I beg to differ. Symantec pcAnywhere seems to have no issues with allowing the remote user to "click through" the dialogue. I use it on a daily basis to provide support to my company's customers, and have decried the "security" of this feature ever since I clicked "Allow" on a system 220 miles from my physical location.
In addition, you can call them and ask them for a "downgrade" disk that will cheerfully replace Vista with XP.
I don't recall the details, and am too lazy to go look them up, but I seem to recall a small fee for it... Still worth it, IMHO. -- I am an IT Professional, working primarily with Windows. Any Linux advice or commentary I give should be balanced against this.
Put simply, the majority of ubuntu users are those who want to be spoonfed while they thump their chests for being so awesome because they have a Linux box. Yeah, cuz none of us actually want an OS that is simple enough for our parents/grandparents to use, while being powerful enough for just about any purpose most power-users could think to try it out on.
The problem isn't necessarily with the distro, but the userbase. Ubuntu attracts all the Windows users who ruin everything. Wait... are you bitching that Windows users are converting to Linux? Damn good thing you posted as AC, cuz you just completely destroyed any credibility you would have had as a Linux advocate, and endangered even your "enthusiast" title.
I can't believe someone would actually be upset over winning a foothold in the desktop market, when that's what we've been trying to do for over a decade.
You're right, i was frothing at the mouth, and being incoherently stupid. In my defense, I have been sick with a nasty respiratory infection, and I hereby blame the NyQuil/DayQuil cycle I was living on as the culprit.
I stand by my statement that I would shoot to kill if there were an intruder in my home. The rest of it was inflamatory garbage, and I hope it's obvious.
Sure, the term "intellectual property" is a ridiculously-designed term, and sure, our current copyright and patent systems are beyond crazy now. But the consequences of that craziness are very real. Sorry, I wasn't paying attention. What, exactly, does that have to do with whether or not "Intellectual Property" has any meaning whatsoever? As I was trying to explain (and evidently missed my mark, in your case), the idea of "Intellectual Property" doesn't exist. It's not only a misnomer, it's completely wrong.
Here's an example, from the 'Lectric Law Library:
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY - Property that can be protected under federal law, including copyrightable works, ideas, discoveries, and inventions. Such property would include novels, sound recordings, a new type of mousetrap, or a cure for a disease. Which is all well and good, except that nothing in that list is contained in the definition of "Property" from the same website:
Not only money and other tangible things of value, but also includes any intangible right considered as a source or element of income or wealth.
The right and interest which a man has in lands and chattels to the exclusion of others. It is the right to enjoy and to dispose of certain things in the most absolute manner as he pleases, provided he makes no use of them prohibited by law.
All things are not the subject of property - the sea, the air, and the like, cannot be appropriated; every one may enjoy them, but he has no exclusive right in them. When things are fully our own, or when all others are excluded from meddling with them, or from interfering about them, it is plain that no person besides the proprietor, who has this exclusive right, can have any claim either to use them, or to hinder him from disposing of them as he pleases; so that property, considered as an exclusive right to things, contains not only a right to use those things, but a right to dispose of them, either by exchanging them for other things, or by giving them away to any other person, without any consideration, or even throwing them away. It goes on like this (I hate legalese, forgive me for not throwing the full definition out there) for quite some time. You can read the full legal definition of Property if you'd like.
To shorten this post a bit, I'll just get to the part where I say that "Intellectual Property" is neither Intellectual, nor Property. It's ridiculous that someone could be said to be stealing a non-existant substance, much less that we have actual laws pertaining to it. Sorry, the definitions don't match, and for a damn fine reason: "Intellectual Property" isn't "Property" in any sense of the word. -- I am not a lawyer, I'm not your lawyer, and if you're dumb enough to take this as legal advice, you're more than worthy of the consequences that will ensue. The fact that I even considered adding this disclaimer is more than enough evidence that our country (and the world) is in pretty sad shape.
Actually, I think the people who get upset about the usage of the term "IP" understand that there is no such thing as "Intellectual Property", and are attempting to do exactly what you said: educate the public.
As for your "straw man", the terms "IP" and "Intellectual Property" are a classic example of a "straw man" attack, just not in the direction you're thinking. The term was invented when someone was thinking up ways to criminalize sharing of thoughts and ideas. It didn't used to be illegal to listen to the radio in public, either. Change the words used to describe an activity, and make that activity whatever you would like it to be (See 1984's "doublethink").
If you have difficulty grasping the concept, try looking up the definitions of "Intellectual" and "Property", and discovering for yourself that the idea they could be used together is as farcical as the concept described by "Radiant Darkness". The two concepts have no common ground, and are a physical impossibility. The "blanket definition" you speak of is just more lies being fed to you by the lawyers. The idea that you can steal thoughts and ideas is as ridiculous as thinking you can live on a dream. "Intellectual Property" exists nowhere but in the lawbooks. There is no physicality there.
Learn to surf your search engine of choice's results pages, then come back when you have more info to back up your claims... or have grasped this concept called "reality" that the rest of us are trying to live in.
I'm pretty sure that in every state in the US, if you're not in your home, you have a duty to retreat if the harm you think the bad guy is going to do can be avoided that way.
Yeah, be a sheep. Turn in your gun, let big brother pretend to protect you. This kind of legislation is the whole reason that my way of thinking is scary to so many people. I don't care if I'm in my home, or in the mall. If someone threatens me with potential death, I'm going to give him some actual death. No threatening, no waving it around, a simple shot or three in the center of body mass and I have no more issues with Mister Aggressive. Retreat? Screw that, this guy was threatening my well-being. I got bullied enough in school, I'm not going to put up with it as an adult. Not while I still have the ability to do something about it.
The law in my state (which is what I'm most familiar with, obviously) says that if I have a reasonable belief that someone is about to inflict serious bodily injury or death upon me or anyone else I am fully within my rights to use deadly force to stop it.
However, once the threat is neutralized, I cannot continue beating, shooting, whatever.
This makes absolute sense. Luckily, there's no need to continue shooting someone once they're dead (zombie movies being the only exception to this rule I can think of).
Once the "threat" is "neutralized", I get to wait for the cops, and will probably spend the next 4-16 hours down at the station, if not actually in jail with cuffs. It is possible that I will spend the rest of my life in prison for having the nerve to defend myself or someone else with deadly force. I'm willing to live with that. Are you willing to live with the idea that someone could go to jail for defending themself or another? "Exceeding the necessary amount of force" be damned, he was going to hurt someone and take their possessions!
On the other hand, the puke who wanted my wallet and ended up with half his face on the wall next to him, and his intestines all over the ground behind him... he'll not be showing a knife to anyone ever again, will he? I'll cheerfully do the paperwork (or the time, if need be) for my part in improving society, even just that little bit. Someone has to do it.
Self defense is about stopping the threat, not exacting retribution.
Seems to me that shooting my assailant dead is a fairly effective method of doing both those items, without having to worry that his shit-eating lawyers will sue me for just hurting him a little when I took his knife away from him. He got stopped from trying to hurt someone, and as for rehabilitation... well, he won't be doing it again, eh? Seems to me that I can remove one of the more antisocial elements in our society, simply by refusing to be a victim.
This isn't some sort of vigilante crap - I don't walk around looking for an excuse to shoot someone, as I have seen some people do. But if I were to be in that kind of situation, I wouldn't hesitate to use the maximum amount of available force to protect myself and others.
Yes, this means I would put a shotgun against the back of someone's head and blow his forehead onto the cigarette counter at the convenience store, if he were threatening the clerk and asking for the money in the till. Again - if you think this makes me a bad person, consider that I am merely protecting myself from the lawyers. It's better to kill someone dead on the spot, and then argue about whether it was necessary, than it is to end up paying the guy who tried to mug you because you broke his nose when you took his bat away and hit him with it "in the heat of the moment". I don't believe that crime should pay, and the latter of those scenarios reeks of it. Anyone who feels otherwise needs to be on the receiving end of that bat before they make their minds up too solid.
Some dude tries to take my stuff with force, I kill him. The threat stops when his breathing does. Yeah I gotta wait for the cops to sho
Screw you. Not to make a complete and heinous ass of myself, and screw it, even if I do... If someone comes into my home, yanks open the door of my car, or lays a hand on me in the street, I will cheerfully use whatever means are immediately available to do the absolute most damage possible in the absolute shortest amount of time.
My life, my family, and my property are more importance to me than the rights you gave up when you intruded on me and mine. I will, by God, defend them with any and all means necessary/available.
Yes, this means that I believe someone gives up their right to life, their right to be unharmed, and their right to live a life free of maiming... just as soon as they threaten me and mine. I firmly believe that shooting someone who has a (knife|gun|bat|pipe|etc) is a just and fair response to them threatening me or mine. I firmly believe that shooting someone who doesn't have a (knife|gun|bat|pipe|etc) is a just and fair response to them threatening me or mine.
Keep this in mind when you're breaking into my house at 3 in the morning, you get me? Fuck your "rights", you're in my (house|car|personal space), uninvited.
If a card or bus that doesn't support 64 bit addressing needs to DMA read or write to a location beyond the 4GB mark (due to other stuff in the addres space having 4GB of ram means you have ram at addressed beyong the 4GB mark) windows gets it to DMA to a buffer below the 4GB mark and copies the data at appropriate points. Uhm... no. First off, this isn't even what the parent of your post was talking about. Reading comprehension ftw.
Secondly, Vista has issues addressing the space between 3 and 4GB. 2GB of ram? Ok, everything's fine. Swap your 4 512 sticks for 4 1GB sticks, though, and look out. (Start here when searching for evidence of this).
I suspect hauppage have made incorrect assumptions about how windows DMA works and are getting bitten when windows tries to do this. I suspect Hauppage, like many other peripheral manufacturers, is being "bitten" by incorrect and/or incomplete information coming from Redmond. It's no secret that Microsoft likes to toy with APIs before, during, and after releasing incomplete/incorrect/incoherent specs for an OS interface. If I have to point out evidence of this, you don't know how to use your search engine of choice.
And don't give me that crap about backwards compatibility being the culprit. WINE is tons more backwards compatible than even XP, much less Vista. Stuff written for Windows 3.1 doesn't work on XP, stuff written for Win95 doesn't work on XP, I've got apps that were written for 98 and 2000 that XP freaks when trying to load... Hell, Vista won't even talk TCP/IP networking with XP, much less anything older. It's amazing the tripe being spewed from Redmond these days.
Have you tried the card under any other version of windows that supports more than 4GB of physical address space in a machine with 4GB or more of ram? If not then I don't think it is right to blame vista for this. Why would he attempt to use a TV card in a massive server? There *are* no versions of Windows (other than Vista, and that's still laughable, in my book) that truly support even 4GB of physical memory (nevermind greater than 4GB) except Server 2003, and even that requires the Enterprise or Datacenter versions. Are you actually suggesting he spend an absurd amount of money on the OS for a HTPC? See here for more details.
As an aside, Ubuntu Studio is a good base for a Home Theater PC, as well as having all kinds of whiz-bang editors for video, audio, still images, etc. It requires a DVD for the iso, instead of a CD, but the apps are very pretty. Check out MythTV for an excellent (and indeed, the only) PVR/Media Center app for linux.
-- Disclaimer: I am a Windows(tm) technician, working in a Microsoft-using office. Take my words with whatever size lumps of sodium chloride you'd like to. My employer does not condone, endorse, or even necessarily know about my views and opinions expressed here.
And most people don't say "Fuck You" in the middle of intelligent discourse. Maybe they should. If someone is going to get up on their soap box and berate people who don't live in the coastal hives for being rural hicks, then someone else should be able to respond in a manner to which they feel said idiot^H^H^H^H^H apparently educated, erudite, and eloquent speaker would understand. I, personally, feel that "Fuck you" was appropriate in this context.
In which case, the game wouldn't appear to be at fault, from the post-mortem findings.
That makes this even worse, in that there is no way to determine the patch was at fault until you do it again... bricking your system again. If you didn't reboot for a couple days afterwards, there's absolutely nothing linking the patch to the crash. -- Oops.
(Can you even edit the registry in a console?) Speaking as a Windows technician, the answer is "Yes, you can. It requires doing something most users don't like to do, known in some circles as 'reading'."
To most Windows users, even gamers (and, sadly, a lot of techs), this issue would indeed 'brick' the machine, requiring someone with enough savvy to reinstall Windows to get it running again. As a matter of fact, it probably wouldn't be until the third time they reinstalled Windows, then reinstalled EO, then patched it back up again (at which point they're again driving a brick, or will be as soon as they reboot) that most of them would put it together enough to realize patching the game was killing the box. This is not because they're stupid, but because the issue is so totally unrelated to gaming.
To be quite honest, my first inkling that it was the game would be when I pulled the drive to see if I could recover the data after getting an "OS not found" error, noticed that my boot.ini file was huge compared to what it was supposed to be, and lo and behold, it was full of EVE Online config stuff. Of course, this is assuming I even looked at the root of the drive longer than ctrl-clicking "\Games", "\Stuff", and "\Documents and Settings" in preparation for copying them. (Yeah, if I were thorough, I would notice, and discover, and who has time for all that crap when ya just wanna get back up and running so you can play again? Bedtime's coming up, if I wanna be worth a snot at work tomorrow, and why did this have to happen *tonight*, I just wanted to get in and check my mail and go raid this place, and...)
This is a grievous offense against EO users, and indicates that QA's head isn't on straight.
I would also, at this time, like to laugh in public about the previous posters who said "They *did* test it, but they couldn't file a bug report after they rebooted..."
Middletown Police Confiscate Machine Guns, Grenade Launchers http://www.wtic.com/pages/1083618.php? "Police obtained a search warrant and say they found automatic and semiautomatic weapons, grenades, bulletproof vests, swords, cross bows and bomb-making instructions."
I have found that Bitchass Jones can help with chain letter spam. An apparently modified version of his email can be found at http://emailjunkyard.com/index.cgi?item=573 (at the very least, the name has been changed, and I seem to recall it being much longer).
For those of us who are link-impaired and have other RTFA issues, I have included it below.
Hello, my name is Basmati Kasaar. I am suffering from rare and deadly diseases, poor scores on final exams, extreme virginity, fear of being kidnapped and executed by anal electrocution, and guilt for not forwarding out 50 billion fucking chain letters sent to me by people who actually believe that if you send them on, then that poor 6 year old girl in Arkansas with a breast on her forehead will be able to raise enough money to have it removed before her redneck parents sell her off to the travelling freak show. Do you honestly believe that Bill Gates is going to give you and everyone you send "his" email to $1000? How stupid are you? Ooooh, lookyhere! If I scroll down this page and make a wish, I'll get laid by every Playboy model in the magazine! What a bunch of bullshit. So basically, this message is a big FUCK YOU to all the people out there who have nothing better to do than to send me stupid chain mail forwards. Maybe the evil chain letter leprechauns will come into my apartment and sodomize me in my sleep for not continuing the chain which was started by Jesus in 5 A.D. and was brought to this country by midget pilgrims on the Mayflower and if it makes it to the year 2000, it'll be in the Guinness Book of World Records for longest continuous streak of blatant stupidity.
Fuck them.
If you're going to forward something, at least send me something mildly amusing. I've seen all the "send this to 50 of your closest friends, and this poor, wretched excuse for a human being will somehow receive a nickel from some omniscient being" forwards about 90 times. I don't fucking care. Show a little intelligence and think about what you're actually contributing to by sending out forwards. Chances are it's your own unpopularity.
P.S. Please forward this to at least 50 of your best friends!
I find it interesting that in the (distant) past, voices in people's heads were considered to be the voice of God, and now the people are considered to be less than sane. Joan of Arc, etc.
You said nothing about a "crazed lunatic manifesto"... you said
For the record, anyone who decides that they are "defending the constitution against the federal government" is probably bat-nuts. So, are you saying that anyone who thinks poorly of our current administration's policies, and perhaps feels they are unconstitutional, is a danger to society?
I'm not attacking the FBI's training manual, here, I'm asking you a direct question. Do you truly believe that patriots are bat-nuts?
For the record, anyone who decides that they are "defending the constitution against the federal government" is probably bat-nuts. This is what I was responding to, and I think that your attitude/mentality is part of the problem.
It doesn't. It points out that you are suggesting that certain individuals be locked away, for their own good, and that of society. I felt the poem was relevant. Sorry you didn't get it.
On my own machine, it's worse -- Ubuntu detects my video card as having a slowdown temperature of 115 degrees celsius. I haven't been able to correct that, and the fan isn't spinning up nearly as often as I'd expect. It's nice and quiet, but I have to wonder if I'm overheating the thing every time I boot it.
I think Ubuntu killed my last mainboard, by pushing the hardware to its fullest potential, with no regard for the lack of cooling on the chipset. The northbridge had this little tiny fan/heatsink combo on it, but still got rather warm. I was doing an OS reinstall (due to general crankiness of the machine), and installed Ubuntu instead of Windows. Worked like a champ, but the chipset got extremely hot (hot enough to actually be painful to touch), and the board fried not too much later (a few weeks). Knowing that I was doing something that might have unintended consequences (installing linux on a known-flaky rig), I chalked it up to a lesson learned, and now have third-party coolers on the chipsets in my linux boxes (they do seem to run a bit warmer under Ubuntu than under Windows XP).
As for your video card... have you done any temperature testing? I'd check to see what the hardware's temperature is before obsessing over whether it's cooking it. Also, does it do the same thing under Windows?
I've found that I tend to get overly concerned about little things that may or may not be a problem... like thinking that my cpu fan was broken, until I realized that I had enabled the smart-fan item in the BIOS, and so the system was cheerfully keeping the cpu temp at an optimal level. Extremely high temperatures can be an issue, but I've found that keeping the temperature constant is more important than keeping it low (Google "chip creep" (you can keep the quotes;) for more details, and think about the physics involved, then wonder if maybe the pci slots aren't the only things affected by it - bridges, for example, have expansion joints for exactly the same reason).
Yeah, yeah... if you pull the quotes off the string then the search results you're talking about are returned. Sorry, I followed instructions, and searched for "Ubuntu destroys laptops"; not Ubuntu destroys laptops. Maybe if your instructions were more clear?
Besides, it's not an Ubuntu issue, or at least that's not what I got from the stuff you threw back at me. As a matter of fact, the first one looks a lot like user error ("I tried to install Ubuntu and it wiped my Windows partition, this linux stuff sucks"). Uhm... you repartitioned your drive, and you're mad that it blew away Windows? Sucks to be you; Reading comprehension ftw.
The second link appears to be about some sort of hardware issue caused by hardware manufacturers or laptop BIOS creators.
On the other hand... It turns out that your kneejerk reaction may have been somewhat on-target. The issue described in the bug report in your second link (the "better description") seems to be a non-PEBKAC issue. Upon further research, I found this page (linked to by your second link, and actually the thread your second link is a part of - a much better source of information, I might add) has a lot of info on Ubuntu's aggressive power management settings causing laptop drives to load/unload every couple of minutes. That's a serious bug, and could theoretically reduce a laptop hard drive's life expectancy to less than 6 months. Looks like there are some workarounds and/or fixes available, but the out-of-the-box experience could be catastrophic. Guess I'll have to either recommend against Ubuntu on laptops in the future, or point people to the fix.
Ah, well... nothing is perfect. I'll be honest, here, I was all set to blast back with the "truth" about the situation, and blame the BIOS/hard drive manufacturers (based on your second link), but after reading the actual bug reports, it seems like this is, at the very least, an Ubuntu-fixable issue.
On the *other* other hand, it appears to only affects the machine if laptop mode is enabled and/or the machine can't determine if it's running on batteries, so I'm still going to use Ubuntu on my desktops. I just love it, it's so *shiny*.
In addition, the three items we've mentioned here appear, at first glance, to be 3 separate issues... although your second link is a part of the thread I linked to above, it is a poorly-informed response, with misleading information - unless you have the context it was ripped from.
Update (aka, thank you, preview button): Upon checking my links (and getting pulled back into the thread on the bug report), I'll use your method of pulling one specific post out to illustrate my point, and cheer mightily for Ubuntu. Check out this post in the same thread. Vista does it too! So there, nyaaah.
-- Disclaimer: I am a Windows(tm) technician and linux hobbyist. My employer has no connection to my linux rantings. My employer and our customers use Microsoft operating systems and office software. Any and/or all of my post(s) should be treated as suspect information without further verification.</tinfoilhat>
Slashdot Mirror
I beg to differ. Symantec pcAnywhere seems to have no issues with allowing the remote user to "click through" the dialogue. I use it on a daily basis to provide support to my company's customers, and have decried the "security" of this feature ever since I clicked "Allow" on a system 220 miles from my physical location.
In addition, you can call them and ask them for a "downgrade" disk that will cheerfully replace Vista with XP.
I don't recall the details, and am too lazy to go look them up, but I seem to recall a small fee for it... Still worth it, IMHO.
--
I am an IT Professional, working primarily with Windows. Any Linux advice or commentary I give should be balanced against this.
I can't believe someone would actually be upset over winning a foothold in the desktop market, when that's what we've been trying to do for over a decade.
Whose side are you on, really?
You're right, i was frothing at the mouth, and being incoherently stupid. In my defense, I have been sick with a nasty respiratory infection, and I hereby blame the NyQuil/DayQuil cycle I was living on as the culprit.
I stand by my statement that I would shoot to kill if there were an intruder in my home. The rest of it was inflamatory garbage, and I hope it's obvious.
Here's an example, from the 'Lectric Law Library: INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY - Property that can be protected under federal law, including copyrightable works, ideas, discoveries, and inventions. Such property would include novels, sound recordings, a new type of mousetrap, or a cure for a disease. Which is all well and good, except that nothing in that list is contained in the definition of "Property" from the same website: Not only money and other tangible things of value, but also includes any intangible right considered as a source or element of income or wealth.
The right and interest which a man has in lands and chattels to the exclusion of others. It is the right to enjoy and to dispose of certain things in the most absolute manner as he pleases, provided he makes no use of them prohibited by law.
All things are not the subject of property - the sea, the air, and the like, cannot be appropriated; every one may enjoy them, but he has no exclusive right in them. When things are fully our own, or when all others are excluded from meddling with them, or from interfering about them, it is plain that no person besides the proprietor, who has this exclusive right, can have any claim either to use them, or to hinder him from disposing of them as he pleases; so that property, considered as an exclusive right to things, contains not only a right to use those things, but a right to dispose of them, either by exchanging them for other things, or by giving them away to any other person, without any consideration, or even throwing them away. It goes on like this (I hate legalese, forgive me for not throwing the full definition out there) for quite some time. You can read the full legal definition of Property if you'd like.
To shorten this post a bit, I'll just get to the part where I say that "Intellectual Property" is neither Intellectual, nor Property. It's ridiculous that someone could be said to be stealing a non-existant substance, much less that we have actual laws pertaining to it. Sorry, the definitions don't match, and for a damn fine reason: "Intellectual Property" isn't "Property" in any sense of the word.
--
I am not a lawyer, I'm not your lawyer, and if you're dumb enough to take this as legal advice, you're more than worthy of the consequences that will ensue. The fact that I even considered adding this disclaimer is more than enough evidence that our country (and the world) is in pretty sad shape.
Actually, I think the people who get upset about the usage of the term "IP" understand that there is no such thing as "Intellectual Property", and are attempting to do exactly what you said: educate the public.
As for your "straw man", the terms "IP" and "Intellectual Property" are a classic example of a "straw man" attack, just not in the direction you're thinking. The term was invented when someone was thinking up ways to criminalize sharing of thoughts and ideas. It didn't used to be illegal to listen to the radio in public, either. Change the words used to describe an activity, and make that activity whatever you would like it to be (See 1984's "doublethink").
If you have difficulty grasping the concept, try looking up the definitions of "Intellectual" and "Property", and discovering for yourself that the idea they could be used together is as farcical as the concept described by "Radiant Darkness". The two concepts have no common ground, and are a physical impossibility. The "blanket definition" you speak of is just more lies being fed to you by the lawyers. The idea that you can steal thoughts and ideas is as ridiculous as thinking you can live on a dream. "Intellectual Property" exists nowhere but in the lawbooks. There is no physicality there.
Learn to surf your search engine of choice's results pages, then come back when you have more info to back up your claims... or have grasped this concept called "reality" that the rest of us are trying to live in.
I'm pretty sure that in every state in the US, if you're not in your home, you have a duty to retreat if the harm you think the bad guy is going to do can be avoided that way.
Yeah, be a sheep. Turn in your gun, let big brother pretend to protect you. This kind of legislation is the whole reason that my way of thinking is scary to so many people. I don't care if I'm in my home, or in the mall. If someone threatens me with potential death, I'm going to give him some actual death. No threatening, no waving it around, a simple shot or three in the center of body mass and I have no more issues with Mister Aggressive. Retreat? Screw that, this guy was threatening my well-being. I got bullied enough in school, I'm not going to put up with it as an adult. Not while I still have the ability to do something about it.
The law in my state (which is what I'm most familiar with, obviously) says that if I have a reasonable belief that someone is about to inflict serious bodily injury or death upon me or anyone else I am fully within my rights to use deadly force to stop it.
However, once the threat is neutralized, I cannot continue beating, shooting, whatever.
This makes absolute sense. Luckily, there's no need to continue shooting someone once they're dead (zombie movies being the only exception to this rule I can think of).
Once the "threat" is "neutralized", I get to wait for the cops, and will probably spend the next 4-16 hours down at the station, if not actually in jail with cuffs. It is possible that I will spend the rest of my life in prison for having the nerve to defend myself or someone else with deadly force. I'm willing to live with that. Are you willing to live with the idea that someone could go to jail for defending themself or another? "Exceeding the necessary amount of force" be damned, he was going to hurt someone and take their possessions!
On the other hand, the puke who wanted my wallet and ended up with half his face on the wall next to him, and his intestines all over the ground behind him... he'll not be showing a knife to anyone ever again, will he? I'll cheerfully do the paperwork (or the time, if need be) for my part in improving society, even just that little bit. Someone has to do it.
Self defense is about stopping the threat, not exacting retribution.
Seems to me that shooting my assailant dead is a fairly effective method of doing both those items, without having to worry that his shit-eating lawyers will sue me for just hurting him a little when I took his knife away from him. He got stopped from trying to hurt someone, and as for rehabilitation... well, he won't be doing it again, eh? Seems to me that I can remove one of the more antisocial elements in our society, simply by refusing to be a victim.
This isn't some sort of vigilante crap - I don't walk around looking for an excuse to shoot someone, as I have seen some people do. But if I were to be in that kind of situation, I wouldn't hesitate to use the maximum amount of available force to protect myself and others.
Yes, this means I would put a shotgun against the back of someone's head and blow his forehead onto the cigarette counter at the convenience store, if he were threatening the clerk and asking for the money in the till. Again - if you think this makes me a bad person, consider that I am merely protecting myself from the lawyers. It's better to kill someone dead on the spot, and then argue about whether it was necessary, than it is to end up paying the guy who tried to mug you because you broke his nose when you took his bat away and hit him with it "in the heat of the moment". I don't believe that crime should pay, and the latter of those scenarios reeks of it. Anyone who feels otherwise needs to be on the receiving end of that bat before they make their minds up too solid.
Some dude tries to take my stuff with force, I kill him. The threat stops when his breathing does. Yeah I gotta wait for the cops to sho
Screw you. Not to make a complete and heinous ass of myself, and screw it, even if I do... If someone comes into my home, yanks open the door of my car, or lays a hand on me in the street, I will cheerfully use whatever means are immediately available to do the absolute most damage possible in the absolute shortest amount of time.
My life, my family, and my property are more importance to me than the rights you gave up when you intruded on me and mine.
I will, by God, defend them with any and all means necessary/available.
Yes, this means that I believe someone gives up their right to life, their right to be unharmed, and their right to live a life free of maiming... just as soon as they threaten me and mine. I firmly believe that shooting someone who has a (knife|gun|bat|pipe|etc) is a just and fair response to them threatening me or mine. I firmly believe that shooting someone who doesn't have a (knife|gun|bat|pipe|etc) is a just and fair response to them threatening me or mine.
Keep this in mind when you're breaking into my house at 3 in the morning, you get me?
Fuck your "rights", you're in my (house|car|personal space), uninvited.
Hmmph. That debate sounds like it was a fairly beastie... err... beastly experience.
--
"Just me and my horsey and a quart of beer"
preview button ftw.
First off, this isn't even what the parent of your post was talking about. Reading comprehension ftw.
Secondly, Vista has issues addressing the space between 3 and 4GB. 2GB of ram? Ok, everything's fine. Swap your 4 512 sticks for 4 1GB sticks, though, and look out. (Start here when searching for evidence of this). I suspect hauppage have made incorrect assumptions about how windows DMA works and are getting bitten when windows tries to do this. I suspect Hauppage, like many other peripheral manufacturers, is being "bitten" by incorrect and/or incomplete information coming from Redmond. It's no secret that Microsoft likes to toy with APIs before, during, and after releasing incomplete/incorrect/incoherent specs for an OS interface. If I have to point out evidence of this, you don't know how to use your search engine of choice.
And don't give me that crap about backwards compatibility being the culprit. WINE is tons more backwards compatible than even XP, much less Vista. Stuff written for Windows 3.1 doesn't work on XP, stuff written for Win95 doesn't work on XP, I've got apps that were written for 98 and 2000 that XP freaks when trying to load... Hell, Vista won't even talk TCP/IP networking with XP, much less anything older. It's amazing the tripe being spewed from Redmond these days. Have you tried the card under any other version of windows that supports more than 4GB of physical address space in a machine with 4GB or more of ram? If not then I don't think it is right to blame vista for this. Why would he attempt to use a TV card in a massive server? There *are* no versions of Windows (other than Vista, and that's still laughable, in my book) that truly support even 4GB of physical memory (nevermind greater than 4GB) except Server 2003, and even that requires the Enterprise or Datacenter versions. Are you actually suggesting he spend an absurd amount of money on the OS for a HTPC? See here for more details.
As an aside, Ubuntu Studio is a good base for a Home Theater PC, as well as having all kinds of whiz-bang editors for video, audio, still images, etc. It requires a DVD for the iso, instead of a CD, but the apps are very pretty. Check out MythTV for an excellent (and indeed, the only) PVR/Media Center app for linux.
--
Disclaimer: I am a Windows(tm) technician, working in a Microsoft-using office. Take my words with whatever size lumps of sodium chloride you'd like to. My employer does not condone, endorse, or even necessarily know about my views and opinions expressed here.
And I bet it felt damned good.
A friend of mine was sent to juvie when he was 13 for sleeping with a 15-year-old girl. Yes, that's broken. Yes, it happened. The system is flawed.
Not sure if I had a point, just wanted to throw this into the mix.
In which case, the game wouldn't appear to be at fault, from the post-mortem findings.
That makes this even worse, in that there is no way to determine the patch was at fault until you do it again... bricking your system again. If you didn't reboot for a couple days afterwards, there's absolutely nothing linking the patch to the crash.
--
Oops.
To most Windows users, even gamers (and, sadly, a lot of techs), this issue would indeed 'brick' the machine, requiring someone with enough savvy to reinstall Windows to get it running again. As a matter of fact, it probably wouldn't be until the third time they reinstalled Windows, then reinstalled EO, then patched it back up again (at which point they're again driving a brick, or will be as soon as they reboot) that most of them would put it together enough to realize patching the game was killing the box. This is not because they're stupid, but because the issue is so totally unrelated to gaming.
To be quite honest, my first inkling that it was the game would be when I pulled the drive to see if I could recover the data after getting an "OS not found" error, noticed that my boot.ini file was huge compared to what it was supposed to be, and lo and behold, it was full of EVE Online config stuff. Of course, this is assuming I even looked at the root of the drive longer than ctrl-clicking "\Games", "\Stuff", and "\Documents and Settings" in preparation for copying them. (Yeah, if I were thorough, I would notice, and discover, and who has time for all that crap when ya just wanna get back up and running so you can play again? Bedtime's coming up, if I wanna be worth a snot at work tomorrow, and why did this have to happen *tonight*, I just wanted to get in and check my mail and go raid this place, and...)
This is a grievous offense against EO users, and indicates that QA's head isn't on straight.
I would also, at this time, like to laugh in public about the previous posters who said "They *did* test it, but they couldn't file a bug report after they rebooted..."
Aren't they?
2 Held in Curbside Sales of Automatic Weapons
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE7DC1F39F931A35757C0A965958260
Police Seize Mach 11 Machine Pistol From Teen (with silencer!)
http://www.channel3000.com/news/4607540/detail.html
Middletown Police Confiscate Machine Guns, Grenade Launchers
http://www.wtic.com/pages/1083618.php?
"Police obtained a search warrant and say they found automatic and semiautomatic weapons, grenades, bulletproof vests, swords, cross bows and bomb-making instructions."
These are just a few of the results from the first page of a quick googling of police confiscate automatic weapons machine pistols
I'd like to see some proof. Got some links to back those up?
Again, it would not surprise me to discover that you are, indeed, telling the truth... but I want to see proof.
Citation and substantiation, or it's all hearsay.
For those of us who are link-impaired and have other RTFA issues, I have included it below.
An interesting point. Anyone have any hard info on this?
--
Ask not what your country is doing to you...
You said nothing about a "crazed lunatic manifesto"... you said For the record, anyone who decides that they are "defending the constitution against the federal government" is probably bat-nuts. So, are you saying that anyone who thinks poorly of our current administration's policies, and perhaps feels they are unconstitutional, is a danger to society?
I'm not attacking the FBI's training manual, here, I'm asking you a direct question. Do you truly believe that patriots are bat-nuts?
It doesn't. It points out that you are suggesting that certain individuals be locked away, for their own good, and that of society. I felt the poem was relevant. Sorry you didn't get it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came... -- Nuf Sed.
I think Ubuntu killed my last mainboard, by pushing the hardware to its fullest potential, with no regard for the lack of cooling on the chipset. The northbridge had this little tiny fan/heatsink combo on it, but still got rather warm. I was doing an OS reinstall (due to general crankiness of the machine), and installed Ubuntu instead of Windows. Worked like a champ, but the chipset got extremely hot (hot enough to actually be painful to touch), and the board fried not too much later (a few weeks). Knowing that I was doing something that might have unintended consequences (installing linux on a known-flaky rig), I chalked it up to a lesson learned, and now have third-party coolers on the chipsets in my linux boxes (they do seem to run a bit warmer under Ubuntu than under Windows XP).
As for your video card... have you done any temperature testing? I'd check to see what the hardware's temperature is before obsessing over whether it's cooking it. Also, does it do the same thing under Windows?
I've found that I tend to get overly concerned about little things that may or may not be a problem... like thinking that my cpu fan was broken, until I realized that I had enabled the smart-fan item in the BIOS, and so the system was cheerfully keeping the cpu temp at an optimal level. Extremely high temperatures can be an issue, but I've found that keeping the temperature constant is more important than keeping it low (Google "chip creep" (you can keep the quotes
You're not lucky, after all.
Yeah, yeah... if you pull the quotes off the string then the search results you're talking about are returned. Sorry, I followed instructions, and searched for "Ubuntu destroys laptops"; not Ubuntu destroys laptops. Maybe if your instructions were more clear?
Besides, it's not an Ubuntu issue, or at least that's not what I got from the stuff you threw back at me. As a matter of fact, the first one looks a lot like user error ("I tried to install Ubuntu and it wiped my Windows partition, this linux stuff sucks"). Uhm... you repartitioned your drive, and you're mad that it blew away Windows?
Sucks to be you; Reading comprehension ftw.
The second link appears to be about some sort of hardware issue caused by hardware manufacturers or laptop BIOS creators.
On the other hand... It turns out that your kneejerk reaction may have been somewhat on-target. The issue described in the bug report in your second link (the "better description") seems to be a non-PEBKAC issue. Upon further research, I found this page (linked to by your second link, and actually the thread your second link is a part of - a much better source of information, I might add) has a lot of info on Ubuntu's aggressive power management settings causing laptop drives to load/unload every couple of minutes. That's a serious bug, and could theoretically reduce a laptop hard drive's life expectancy to less than 6 months. Looks like there are some workarounds and/or fixes available, but the out-of-the-box experience could be catastrophic. Guess I'll have to either recommend against Ubuntu on laptops in the future, or point people to the fix.
Ah, well... nothing is perfect. I'll be honest, here, I was all set to blast back with the "truth" about the situation, and blame the BIOS/hard drive manufacturers (based on your second link), but after reading the actual bug reports, it seems like this is, at the very least, an Ubuntu-fixable issue.
On the *other* other hand, it appears to only affects the machine if laptop mode is enabled and/or the machine can't determine if it's running on batteries, so I'm still going to use Ubuntu on my desktops. I just love it, it's so *shiny*.
In addition, the three items we've mentioned here appear, at first glance, to be 3 separate issues... although your second link is a part of the thread I linked to above, it is a poorly-informed response, with misleading information - unless you have the context it was ripped from.
Update (aka, thank you, preview button):
Upon checking my links (and getting pulled back into the thread on the bug report), I'll use your method of pulling one specific post out to illustrate my point, and cheer mightily for Ubuntu. Check out this post in the same thread.
Vista does it too! So there, nyaaah.
--
Disclaimer: I am a Windows(tm) technician and linux hobbyist. My employer has no connection to my linux rantings. My employer and our customers use Microsoft operating systems and office software. Any and/or all of my post(s) should be treated as suspect information without further verification.</tinfoilhat>