Dagnabit, No coupon with the regular 9600AIW. Then again no braodband out here, so I doubt I could play this anyway if it really has to download some huge files with storebought version.
Hmmm... indeed. This sounds like maybe the 1gig 3400 machine has something wonky (or the other somthing tweeked) going on to prevent hl2 from fitting everything it needs into memory. Possibly an older(relatively speaking) vid card that can't hold enough in ram, but if it's definately loading from hard-drive and not just having a brief pause I'd doubt that even more than I already do. Try shutting down as much unessential crap as possible is the best thing I can think of. Especially things like a-v software running in paranoid mode. You might want to check the task manager and see if anything is taking up outrageous amounts of ram. Some hardware loads alot of crap on startup as well (hp printers and hydra's are atrocious, they consider all the little helper apps and scanner previewers as drivers).
Of course it could also be an bug in the game conflicting with somthing specific in the system as well, friend of mine had some obscure usb2 adsl modem who's drivers when combine with a usb web cam prevented one specif online game from working right (would lock the modem completely and crash the game if the webcam was attached) untill he got new drivers for both the cam and the modem.
What I'd like to know is why if person A on slashdot mentions somthing doesn't work for him then if it works for person b, person b almost always seems to assume person a has eigther a crap computer or no brains or both? Could it be things sometimes just don't work the same for everyone? I've seen lots of complaints about various issues people have had with firefox, yet I've had very few and those are mostly 'I'd rather it did x in this case, but the devs had it do y' yet I don't assume without evidence that someone with a problem is some clueless Luser with a 386sx and 512k ram.
Except the assautl weapon ban didnt'. It mostly banned COSMETIC items. kinda like an anti-cyberr terrism law called 'high performance computing ban' that banned plexiglass windows and neon lights and claimed to take high end computers off the streets.
And beside gun bans only hurt those who abide the law, the criminals are still armed and now they know YOU are not.
Generaly except the argument missatributes the cause of the death. It wasn't the drugs that killed the other person, it was the rash actions of the intoxicated driver, already a seperate crime.
By that reasoning buying a car is why the teacher got hurt therefore lets outlaw buying cars.
It's a well known form of faulty reasoning used to by people when they don't have a real argument. and pretty much discredited.
No confidence vote? are you refering to impeachment? AFIAK no-confidence votes are part of european politics, not really a US option. For federaly elected jobs (president and congress) you are in untill your term ends and then you have to get re-elected. Though for crimes you can loose the job if impeached.
AFAIK the closest to a no-confidence vote is the vote to retain judges some states have.
I would think not having to worry about re-election gives the statesmen a chance to do just that and not worry about the short term, eg re-election and campaining for it.
On the other hand it means the crap poloticians can feather thier own nest at everyone elses expense without worring about loosing the next election because they don't get to run.
Better yet change it so the number of electoral votes need to remain in office goes up for each re-election attempt. This is just spot brainstorm and not thought out really, but it not focus the president a little more on the will of the people? Then again we might not want a president who jumps to the slightest trend or spends so much time trying garner votes for next time the whole thing becomes a joke.
Except all he seems to want to do is record an over the air broadcast, ie timeshift. Unless they've passed some specific law otherwise that was rulled a non-infringing activity. Sony v betamax.
So while his definition of THIER abuse of copyright is novell, he's not abusing afaik, but ianal and so on.
In part I think this may be a case of what happens when people confuse "intelectual property" with real property.
I think you are both using one term 'product'. in two different ways. When I buy a music cd I can do ANYTHING I want with the cd itself, however there are likely limits imposed by law as to what I can do with content of that cd. Such limits also tend apply to brodcast tv, hd or not.
If he is recieving hdtv over the air, then unless he was asked to sign a contract to buy the tuner, he's not governed by a licence, just the relevant law. Just using the tuner wont cut it anymore than 'by starting this car you agree to only use brandx gas' hidden somewhere in the owners manual would.
It's almost pure fud put out by those that hold copyrights that using/viewing a copyrighted work automatically subjects you to some contract you didn't know about before hand. I say almost because in one case a software eula was upheld, though imnsho the judge stretched an analogy so far to do so it looked more like reductio ad absurdum. Other cases have gone the other way so ymmv,IANAL so get one if you think it matters.
I'll have to dissagree with you, at least on doing this on a federal level, for several reasons.
For one thing federal beaurocracy would cost a fourtune.
They'd probably give a no-bid contract for designing and administering the test to Microsoft.
Spam wouldn't slow down any longer than it would take the spammers to move what they still have in the US to other counrties.
It raises some serious privacy issues.
And most importantly I make a fair amount of money de-lousing computers for people. Sheesh the government forces them to learn this before even getting on the net I'm outa bussiness.
Speaking of kkk members, isn't the one in the congress a democrat.
There are a few racists on BOTH sides. I think I would find the version racism, of treating minorities like they couldn't make it without THIER special help, worse than paranoid rascism of 'their different so they must be bad' I've seen.
At least the one is honest, the other is pure condescenion and degradation. But that's just my opinion and I can see plenty of room to disagree.
Are you talking about the so called assault weapons ban that was really the 'how it looks not how it works ban'?
That was pure show to 'be doing somthing about crime' when in reality it did nothing of the sort. Not that banning guns is eigther constitutional or anti-crime (it's actually pro-crime, the only people you disarm are law abiding ones).
What I'd like to know is what the authors of the constitution said about that line. They went to some length to explain alot of the rest of the constitution so I'm curious as to thier intent. All the rest is bs if they meant one or the other that's then what it says, since the it could be read both ways. At least by modern use of the language, it's possible the useage was unambiguos at the time, just look how 'properly regulated' has shifted to mean legislated instead of functioning and diciplined.
!?!?!? I sincerly hope you're joking. Direct democracy (I assume you mean everyone votes on everything, one citizen=one vote) or even just eliminating the electoral college would do exactly the opposite eventually.
Ever hear of tyrany of the majority, or bread and circuses. Our founding father were smart enough and studied enough history to know better than to trust eigther the government or the masses themselves, but rather to set up a system where small groups of people elect from those they trust to represent thier interests in the government, this is also what the electoral college is supposed to do.
The real problem is the system has steadilly been compromised over time. Between the influx of money for advertising, the break on growth of the house to keep representation per capita ballance where you have a chance to actually know the guy you send (though frankly with the size the house would grow to if they hadn't I'm not shure THAT makes to big a difference now) and the state binding thier electors to mere puppets rather than actually being selected for thier ability rationally and wisely choose a president.
Add in the constant re-interpreting of the constitution till what the judges say it means often has no relationship to what it says, let alone what the founders SAID the MEANT in writing, in public, where the judges could simply read it and apply common sense.
No a direct democracy is far more easily manipulated than a republic. Just tell the people what you want them to believe, add in apeals to authority, greed, entertainment, a nice load of other b.s. propaganda. Lable anyone or group that dissagress 'fringe' or 'cult' or 'terrorist' and the people will be quite happy to vote for thier chains.
"A person can be smart calm savy and wise, but people are stupid panicky sheep" to paraphrase a movie. There is a REASON mob mentality has such negative connotations.
The thing about 1984 is it's deep insight into how governments and relegions and such have manipulated and controlled people since the first homid figured it out, controll peoples gonads and fears and you controll them utterly.
He also showed insight into mechanisms used and was able to project likely ways technology might enhance and transform those methodes as well as add to them.
Trying to say it's just a prediction of ONE political party sub-group in one country (even the USA) is overly narrowing the insight of the man and his work in 1984.
Believe me if Dems had gained the upper hand you would easily find other parallels in thier actions.
A ploy perhaps, but certainly NOT a week one. Controlling a societies sexual outlets is one the major tools for controlling a society.
Just look at the TWO major things almost all religeons do(especially those that wield significant power in the world), tell you you need thier permision to have sex and tell you as long as you follow thier rules that you'll live forever (or equivilant) with rewards. They also tend to tell you that all that is wrong (painfull physically or emotionaly) in your life comes from NOT following thier rules. Governments tend to do the same.
Look at how some of the best advertising works. Once you have a group of people by the gonads they'll do whatever you say, and probably praise you to sky in the process.
Weak? It one of the shurest roads to power for any group.
Gak sorry for replying to myself, but I choped a sentance up thier before the idea was complete and totaly scrambled the meaning.
I said"So dialup sources shouldn't have any significant effect on your download speed unless there are a LOT of them." wich is completely screwed up.
What I meant is the that overhead from dialup sources shouldn't effect download speeds much unless there are a LOT of them, but then you'll be getting the data itself faster (wich is one of the intended strengths of p2p) and would have the same overhead with the same number of fast sources (in any sane p2p app) and wouldn't get anymore file data than your max d/l speed in any case.
I may be mistaken, but I get the impression you think if your recieving part of a file from someone on a slower connection that somehow blocks out ny connections from someone faster. While some p2p apps might limit the number of clients your connected to at once, I dought any limit you to just one or two, and some are configurable.
Dialup sources don't reduce YOUR bandwith any at all, each connection has a tiny overhead, but it's not often time dependant but rather amount of data dependant. So dialup sources shouldn't have any significant effect on your download speed unless there are a LOT of them.
In fact that is one of the primary design strenghts of P2P systems is that they are MEANT to take a whole lot of slow sources and make them effectively one big fat source that can't be killed or ddosed etc. So worrying about dialup users slowing you down makes little sense.
And besides dialup is going to be most of the regular people on the net, it's kinda stupid to cut off most of your potential sources, and somtimes the only source.
Mycroft
Re:Top Five reasons why the space program should b
on
Apollo 12 at 35
·
· Score: 1
Better yet use the moon as a penal colony, much closer than mars. as long some computer tech doesn't find the colony's main computer has gone self aware and get involved in a revolution where they start tossing tons of grain back at us with a mass driver it should work out just fine.
Mycroft (if above don't ring any bells hopefully my pseudonym helps)
As a minor trivia item it was James Dohan who did many of the voices for the animated series, and did them so well the one time I watched one of them I thought they had got MOST of the actors to do the voices.
The man is seriously talented. There is a slashdot article or two about him around here. His having both Alzhiemers(sp?) and Parkinsons is a real shame considering his talents and past (was with the Canadian forces during the invasion of normandy in WWII where he lost a middle finger) not mention how nice everyone who's met him says he is.
Actually it's even worse than that, the main power source is M/AM (using deutrium and anti-deutrium) with an excess of normal matter so the reaction creates a high energy plasma that is piped around for power. And the backup is fusion witch doesn't actually provide enough power for warp flight, but can sustain most of the other systems including (I assume) the transporters.
Both energy source are significantly more powerfull than simple fission (for the same space&weight).
At the current rate of increase it'll be at least 6 months before a transporter is cheaper than a gas for most commutes.:)
Actually it's not just suv's that are bit more prone to agressive 'I'm big so OF COURSE I can push you around, cut you off, ride your bumber because you're not doing 30mph over,etc,', but also larger trucks, Especially the ones that are jacked 2' higher in the air than will ever make sense.
And while this is mostly just my experience, it's deffinately a tendancy. I put 300-500 miles a week on my car and pay pretty good attention. The smaller vehicles that pull this sort of stunt are almost alwas driven by guys under 30 and women in thier teens and very early twenties, this is a major reason for my suspecting overconfidence.
Oddly enough minivans and pannel trucks(other than those owned by one specific small company out here) seem less likely to drive as agressively as other bigger vehicles.
Carbon dating isn't perfect, but other methods do exist that rely on other principles. Testing them against each other has resulted in higher confidence in thier respective reading and a better understanding of thier margins of error.
In this case c14 dating wouldn't apply directly as stone is not the result of organic processes so something else they believe of the same time period for good reason(we hope) must have been dated. Say if the tools were found burried with someone they would have dated his/her bones.
" The most frequent one that comes to imnd is because i i feel safer in them."
This reason I suspect is a problem in to many cases. Or rather it goes to far for many suv and OTHER big vehical owner.
Not necessarily you, but I've seen to many suv drivers do dangerous and stupid things on the roads that I honestly doubt most of them would do if they didn't have a FALSE sense of invulnerabilty. The only other subset of driver I see routinely doing some of the agressive driving I've seen from to many suv/big truck owners is teenagers who are well known for thier innability to accurately percieve thier own mortality.
I have no problem with suvs/minivans/big trucks(except the really jacked up ones who's headlights are to high off the ground and thus blind everyone in a normal car), it's just the overly large subset of thier drivers who should have thier liscence pulled till they grow the f#*$ up.
Slashdot Mirror
Dagnabit, No coupon with the regular 9600AIW.
Then again no braodband out here, so I doubt I could play this anyway if it really has to download some huge files with storebought version.
Mycroft
Hmmm... indeed.
This sounds like maybe the 1gig 3400 machine has something wonky (or the other somthing tweeked) going on to prevent hl2 from fitting everything it needs into memory. Possibly an older(relatively speaking) vid card that can't hold enough in ram, but if it's definately loading from hard-drive and not just having a brief pause I'd doubt that even more than I already do. Try shutting down as much unessential crap as possible is the best thing I can think of. Especially things like a-v software running in paranoid mode. You might want to check the task manager and see if anything is taking up outrageous amounts of ram. Some hardware loads alot of crap on startup as well (hp printers and hydra's are atrocious, they consider all the little helper apps and scanner previewers as drivers).
Of course it could also be an bug in the game conflicting with somthing specific in the system as well, friend of mine had some obscure usb2 adsl modem who's drivers when combine with a usb web cam prevented one specif online game from working right (would lock the modem completely and crash the game if the webcam was attached) untill he got new drivers for both the cam and the modem.
What I'd like to know is why if person A on slashdot mentions somthing doesn't work for him then if it works for person b, person b almost always seems to assume person a has eigther a crap computer or no brains or both? Could it be things sometimes just don't work the same for everyone? I've seen lots of complaints about various issues people have had with firefox, yet I've had very few and those are mostly 'I'd rather it did x in this case, but the devs had it do y' yet I don't assume without evidence that someone with a problem is some clueless Luser with a 386sx and 512k ram.
Mycroft
Except the assautl weapon ban didnt'. It mostly banned COSMETIC items. kinda like an anti-cyberr terrism law called 'high performance computing ban' that banned plexiglass windows and neon lights and claimed to take high end computers off the streets.
And beside gun bans only hurt those who abide the law, the criminals are still armed and now they know YOU are not.
Mycroft
Me eigther, but I've seen DVD's where the ads at the begining were unskipable barring use of a software player that didn't enforce it.
Mcyroft
Generaly except the argument missatributes the cause of the death. It wasn't the drugs that killed the other person, it was the rash actions of the intoxicated driver, already a seperate crime.
By that reasoning buying a car is why the teacher got hurt therefore lets outlaw buying cars.
It's a well known form of faulty reasoning used to by people when they don't have a real argument. and pretty much discredited.
Mycroft.
No confidence vote? are you refering to impeachment? AFIAK no-confidence votes are part of european politics, not really a US option. For federaly elected jobs (president and congress) you are in untill your term ends and then you have to get re-elected. Though for crimes you can loose the job if impeached.
AFAIK the closest to a no-confidence vote is the vote to retain judges some states have.
Mycroft
I would think not having to worry about re-election gives the statesmen a chance to do just that and not worry about the short term, eg re-election and campaining for it.
On the other hand it means the crap poloticians can feather thier own nest at everyone elses expense without worring about loosing the next election because they don't get to run.
Mycroft
Better yet change it so the number of electoral votes need to remain in office goes up for each re-election attempt. This is just spot brainstorm and not thought out really, but it not focus the president a little more on the will of the people? Then again we might not want a president who jumps to the slightest trend or spends so much time trying garner votes for next time the whole thing becomes a joke.
Mycroft
Except all he seems to want to do is record an over the air broadcast, ie timeshift. Unless they've passed some specific law otherwise that was rulled a non-infringing activity. Sony v betamax.
So while his definition of THIER abuse of copyright is novell, he's not abusing afaik, but ianal and so on.
Mycroft
In part I think this may be a case of what happens when people confuse "intelectual property" with real property.
I think you are both using one term 'product'. in two different ways. When I buy a music cd I can do ANYTHING I want with the cd itself, however there are likely limits imposed by law as to what I can do with content of that cd. Such limits also tend apply to brodcast tv, hd or not.
If he is recieving hdtv over the air, then unless he was asked to sign a contract to buy the tuner, he's not governed by a licence, just the relevant law. Just using the tuner wont cut it anymore than 'by starting this car you agree to only use brandx gas' hidden somewhere in the owners manual would.
It's almost pure fud put out by those that hold copyrights that using/viewing a copyrighted work automatically subjects you to some contract you didn't know about before hand. I say almost because in one case a software eula was upheld, though imnsho the judge stretched an analogy so far to do so it looked more like reductio ad absurdum. Other cases have gone the other way so ymmv,IANAL so get one if you think it matters.
Mycroft
I'll have to dissagree with you, at least on doing this on a federal level, for several reasons.
For one thing federal beaurocracy would cost a fourtune.
They'd probably give a no-bid contract for designing and administering the test to Microsoft.
Spam wouldn't slow down any longer than it would take the spammers to move what they still have in the US to other counrties.
It raises some serious privacy issues.
And most importantly I make a fair amount of money de-lousing computers for people. Sheesh the government forces them to learn this before even getting on the net I'm outa bussiness.
Mycroft
Speaking of kkk members, isn't the one in the congress a democrat.
There are a few racists on BOTH sides. I think I would find the version racism, of treating minorities like they couldn't make it without THIER special help, worse than paranoid rascism of 'their different so they must be bad' I've seen.
At least the one is honest, the other is pure condescenion and degradation. But that's just my opinion and I can see plenty of room to disagree.
Mycroft
Are you talking about the so called assault weapons ban that was really the 'how it looks not how it works ban'?
That was pure show to 'be doing somthing about crime' when in reality it did nothing of the sort. Not that banning guns is eigther constitutional or anti-crime (it's actually pro-crime, the only people you disarm are law abiding ones).
Mycroft
What I'd like to know is what the authors of the constitution said about that line. They went to some length to explain alot of the rest of the constitution so I'm curious as to thier intent. All the rest is bs if they meant one or the other that's then what it says, since the it could be read both ways. At least by modern use of the language, it's possible the useage was unambiguos at the time, just look how 'properly regulated' has shifted to mean legislated instead of functioning and diciplined.
Mycroft
!?!?!? I sincerly hope you're joking.
Direct democracy (I assume you mean everyone votes on everything, one citizen=one vote) or even just eliminating the electoral college would do exactly the opposite eventually.
Ever hear of tyrany of the majority, or bread and circuses. Our founding father were smart enough and studied enough history to know better than to trust eigther the government or the masses themselves, but rather to set up a system where small groups of people elect from those they trust to represent thier interests in the government, this is also what the electoral college is supposed to do.
The real problem is the system has steadilly been compromised over time. Between the influx of money for advertising, the break on growth of the house to keep representation per capita ballance where you have a chance to actually know the guy you send (though frankly with the size the house would grow to if they hadn't I'm not shure THAT makes to big a difference now) and the state binding thier electors to mere puppets rather than actually being selected for thier ability rationally and wisely choose a president.
Add in the constant re-interpreting of the constitution till what the judges say it means often has no relationship to what it says, let alone what the founders SAID the MEANT in writing, in public, where the judges could simply read it and apply common sense.
No a direct democracy is far more easily manipulated than a republic. Just tell the people what you want them to believe, add in apeals to authority, greed, entertainment, a nice load of other b.s. propaganda. Lable anyone or group that dissagress 'fringe' or 'cult' or 'terrorist' and the people will be quite happy to vote for thier chains.
"A person can be smart calm savy and wise, but people are stupid panicky sheep" to paraphrase a movie. There is a REASON mob mentality has such negative connotations.
Mycroft
The thing about 1984 is it's deep insight into how governments and relegions and such have manipulated and controlled people since the first homid figured it out, controll peoples gonads and fears and you controll them utterly.
He also showed insight into mechanisms used and was able to project likely ways technology might enhance and transform those methodes as well as add to them.
Trying to say it's just a prediction of ONE political party sub-group in one country (even the USA) is overly narrowing the insight of the man and his work in 1984.
Believe me if Dems had gained the upper hand you would easily find other parallels in thier actions.
Mycroft
A ploy perhaps, but certainly NOT a week one.
Controlling a societies sexual outlets is one the major tools for controlling a society.
Just look at the TWO major things almost all religeons do(especially those that wield significant power in the world), tell you you need thier permision to have sex and tell you as long as you follow thier rules that you'll live forever (or equivilant) with rewards. They also tend to tell you that all that is wrong (painfull physically or emotionaly) in your life comes from NOT following thier rules. Governments tend to do the same.
Look at how some of the best advertising works.
Once you have a group of people by the gonads they'll do whatever you say, and probably praise you to sky in the process.
Weak? It one of the shurest roads to power for any group.
Mycroft
Gak sorry for replying to myself, but I choped a sentance up thier before the idea was complete and totaly scrambled the meaning.
I said"So dialup sources shouldn't have any significant effect on your download speed unless there are a LOT of them." wich is completely screwed up.
What I meant is the that overhead from dialup sources shouldn't effect download speeds much unless there are a LOT of them, but then you'll be getting the data itself faster (wich is one of the intended strengths of p2p) and would have the same overhead with the same number of fast sources (in any sane p2p app) and wouldn't get anymore file data than your max d/l speed in any case.
Again sorry for the screwup.
Mycroft
I may be mistaken, but I get the impression you think if your recieving part of a file from someone on a slower connection that somehow blocks out ny connections from someone faster. While some p2p apps might limit the number of clients your connected to at once, I dought any limit you to just one or two, and some are configurable.
Dialup sources don't reduce YOUR bandwith any at all, each connection has a tiny overhead, but it's not often time dependant but rather amount of data dependant. So dialup sources shouldn't have any significant effect on your download speed unless there are a LOT of them.
In fact that is one of the primary design strenghts of P2P systems is that they are MEANT to take a whole lot of slow sources and make them effectively one big fat source that can't be killed or ddosed etc. So worrying about dialup users slowing you down makes little sense.
And besides dialup is going to be most of the regular people on the net, it's kinda stupid to cut off most of your potential sources, and somtimes the only source.
Mycroft
Better yet use the moon as a penal colony, much closer than mars. as long some computer tech doesn't find the colony's main computer has gone self aware and get involved in a revolution where they start tossing tons of grain back at us with a mass driver it should work out just fine.
Mycroft (if above don't ring any bells hopefully my pseudonym helps)
As a minor trivia item it was James Dohan who did many of the voices for the animated series, and did them so well the one time I watched one of them I thought they had got MOST of the actors to do the voices.
The man is seriously talented. There is a slashdot article or two about him around here. His having both Alzhiemers(sp?) and Parkinsons is a real shame considering his talents and past (was with the Canadian forces during the invasion of normandy in WWII where he lost a middle finger) not mention how nice everyone who's met him says he is.
Mycroft
Actually it's even worse than that, the main power source is M/AM (using deutrium and anti-deutrium) with an excess of normal matter so the reaction creates a high energy plasma that is piped around for power. And the backup is fusion witch doesn't actually provide enough power for warp flight, but can sustain most of the other systems including (I assume) the transporters. :)
Both energy source are significantly more powerfull than simple fission (for the same space&weight).
At the current rate of increase it'll be at least 6 months before a transporter is cheaper than a gas for most commutes.
Mycroft
Actually it's not just suv's that are bit more prone to agressive 'I'm big so OF COURSE I can push you around, cut you off, ride your bumber because you're not doing 30mph over,etc,', but also larger trucks, Especially the ones that are jacked 2' higher in the air than will ever make sense.
And while this is mostly just my experience, it's deffinately a tendancy. I put 300-500 miles a week on my car and pay pretty good attention. The smaller vehicles that pull this sort of stunt are almost alwas driven by guys under 30 and women in thier teens and very early twenties, this is a major reason for my suspecting overconfidence.
Oddly enough minivans and pannel trucks(other than those owned by one specific small company out here) seem less likely to drive as agressively as other bigger vehicles.
Mycroft
Carbon dating isn't perfect, but other methods do exist that rely on other principles. Testing them against each other has resulted in higher confidence in thier respective reading and a better understanding of thier margins of error.
In this case c14 dating wouldn't apply directly as stone is not the result of organic processes so something else they believe of the same time period for good reason(we hope) must have been dated. Say if the tools were found burried with someone they would have dated his/her bones.
Mycroft
" The most frequent one that comes to imnd is because i i feel safer in them."
This reason I suspect is a problem in to many cases. Or rather it goes to far for many suv and OTHER big vehical owner.
Not necessarily you, but I've seen to many suv drivers do dangerous and stupid things on the roads that I honestly doubt most of them would do if they didn't have a FALSE sense of invulnerabilty. The only other subset of driver I see routinely doing some of the agressive driving I've seen from to many suv/big truck owners is teenagers who are well known for thier innability to accurately percieve thier own mortality.
I have no problem with suvs/minivans/big trucks(except the really jacked up ones who's headlights are to high off the ground and thus blind everyone in a normal car), it's just the overly large subset of thier drivers who should have thier liscence pulled till they grow the f#*$ up.
Mycroft