrypted signal on the bus in this case) leads directly to major financial losses. Makes future prosecutions much easier.
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
Illegal doesn't equate to immoral. However, you seem to have those confused in your mind.
It is immoral to do physical harm to others. Many of us consider guns (most especially handguns) to be nothing more than a device intended to cause physical harm to others. This is immoral.
A device like a modchip is not intended to do physical harm to others. When I use a modchip, does Bill Gates bleed? Nope.
If you can't see the difference between a device that causes physical harm to someone, and a device that causes absolutely no physical harm to someone, you have a morality problem, and are part of the problem, not the solution.
You aren't one of those people who go around telling people that "Guns don't kill people. Death kills people." Are you? Because if you do, you're the nutcase.
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
Remember, it costs Microsoft $300 to make an XBox, but they sell it for $200. That's why:
- The hardware is so good considering the price
- They're losing so much money on it
- They don't like the idea of people hacking the OS in any way
- Keeping the system totally proprietary is more important to them than even the survival of project
They intend to make money on the games, not on the box itself. They're paying for 1/3 of the box, so they want to keep tight control over what you can do with it.For reference for those who question the numbers, I got them from a MS programmer: Their employee purchase plan allows them to buy software at a Huge Discount. Their is no discount on the XBox; though they jokingly say you can buy it at cost if you really want to.
"With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is not necessarily a good idea...."
RFC 1925
I somehow don't understand why microsoft needed to do this. First of all, can't the keys be regained using the same technique the MIT student used the first time? If I remember correctly, he used an unencrypted part of the bus to watch as data flew by. Quite stupid on microsoft's part, but brilliant on the student behalf. As for nVidia, I don't think they had anything to worry about when it came to microsoft. I would have told microsft to deal with its problems until the manufactured chips ran out. oh, and one more thing, the student never gave out the codes, so why does microsoft need to change the keys?
The problem is that Microsoft already spent $300 to make an xbox. They lose that money no matter what. If you buy an xbox they will get $200 and partially recover their losses.
In short, Microsoft loses $100 on an xbox if you buy it. They lose $300 if you don't buy it.
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
Just who would MS switch to at this point? Number 9? Oak? Cirrus? ATI? Haha, with their crummy crash-prone drivers? I know, they'll resurrect Voodoo.
nVidia and MS are stuck with each other.
What is with this site anyways? Everytime I load it up there is a few articles on the main page talking about some criminal or illegal hacking tool.
Maybe you should stop coming here???
Sorry, I should have made that more clear. I meant "do you *support* banning all private ownership of firearms and *support* the war on drugs."
Nutcases are those that own guns and cry about the worthless second amendment.
See Subject.
Slow down cowboy!
A handgun's primary design purpose is to shoot a bulltet. Those bullets are usually intended to stop people by way of physical damage to their bodies.
Why is that immoral? Based on what idea? Can you point to ONE major religion or philosphy that has stood the test of time which agrees with your assertion?
Let's save a little time: Anything which incorporates the concept of immortality through reincarnation can't be used to support your thesis, those are just "do overs."
Secondly, a gun is an inanimate object. It has no consciousness and therefore cannot be immoral.
With those ridiculous issues out of the way, let's make sure you can stick to your claim.
Don't know that much about history, do you? Machining processes were first developed to create firearms. Period. Everything came from that. That keyboard you used to type your post has a direct lineage to gunsmithing. Virtually every physical item you own which is not living organic material was created with technology and methods that have a direct history in gunsmithing.
And those foods you eat which had pesticides and herbicides used on them? Those chemicals have direct lineage to munitions. Oh, darn, there goes your assertion. Pity.
Also, who is this "us" of which you've appointed yourself spokesman? Must be a bunch of short-lived idiots if they consider physical damage to another human being immoral. What kind of impossible utopia does your brain hallucinate in? You'd prefer to live life picking flowers and putting them in your hair believing what you have deemed to be pure thoughts will protect you from other people who wish to do you harm?
Since you're such a perfect, righteous person (as evidenced by what you typed), perhaps you could explain how non-physical means NEVER hurt people? Guesss all those stories about Japanese school kids jumping out of windows because of stress aren't true, huh? I, personally, know a man who died from a heart attack because some arrogant 20-nothing accounting types decided it would be fun to hold payments from and abuse a man trying to hold his company together. But, oh, that's not immoral because it didn't involve an "evil" gun. No, things like that aren't immoral because it's not physical damage, right?
Why is it immoral to do physical harm to others? That's the stupidest assertion I've ever seen. Unwarranted, destructive, malicious physical harm? Yes. All physical harm, no. It's very obvious you aren't responsible for your life or the lives of anybody else. Your comments are like those of people who say spanking children is wrong. There's a time and a place when physical damage is warranted. I'll spank a child everytime it's required to teach them NOT to get into things which will hurt them. In a similar manner, the world is full of evil, wicked people with no regard for the welfare of anyone else. Weapons and the physical damage they bring are frequently the ONLY check against destruction. Get out into the rest of the world, sunshine, and see how it really is. Go see how large the slavery/prostitution trades are in the ex-Soviet Bloc and North Africa. (Ever wonder why there aren't OLD prostitutes in Europe? Hmm, maybe most of them don't live that long because the gypsy slave-gangs kill them. By your viewpoint, prostitution isn't wrong becuase IT doesn't do physical harm. How about the destruction of families and the mental anguish it brings? Sure, some of them manage to "earn" enough money to puy their freedom. Guess having thousands of guys bang you doens't cause any damage does it? Guess the families of those girls who were tricked into prostitution aren't harmed because there's no direct physical component, huh?) Investigate what really happened in Switzerland during WWII. (Here's a hint: Sign over all your intellectual property to a Swiss company or we'll send you back to Germany.)
It's one thing to be a fool, it's another to promote ideas which hurt people. What you're promoting is essentially philosophical narcotics. At first glance, it appear to be great but it's really rotten to the core.
You are an arrogant fool, the worst type there is.
Aahhhh, but Microsoft didn't scrap a whole bunch of chips, nVidia did. Isn't that a slick way of sticking someone else with the cost of your mistakes? I'd be curious to know the volume procurement agreement between the two, and why the heck nVidia got stuck with excess inventory when the product was working correctly as designed. I would expect that when a customer error like the encryption/key issue forced a re-rev, the customer (in this case, Microsoft) would have been stuck with the inventory as well as the NRE (non-recurring engineering) fees for the rev, itself. This is tempered with the issue of whether nVidia had built to-order or built ahead. The latter nVidia would be stuck with.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Ok, I'll bite.
It is immoral to do physical harm to others. Many of us consider guns (most especially handguns) to be nothing more than a device intended to cause physical harm to others. This is immoral.
Police officers carry handguns. In the commission of their duties, they injure, and sometimes kill suspects (like that rapist in California who was about to kill 2 kidnapped girls.) By your definition, would police officers not be immoral?
Some soldiers carry rifles. In the commission of their sworn duty (to defend the country from enemies, foreign and domestic) they kill and injure enemy combatants, under order from their superiors, which go all the way up to the president, who is elected by the american people. By your definition, would not every american citizen thereby share in that "immorality"?
If someone was going to beat the living shit out of me because I was (insert race, sex, religion, or chosen lifestyle here), and I decided to take exception to this by defending myself and doing physical harm to my attacker, would I not be immoral by your definition?
Dude, that is THE most batshit insane comment I've ever read here. Honestly. I have no idea why you are equating EVERYTHING with munitions manufacturing.
Seems like YOU are the one who is painting everything with the same brush, not the previous poster.
The original poster never said that "all non-physical means are incapable of harming people", and you're an idiot for assuming that and basing your whole argument on it. He said that modding your console doesn't harm anyone and I agree with him. Look at the two situations:
1) I buy an XBox, mod it and pirate a few games.
2) I don't buy an Xbox and I don't pirate the games for it.
Now what's the difference to ANYONE BUT ME in each of the two situations? Nothing. In fact, situation #1 is preferrable on the whole as at least some retail outlet made a small profit off me. Nobody makes any profit in situation #2.
Now, since *I* can't afford to dump $80 for a stupid game, situation 1 and 2 above are my ONLY options. I chose option 2 because I really don't give a shit about the whole thing, but that's besides the point which is: The modding of MY XBox does NOT hurt anybody.
>When I use a modchip, does Bill Gates bleed? Nope
'Tis the pity. Aint it great that its legal to mod your console in Aussie (and soon NZ) as these governments see that by region coding stuff, theyre implementing a monopoly.
Well done!
2. I now OWN these items that I have purchased. I am told I can't copy my CDs, rip my DVD's to make a "backup" copy and burn it to a CDR media. Also, I am not allowed to modify any hardware that I own.. (Which by the way it sounds like to me.. That since I bought a computer that runs at a clock speed of 1.4GHz I am not able to overclock it to 1.6Ghz if I want to because it was sold to me as running at 1.4GHz, I dont like that.)
Of course you can, you just lose the warranty, your money at the end of the day, so your choice.
3. Soon if all of this DRM crap goes through I will not beable to install anything that is not approved by certain companies (i.e. Microsoft). Meaning I can't install Linux on a computer that I purchased with Microsoft Windows on it. Even though I OWN the damn thing. I won't beable to add new hardware as I want to, I will have to call Microsoft to let them know I changed my hardware configuration (Windows XP does this now).
Actually, you will be able to, it just wouldn't run as "trusted" software, unless of course your favourite Linux distro had decided to fork out to pay for a suitable key.
The things that you are on about would only be illegal if you were planning on circumventing copy protection. It stinks, but it is the law. Unless you are a PS2 owner living in Australia apparently.
>By your definition, would police officers not be immoral?
No. AFAIK, good police officers have no fixation on weapons and only carry them because their job is intended to put them in situations where they may be forced to use them.
Ordinary people have no business putting themselves in the middle of a shootout, and I have little sympathy to those who do so willingly and are hurt themselves, unless they are protectors of the peace.
>In the commission of their sworn duty (to defend the country from enemies, foreign and domestic) they kill and injure enemy combatants, under order from their superiors, which go all the way up to the president, who is elected by the american people. By your definition, would not every american citizen thereby share in that "immorality"?
Just because someone who is part of your people does something immoral doesn't make you yourself wrong. Otherwise I'd be able to call all Americans slave owners and indian killers.
Two, the majority (by number of, rather than people dead) of modern (as in during the lifetime of an average American) American wars have been unnecessary according to a surprising number of experts. But that's a totally separate issue.
Lastly, killing in defence of your own life is a totally different, and completely emotional decision, and at that point the thinking of the average human can't be expected to be rational, and therefore, by our own standards, is to a certain degree, excusable (that's why there's an insanity defence in most every first world country).
>In the commission of their sworn duty (to defend the country from enemies, foreign and domestic) they kill and injure enemy combatants, under order from their superiors, which go all the way up to the president, who is elected by the american people. By your definition, would not every american citizen thereby share in that "immorality"?
Well, considering what I've said above (that normal citizens have no business endangering their own lives in this manner, and that normal citizens can be excused for acting on emotion) we don't give guns to people in these situations because you are so likely to act on emotion.
Most people who have shot someone, even in self defence, have serious emotional problems after. Witness the huge amount of police officers that need special emotional care after being involved in a shooting. A sane society has no business promoting that, and putting tools of death in the hands of people who don't need them inflames the situation.
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
Well, considering what I've said above (that normal citizens have no business endangering their own lives in this manner, and that normal citizens can be excused for acting on emotion) we don't give guns to people in these situations because you are so likely to act on emotion.
What the fuck?
So you're claiming that owning a gun makes me more likely to go find someone I don't like (who also has a gun) that we can both try to shoot each other? And that only certain people are supposed to be "guardians of the peace", and nobody else is capable of protecting themselves, or should even try?
Gun ownership is more than anything else a deterrant. One reason home invasions and car theft Just Don't Happen in rural areas of Texas is that it's simply understood that everyone is armed. Very rarely do those weapons need to be brandished, and only much more rarely do they need to be used -- but the culture surrounding their presence helps to validate the assertion that "an armed society is a polite society".
There are other real, genuine uses as well, though. One example: A friend of mine has a creek out back which is home to water moccasins -- if someone's swimming out there, someone else needs to stand guard with a shotgun. Taking away that shotgun is much more likely to kill the next swimmer than to save some imaginary human victim.
For that matter, though, if that friend's home were broken into, the "guardians of the peace" who you mention wouldn't be able to get there for the better part of an hour. To argue that defending "ordinary people" is a job only for some special class is thus, to many, equivalent to arguing that they should have no defense at all.
Avoiding the fact that guns are too modern to be the basis of all manufacturing, and that the wheel is generally respected to be the first major invention of people, I would like to mention this:
Bill Gates has never hurt himself despite how much of his software is pirated. In fact, statistics have it that his software is pirated more than any other. In fact, I have seen no serious evidence of a stable person killing themselves because they found out their software was pirated.
Doing an act that is known to cause stress extreme enough to cause people to die, or kill themselves, is immoral. I just don't see any evidence that piracy causes such extreme stresses, although they may be the catalyst to set off an already extremely unstable person (fortunately, our laws often look at the mental state of someone who kills themselves before charging someone with indirect manslaughter).
>Your comments are like those of people who say spanking children is wrong.
Yeah! Lets solve violence with more of it! That'll fix everything.
Why don't you talk to peole who were spanked properly (by that I mean having welts for a while, not just a little tap on the bum) and see if they really are better for it.
I think you'll find not.
>Weapons and the physical damage they bring are frequently the ONLY check against destruction.
What? Frequently? The only?
Wow. That's a pretty warped world to live in.
My checks against physical destruction are not to enter war zones, and to drive safe cars. And, know what? My chances of death are so insanely low at that point I really don't feel like blowing anything up.
>By your viewpoint, prostitution isn't wrong becuase IT doesn't do physical harm.
To a certain degree, it isn't.
>How about the destruction of families and the mental anguish it brings?
Well, to begin with, willing prostitution, as in that which isn't done to buy drugs to support an addiction, or isn't done under direction of a pimp, or other such abnormal factors, shouldn't bring mental anguish to the prostitute. If it is, it isn't the job for them, and I'd tell them to leave it, just as I'd tell someone who can't handle blood not to be a doctor.
Secondly, if you're a married person and choose to use a prostitute, you get what's coming to you.
Thirdly, while a lot of religions look upon using a prostitute as seriously wrong, society as a whole is beginning to accept it as simply a dirty act due to the possibility of things like STDs that isn't in a huge way immoral.
With that in consideration, prostitution is something that should be very closely regulated, just like anything whose primary purpose is seriously dangerous in many ways. Prostitution can spread deadly diseases and cause spouses/girl/boyfriends to go crazy.
Guns, just like other dangerous things, should be closely regulated. Police and soldiers are the only people (that I can think of) who have any business with a handgun. Regular people, in most countries, can own BIG shotguns because their primary purpose is to kill non-human life, and, in general, this isn't considered wholly immoral.
Therefore, prostitution, just like guns, tobacco, liquor, and firearms, needs to be closely monitored and regulated.
>Guess the families of those girls who were tricked into prostitution
In my country, people who are still considered girls are not allowed to work potentially harmful jobs. Are they in Switzerland?
>You are an arrogant fool, the worst type there is.
You're nutty. And a dangerous nut, at that. That's probably a worse thing than being a fool, since once leads you to jail, and one just leads you to ridicule.
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
MS changes the keys now? Hahahahahaha! Wait until your modded Xbox gets online! The keys will be changing... AGAIN!
.02. Wait until Xbox online happens, you'll be reading this post once again for its accurate view of the entire situation.
I wonder how MS will treat their Xbox customers when they disable the ability to play copied games? Joe Schmoe, read online on how to backup his Xbox games. That same Joe Schmoe goes out, buys items that will allow him to backup games that he legally owns, THEN he plays those LEGAL games online.
MS doesn't like Joe's modification of the Xbox and changes the keys, disabling the ability to play his LEGAL games online. Sure MS can do this, you agreed their NEW and IMPROVED EULA when you signed on which game them the ability to mod your Xbox without telling you.
Now I CAN'T wait until someone comes out with a chip SO good that when MS pushes an online update, breaks a majority of the game compatibility! That day will be the day of infamy for Xbox gamers worldwide!
Just my
You can overclock your toaster oven if you want to. What you can't do is take it back and demand a refund.
As much as I hate to say it, when you buy a movie you except the terms expressed therein.
You are free to do whatever you want, but you will be held responsible for your actions.
Dude, are you just going to throw those chips away? I'll have them if that's okay.
I think what shepd meant was something like this, I could be wrong though. But its how I interpeted it. Normal everyday citizens (me, and you) who are not officers of the law, in the military or any other federal deptartment like the FBI and so on... Should not go into a bank that is being robbed to try to stop the criminals, because doing so is causing more harm than help. It is not only putting them in danger but the other people as well. Where as an officer is trained for situations like this. ALSO they have "protection" (no not condoms) like bullet proof vests and so on. These officers are not trigger happy people.. (well atleast most of them anyways.) Ok well that is my .02 cents..
This post was generated by a Team of Elite Monkeys for br0ken2o0o (569914).
No I am not implying that you are trigger happy. -br0ken
This post was generated by a Team of Elite Monkeys for br0ken2o0o (569914).
its not the terrorists that take our freedoms
its us
we let the government have them during wartime, and then when war is over, we just forget that we ever had them and so the government takes more and more freedoms anytime there is a crisis
Normal everyday citizens (me, and you) who are not officers of the law, in the military or any other federal deptartment like the FBI and so on... Should not go into a bank that is being robbed to try to stop the criminals, because doing so is causing more harm than help.
I agree that putting oneself into harm's way intentionally is, generally speaking, foolish -- though foolishness and bravery often look suprisingly alike. On the other hand, if half the customers in the bank happened to carry sidearms, that bank wouldn't likely be robbed at all, would it? Similarly, a bank where all the tellers were known to have weapons would likely be one in which none of the tellers would ever be given any need to use them. Likewise, a vehicle whose passengers or staff (everyone, not just designated security staff) are armed is less likely to be targeted than one where the only potential impediments to takeover are few and well-defined. In any case, a bank robbery is one thing -- but in the event of a more violent crime, failure to take direct and immediate action could have far more severe consequences. Depriving responsible, law-abiding citizens of the ability to take such action when justified seems hardly appropriate.
Finally, let me mention: shepd's comments earlier in the thread gave a strong impression that his or her opinion was that gun ownership should always be illegal for the common man -- with no clear exclusions such as that necessary for (for instance) the shotgun used to guard against water moccasins in my friend's creek. If this interpretation was incorrect, I did indeed overreact -- but I'm fairly sure that such is not the case.
It's the only way to stop these hacker-terrorists.
Of course, banning this one malicious tool is not enough,
we also need to ban oscilloscopes, multimeters and everything capable of measuring an electrical current.
For ordinary computer users, this means:
Under linux, run "shutdown now"
Windows users are asked to run a program.
Except that there are no terms expressed therein. The only law that should control movies should be copyright law. Why? Because, it goes like this:
/.'ers of late are pissing me off. They're standing around saying 'hey I can p2p to my hearts content', who go on long rants about 'fair use' and only downloading music they already own or some such bullshit, when in reality, they're chasing after Goldmember bootlegs, episodes of popular TV shows or music they haven't bought yet.
I buy a DVD. I rip said DVD. I print off a few shots from the video track and use them to decorate my bedroom. I use a few audio clips in Tribes 2 for my player noises. I write a long paper discussing the direction of the film, including a few shots from the 'behind the scenes' part of the DVD for reference. I make two backup copies to CDR, just in case my DVD gets damaged.
This is all cool. Now, I turn around and give my friend a CDR with the DVD video track on it. NOW I have violated copyright. I have redistributed someone else's work without permission, and without any form of compensation for the creator's efforts.
This is why the lawmakers of this day and age are really pissing me off, because the laws already exist to prohibit redistribution of a copyrighted work. These laws have been applied, precedents set, etc etc etc.
This is also why
To them I say: You are breaking the law and I will feel no pity for you when they come down on you like a tonnne of bricks You will whine and bitch when they sue you in particular for violating their copyright, but you had it coming. It's either that, or bullshit laws that stop us from doing what we want to on our computers.
Responsibility is the operative term, if only anyone would accept any.
"There is a huge amount of terrorism going on in America"
More like America "Bush @ Co." are terrorising the rest of the world with this new found "Agenda"...
You poor troubled American..
Regards
More and more concerned world citizen (Sydney, Australia)
to those 200,000 unsold XBox stocked in Japan? Landfill? ;)
I agree with this. There are already copyright laws in place. I will follow these. I have no problem with this. My problem however is with the DMCA and DRM and even EULA, These tell me what I can and can not do with software I have purchased. If i want to reverse engineer some software to find out how it works I feel I have the right to. I dont want someone telling me I am only "renting" software. If I pay 15.99 for a cd or more, I want to beable to do what I want with it. I dont want someone telling me That I cant rip the cd to mp3's and put them on my computer or my mp3 player, If I want to play them and 500 others on to cds, to play on my radio in my car that reads mp3 encoded cds I should be able to. If they get thier way we not not beable to do this. If I own something I want to beable to use it how I see fit. I dont think I should be told that I cant do this. Which is exactly what is happening.
This post was generated by a Team of Elite Monkeys for br0ken2o0o (569914).
A while ago when it was discovered that the then Australian Defence minister (Reith) had a government-issued phone card with an AUD30 000 bill on it... none of which he had used personally. He said at the time that it was probably the work of a 'computer hacker'. Of course it came out later that he had given it to his son (who works in banking in London).
Reith now works for Tenex - the Australian Defence contractor... no doubt in the department of truth management.
Hackers will increasingly be used as scapegoats during this period of "fear" politics. What next?? 'a slashdot reader probably did it'
This is why the code was important... without the security code, you can't just "replace the BIOS"
The Linux project has the same problem. They jsut built a special BIOS to initialize the system for Linux. It's been rendered inoperative, at least until somebody cracks the new security code.
This applies to all Xboxes built on or after April 23, 2002.
The code that changed has to do with the BIOS, and defeats BIOS replacement mods.
Games will be uneffected (unless they are "backups" of course).
>Finally, let me mention: shepd's comments earlier in the thread gave a strong impression that his or her opinion was that gun ownership should always be illegal for the common man -- with no clear exclusions such as that necessary for (for instance) the shotgun used to guard against water moccasins in my friend's creek. If this interpretation was incorrect, I did indeed overreact -- but I'm fairly sure that such is not the case.
:)
Well, owning a gun designed for a purpose other than killing people, that's kept safe, unloaded, and locked up, is fine (and is fine where I live, and most other countries with anti-gun legislation). A nice big shotgun that's far too big, unaccessible, and unloaded to be useful for a heat of the moment type outburst is A-OK with me.
The problem is that picking up a 9mm from the glovebox and firing some rounds at the guy that cut you off (in the general sense, not personal) is far too easy. Not to mention you'd have to be drunk off your ass to use a 9mm to shoot snakes.
If it took the guy a minute or two to fumble with the gun to get it ready, not only would the problem have left (hopefully), but he's had an opportunity to re-evaluate his rage. If, at that point, he continues, then there's no problem calling him a cold blooded murderer, rather than a rage-crazed killer.
Anyways, as far as I mean by harm's way, the bank analogy is pretty close to what I meant. I'd just like to add that most officers (at least where I am) are required to show extreme restraint and prejudice with their weapons. Unless there's imminent danger of death, there's no business using a weapon. The problem is, an untrained person, such as myself, could come to that conclusion too soon and could far too easily hurt or kill before its necessary. It's always best to come to a conclusion that keeps the most people safe (even if one of those people is the criminal -- you can't convict a dead man -- but I might be wrong).
Just my 2 cents on gun laws.
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
I am, at present, unable to explain why America is known as 'the land of the free'.
There is a huge threat of terrorism in America, the land of the free, right now and you folks are not helping by spreading this illegal material around.
... if 3,000 murdered people each year is the price we have to pay to remain free, it is a price I will gladly pay, even being one who works right across the street from one of Osama's big targets (when he isn't targeting the backside of that mule with his ... well, nevermind).
I speak as an American when I say:
Who give's one rat's ass about terrorism?
I mean really. Yes, 9/11 was a terrible trajedy in which 3,000 people were murdered by a wealthy, spoiled Saudi Arabian bigot's henchmen in the name of an obsolete religion[1], but I hate to break the news to you that over ten times as many people have died in car accidents as were killed on that day.
Terrorists can wreak localized, very dramatic havoc, kill a few people and scare a whole bunch more, but in reality there is very little actual harm they can do to us, even with such events as 9/11. Earthquakes in this country (and elsewhere) have killed more, sometimes (e.g. Japan) an order of magnitude more.
Of course, none of this talk of terrorism has anything whatsoever to do with x-box mod chips, or the rather sinister habit corporate america and government have gotten into in invading our homes and telling us what we are and are not allowed to do with our own property, which we purchased with our own money, while stealing from the public commons with the other hand and handing our common property to the same thieving thugs that would restrict our use of our property and forcibly place us on the couch in order to facilitate shoving more of their worthless, commercial-ridden crap down our unwilling throats, but I digress.
In short, the DMCA is a cure for a nonexistent problem, a cure that resembles arsenic for treatment of the common cold. Likewise the USA Patriot Act is a cure vastly worse than the disease
I will not stand idly by and have my freedom taken, whether it be by terrorists from abroad, mindless idiots like yourself, the US government in the name of [insert this week's wars on whatever], or the media cartels of Hollywood. In short, you can have my general purpose, unencumbered, DRM free computer when you pry it from my cold, dead hands, and not a moment before.
[1]Is there any religion that isn't obsolete?
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
I can't believe they would scrap that many chips over something so stupid. There must have been some bug in the chips that they needed fix and this saves face...
An engineer who ran for Congress. http://herbrobinson.us
and it did wonders for their stock price, too. What...$20 to $9 in about a week? Yeah, great tax write-off.....::rolleyes::
Ferrari and other exotic car rentals in New York
Microsoft built so many Xboxes just after Christmas and they are selling so slowly that it is unlikely Microsoft has built an Xbox motherboard in months. They likely just insert an old board into a box, stamp a manufacture date on and ship it.
Because of this large number of units/parts sitting around, this new NVidia chip is unlikely to go into use until a new cost-reduced Xbox is available for this Chrismas season.
Mod parent up, mod parent-parent down. The key changed is the RC4 key used for encrypting/decrypting the BIOS - NOT anything to do with the public-key crypto used to sign & authenticate executables.
it's in my head
With any device in the which the executable code
is observable, and/or the executable code can
be altered, influenced, replaced, or appended,
the security of such device and its executable code
can never be attained.
You guys really don't have grilfriends do you?
Compared to the EULA which comes with most females, M$'s EULA might as well read "do anything you want, anytime you want, any way you want".
Let's start with the basic rundown. The standard-issue female comes with a EULA which you "sign" without ever getting to read it. Any use whatsoever (even just looking at said female for very long) is considered signing. You are never allowed to read the EULA, but it will be referred to many times. Even should you abandon, leave or loose your female much of the EULA will remain in effect, and any parts of it can be re-enacted at her choosing at any future date. Even when you are given small glimpses into what this EULA might contain, it is usually encrypted and encoded in a format most males find completely confusing.
I would quote some of the more haneous parts of the female EULA, but my female's EULA promises dire concequences should I do so.
My $0.02 will always be worth more than your â0.02, so
The problem is, an untrained person, such as myself, could come to that conclusion too soon and could far too easily hurt or kill before its necessary.
If you don't believe that you're responsible enough to own a gun, don't purchase one. That's hardly an excuse for using force of law to disarm those of us who are sufficiently responsible.
That said, I'm curious to know how many gun murders by people with proper permits (including conceiled-carry permits if the weapon was being so hidden) aren't premeditated. The stereotypical murder in an instant of rage so often used by gun control advocates is something I can't recall seeing on the local news -- ever. I've heard of stores being robbed by felons using guns (a case where gun control would do little to help, as a black market in unidentifiable guns already thrives; extending the set of weapons which is illegal would simply extend this black market), and have one friend whose vehicle would have been carjacked had he not been armed. The idea that rage makes an everyman with a handgun into a killer is something I can't quite accept -- any more than I could accept that that everyman, if holding a steakknife at dinner, might suddenly stab his neighbor if outraged.
Seen Dazed and Confused? Remember the part when the main character (an incoming high school freshman) is about to be badly beaten in his front yard, until his mother opens the door with a shotgun in her hands? If that weapon had taken "a minute or two" to prepare, it wouldn't have been of any use. Likewise, if a battered wife seeking a divorse can't have a credible meaning of defending herself before her angry ex-husband breaks down the door, the results are likely not to keep all involved "safe". One friend's (extremely attractive) wife keeps a handgun loaded with birdshot in her presence -- would you really rather that she be unarmed if faced with a potential rapist? Your policies don't keep "the most" people safe -- they keep primarily criminals safe in the commission of their crimes at the expense of law-abiding citizens.
Anyways, as far as I mean by harm's way, the bank analogy is pretty close to what I meant. I'd just like to add that most officers (at least where I am) are required to show extreme restraint and prejudice with their weapons.
And so are all citizens! Mandatory education in the laws surrounding gun use is required to obtain a permit, and those (legal) gun owners who might use their weapons without proper cause are made aware of the conditions required and the penalties they risk. Those who purchase illegal weapons, of course, don't go through such training -- one more reason to make legal weapons accessible to those in need.
Some goes for the vast majority of commercial software.
Read reviews of shopping cart software
Seriously, you need to post the EULA for girls! This knowledge needs to be known! If not you, if not now, then who and when?
Lawrence Lessig is my personal hero.
If the modchips are indeed 29F040 chips, that means that the EXACT same chips, even the "old stock" modchips will work.
That F means flash - Take old stock, stick it in the burner again, you have current up-to-date modchips.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
Yes, but when you get lucky enough to find a girl who uses a modified "click-wrap" process to activate her EULA, things can be fun ;)
It is more productive to voice thoughtful opinions (reply) than to judge (moderate) others.
First off, just because you can handle it doesn't mean anyone should. If this was so I'd be allowed to drive at 200 km/h since I've never hit another vehicle even though I've just been through the (statistically) most dangerous driving period of a person's life. Not to mention I passed a test far more difficult than my parents ever had to do.
Second, statistics show America is amazingly unsafe with firearms.
Here's an excerpt, focusing on my home country that does have strong firearm legislation vs. the USA, the only first world country I know of with such lax firearm control. Stats will be listed per 100,000 as Canada/America
Suicide rate with a firearm: 3.6/7.1
Suicide rate without a firearm: 12.9/12
Homicide rate with a firearm: 0.67/6.4
Homicide rate without a firearm: 2.2/9.3
Now, here's the kicker. While the stats clearly prove that Canadians are about 10x more likely to use a firearm improperly, and therefore we obviously don't have as good a gun use education system as yours, our country is still safer without weapons. Unless you are suicidal, Canada is the safest country on this side of this hemisphere for you to live in, and I account a lot of that to gun control.
On one last note, you will notice that the without guns stats are very similar for Canada and the US. This should tell one that without guns the offences commited with firearms would disappear, not change to another type of offence.
Hope this helps clear things up, and don't forget to leave your murder weapons behind before you visit this pristine country (and note that we were able to defend it from America despite our gun control legislation still being in effect at that time!).
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
Ok, can you answer me this then: why is it that girls always seem to go for the most irritating, cocky asshole jerks there are.. like say.. you? these guys don't respect them, cant even say 'i love you', cant have a conversation that doesnt involve [insert major sport here] or lara crofts tits, are crap in bed (3 minutes lol), and complain all the time about how much they're being tied down.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
Oh, come -- we can both quote statistics 'till we're blue in the face. Let me get started:
A felony victim with a firearm is almost half as likely to be harmed as one who submits. A crime victim using a firearm in self-defense is over 2/3 less likely to be harmed than one using another weapon. Likewise, screaming and running away from a rapist is far more dangerous than using a firearm in defense. Israel has a far higher rate of personal gun ownership than the United States, yet has much lower murder and suicide rates than the United States or Canada. Hence, using the US and Israel as data points (as you used the US and Canada) one could imply that gun ownership reduces murder and suicide rates. Posession of a firearm is a capitol offense in Taiwan, yet the murder rate is higher than in the US. [See Guns and Public Health: Epidemic of Violence or Pandemic of Propaganda, by Don B. Kates et al, for the sources of (and details on) the above numbers]. Further, allowing concealed handguns demonstrably reduces crime. Observing the before-and-after crime statistics for states issuing such laws shows an 8.5% decline in murder, a 5% decline in rapes and a 7% decline in aggravated assaults. (The same source shows that property crimes increased by 2.7% when such laws were implemented -- presumably because some criminals were intimidated into lower-risk crimes).
In any event, however, I have no desire to sit here and talk statistics at you, if for no other reason that I'm not concerned about statistics, and nor should you be. I don't particularly care what the percentage crime rate is in the country I live in, and I particularly don't care about the suicide rate (because if I or someone I know commits suicide, it is because said person made a conscious, considered decision to do so, and I respect that decision). My primary interest is not even in my safety, but in the preservation of my rights for their own sake. While I'm convinced that a pervasively armed society is a polite society (and indeed, I've found people in Texas, one of the more heavily armed of the states, to be far more trusting of their neighbors than residents of California, which has among the strongest gun control), such is not my primary concern. Simply: If you are interested in safety above freedom, any differences between our positions may simply be left there. Those who would gain a little safety by giving up their rights -- and so depriving their children and grandchildren of those same rights -- I cannot forgive them, and much less can I become one.
>A crime victim using a firearm in self-defense is over 2/3 less likely to be harmed than one using another weapon.
A december 1999 study by the justice policy institute shows that America's prisons are overflowing with criminals. There are now more criminals behind bars in the USA than there are in most of the EU (if not all). Out of every 4 people you pass on the street, one of them has been to prison. Out of every 3 black people you pass on the street, one will be in jail shortly.
You talk of a country that needs to defend itself with firearms. People outside of your country see a justice system that is out of control, and we know that arming your entire country will not solve the problem. If it hasn't curbed the problem yet, why should be believe you?
What you need is a justice system that works for you. If you feel vigilante justice by the barrel of a gun is perfect for your country, why not take a look at how well that is working for other countries. Ask a friend from a third world country who would have punished him for a a serious crime.
You'll notice it isn't the police, or the justice system.
Its the people.
Vigilante justice by the barrel of a gun is the system that works for third world countries. I can guarantee you that the USA will never join the top 5 best countries to live in as long as people believe that justice should be metered out on the spot with a firearm in the potential victims hands.
>because if I or someone I know commits suicide, it is because said person made a conscious, considered decision to do so, and I respect that decision
Bullshit. Have you ever talked to someone that was saved from their suicide death? Have you ever asked them if they were in a proper state of mind to make that decision?
I think the answer is a resounding no.
>and indeed, I've found people in Texas, one of the more heavily armed of the states, to be far more trusting of their neighbors than residents of California, which has among the strongest gun control
Are people more trusting, or are they infact worried that a show of distrust and, as follows, disrespect might be met with hot lead?
What you speak of is infact the opposite of what your founding fathers wanted for this country. They wanted a peaceful country, where guns were to be used as a defence against invasion by an unlawful government. People in your country have twisted their meaning from a defence against the King of England invading, to a defence against a robber on the street.
For shame that people in your own country haven't read the true meaning written into the very lifeblood of your own country.
Allow me to quote the constitutional right being twisted by the very members of your own country:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
You, a single entity, are not a militia.
This is a militia (thanks, dictionary.com):
1. An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
2. A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
3. The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.
First off, the founding fathers of your country wanted you to keep guns available to you in the event an emergency happened. Clearly, a militia, which would be a citizens army, does not respond to individual crimes.
Second off, a militia is clearly not a single entity.
So why do you all have guns and want to use them to defend your individual selves? Do none of you read the foundations that made your country which everyone appears to hold so dearly?
>Those who would gain a little safety by giving up their rights -- and so depriving their children and grandchildren of those same rights -- I cannot forgive them, and much less can I become one.
As I have proved above, Benjamin Franklin didn't want it to be this way. Sorry, no dice. Benjamin Franklin was clearly speaking about 1st Amendment rights, and should be turning over in his grave like a roast on a spit right now.
>Further, allowing concealed handguns demonstrably reduces crime.
A lie which I have previously demonstrated to be a falsehood. And I provided links to my sources as well.
>Hence, using the US and Israel as data points
The US has no known nation actively attacking it. Show me where the American gaza strip is. If you think its in New York, tell me if its happened since.
Didn't think so.
Canada is the closest cousin to the US as far as law, attitude, wars, and culture goes, and it is the most valid comparison one can make. If you think the US is anything like Israel, why don't you go over there and announce you're a Palestinian?
At least in the US if you announce you are black or jewish (the people who seem to be on the most recently hated list for the US) you won't get killed (except by a handgun wielding maniac). And if you do, your government will do everything in its power to protect you, unlike Israel.
A Red Herring, if I do say to myself.
>Likewise, screaming and running away from a rapist is far more dangerous than using a firearm in defense.
Using a firearm in self defence is more likely to result in your death rather than your rape. The majority of American firearm owners are untrained and would more likely miss or graze the attacker than kill them. And if they aren't dead, guess who will be?
Oh, and last but not least, my numbers are coming from an unbiased source. A book with the title "Epidemic of Violence or Pandemic of Propaganda" sounds more like propaganda itself than an unbiased source. Did the writer of this book compile these numbers himself, or did he provide sources of government checked and verified information? Or at least sources of third party, uninvolved information?
Likely not.
The only first world country with such a lax set of gun control laws is also the country that you are most likely to end up in jail in. And it isn't even in the top 5 best countries to live in to boot. Yet your gun controlling cousins are. Explain to me the problem so serious that even your guns can't solve it.
The attitude that guns make America a safe, good place to live in isn't shared by the other 95% of the world, sorry. In fact, a now (sadly) outdated quote repeated on the Simpsons stating that a gun is more likely to kill a family member than a robber goes to show there's a lot of people living in your own country that disagree with you.
But, know what? I don't care all that much. I feel safe in my low crime country. I have walked in our largest cities without arms in the middle of the night, and the only people attacking me are people with their paper begging cups.
But, after a trip to Atlanta, the murder capital of the USA (at the time I was so informed by the news -- if it wasn't #1, I sure as hell wouldn't want to go where #1 is), I suppose I would feel like I have to carry a gun. And, as usual, control through violence sparks more violence, and so the cycle goes. Some cities on spin cycle, and some are on rinse.
I'll keep my city on rinse, thank you very much. And I'll keep my freedoms and essential liberties by being able to go where I want, and do what I want, and think what I want, as long as I don't kill anyone. And, if I really have a need to fire a handgun (and God only knows why) I'll be a police officer or a soldier. So, in effect, you lose no rights, except for the right to be a loose cannon. The majority of the world echoes back that this is a good thing, not a bad thing.
And if you're an American passerby reading this thread, I'm quite sorry for dragging your country through the mud. There's many, many, many great reasons to be an American, probably more than there are to be a Canadian, but a lack of crime through arming the populace simply isn't one of them.
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
I suppose they figured they are losing a buttload of money on the xbox everyone else who is associated with them should also.
But, after a trip to Atlanta, the murder capital of the USA (at the time I was so informed by the news -- if it wasn't #1, I sure as hell wouldn't want to go where #1 is), I suppose I would feel like I have to carry a gun.
Would you really? Or are you simply trying to suggest fear as a primary motivation? My interest in owning a weapon is not personal protection (as I doubt very much that I will ever have need to use a weapon in anger) but civic responsability -- because the more law-abiding citizens own handguns, the less will criminals be willing to put themselves at risk by forcing those citizens to use them. (My alternate interest is political; I need not go into that).
So, in effect, you lose no rights, except for the right to be a loose cannon.
I have no right to be a loose cannon. I have the right to own a gun. These are not the same, and I respect the difference between them -- as do 999 out of every 1000 gun owners here. To restrict the 999 for the sake of decreasing the potential harm done by the 1 is not a course of action I can accept.
We need +1 Pathetic moderator points...
Girls do like guys who are jerks. There are all different reasons for this, and it really depends on the girl herself. To severely overgeneralize, they do it because they are insecure.
As a guy, you should see a woman who continues to date an asshole as a person with some pretty hefty issues they need to deal with internally.
I used to think just like you do about this subject, but then I got through puberty and moved on.
"cocky asshole jerks there are.. like say.. you?"
This is an outward sign of your biggest inner problem: testosterone. You aren't really in competition against every other male on the planet. Stop trying so damned hard and women will stop sensing this severe character flaw and actually start paying attention to you.
Take my words and use them to enrich your life, or use them to make you a bitter recluse... it's up to you.
My $0.02 will always be worth more than your â0.02, so
I consider SNES9X less inconvenient than having to fight with my 10 year old SNES every time I want to play Super Mario World, but if I could get the exact same game without the hassle of either an emulator
How is an emulator any more of a hassle than a native PC game? It's easy. Just install snes9x or visualboyadvance, let it associate itself to .smc (super nes) or .gba (gba), and set up the joypad bindings. Then put in the disk containing the copy of Super Mario World that you ripped from your cartridge (Super Mario World, Super Mario All-Stars+SMW, or Super Mario Advance 2) and play on.
In fact, it's usually easier than native PC games because you only have to configure the bindings of four emulators (NESten, SNES9x, DGen, and VBA) rather than every single game in your collection.
However, on the other hand, owners of copies of some titles aren't so lucky:
Only the total purists would care enough about the slight differences
You call the complete corruption of graphics and resulting unplayability of NES "Klax" on anything but LoopyNES a "slight" difference from the hardware? Last time I checked, the Klax hardware (Tengen Rambo mapper) is not very well emulated.
Will I retire or break 10K?
They need the labels on the chips so they know where to put them on the board during assembly
Then why not just label each part with simply a codename such as "Tom", "Jerry", etc? The chips would then have labels, but would-be crackers wouldn't be able to decipher what they meant.
Will I retire or break 10K?
www.pickupguide.com
:))
much, much insight gained. and no, it's not some pathetic lay guide, it's a pretty detailed, fairly scientific analysis of how attraction works and explaining the things that "don't make sense" regarding girls.
oh my god did reading that make a difference (that and working out and being confident and happier
Why am i replying? i dunno. Will you read it? probably not. Is it offtopic? Yeah..
much, much insight gained.
Oh dear...
and no, it's not some pathetic lay guide,
yup, im afraid it is. Dont try to argue with me here, im right.
it's a pretty detailed, fairly scientific analysis of how attraction works
-"Gimmick to get chick to kiss in a club"
-"What to do when your chick catches you with another chick"
Yes, i can see its certainly not a lay-guide and it seems very scientific. Its detailed - i'll give you that...
and explaining the things that "don't make sense" regarding girls.
They are people too like us. They arnt some weird species. We are all just as messed up, but some of us are pretty sexist.. like you.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
The Xbox really doesn't interest me. Why do people want a game system that pretends to be a PC, when it isn't?
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
YHBT/YHL/HAND