You don't even need to see the screen. By sampling the glare from the monitor (produced by the sweep on the TV tube) you can reconstruct the full picture! Very clever technology, looks like the tinfoil hat brigade aren't going to be getting ANY natural light from now on...
I wish the hell they would just make the the damned thing more stable in the first place.
Windows XP is stable. It's the third-party device drivers that cause the vast majority of the problems. Seriously, get the drivers right and the box will stay up as long as any Linux box. I've got an old PC as a media player, it's got hardly any cruft on it and it's rock solid. I'd quote the uptime, but it's low at the moment due to me doing some electrical work in my flat recently. The only thing that forces a reboot is the odd Windows Update, which is sounds like they've now sorted. Nice. Uptime is stability.
Once the makers of the thousand hardware devices start bundling close-sourced drivers for Linux, you'll see the exact same problems there. I mention closed-source specifically, as the ones that provide OSS drivers "get it" and will have theirs fixed for them as and when required.
Sir, this is the FBI. You recently posted to foo.bloggerbar.com a pornographic image of your new baby boy. Because you posted this horrible pornographic image, I am sorry but we have no chance but to confiscate all evidence, including your child.
Why not? It happened in meatspace here in the UK. A minor celebrity got in trouble over photos of her new baby when she tried to get them developed.
The burden of proof is on the RIAA. They are the ones that are accusing her of downloading music illegally.
Now this is what really bothers me. What "proof" are they offering? A list of dates and IPs? What does that prove? How can they prove (in a legal sense) ANYTHING? Unless they had a tech-savy police officer observe the packets and analyse them, their "proof" is worthless. Their word against mine and they have a financial stake in this. Can you say "conflict of interest"?
If they were to pull the same stunt with me, I'd provide similar "proof" that the lead lawyer on their side is downloading kiddie porn all day. My "proof" is just as valid as theirs. Who do they think they are?
Opinions like this are dark reminders of the day when "mental health" wasn't important.
It's all thetans anyway...
Joking aside, for an interesting real life story on this topic, look up The Guinea Pig Club, a collection of 600 WW2 airmen who were disfigured by burns and the like. Your comment reminded me of it as they were one of the first hospitals to realise the importance of psychological health in the recovery process. In addition to pioneering skin-grafting, the made the men feel part of a group, were relaxed & open about the techniquies they were using. They even served beer in the hospital. Instead of feeling down about their disfigurement, the men looked forward to life.
From the short summary I linked to:
BBC Four: While his technical innovations were remarkable, it seems as though his psychological care was just as important, would you agree with this?
EM: Absolutely. The majority of surgeons see the procedure as a purely technical act. For McIndoe that was only the start. If he hadn't taken any care of the psychological side and only dealt with the technical side, he would still be remarkable. But the fact that he devotes this extraordinary level of care to their psychological reconstruction as well is mind blowing. East Grinstead didn't run like a normal hospital
And if you don't want to say who you're traveling with? Say you're traveling alone... not so hard, is it? What are they, going to deny you access to the airplane because you talked to someone while waiting in line?
If you are Arab, say you are travelling alone and are then seen speaking to other Arabs boarding the same flight, you can bet your ass that you will be denied access. This is what screening is supposed to be looking out for.
This idea has been around for years; it's why many banks and governments offices that deal with the public play musak over a speaker system. It's not for the listening pleasure; it's to make it hard to overhear other customers private conversations.
Because we know little about the subconcious (sp?) mind, and hypnosis probably dabbles about in there. I'm not saying I'm an expert here, just sharing my experience.
I'd prefer to understand the mechanisms before taking part. It would be like having surgery done by someone that didn't know how the body worked. Sure, everyone thinks it won't happen to them, but mental illness hits something like 1 in 4 in the western world. My point on effects being unprovable is that the onset of these illnesses may be decades later. Did the earlier hypnosis trigger it? You'd never know. It's well know than childhood experiences affect how we react to different things. Trauma can cause serious problems later in life.
Basically, IMHO it's a complete black art, messing in an unchartered area. Each to their own, but if I were to even consider using it for some form of quick-fix solution to something, I'd read a whole lot of stuff on it first.
I take it you've never had a PC that overheated before.
He he, I used to deal with it for a living!:-) (as part of other things in my job). I do know how temp is a big factor in electronic failure. We used to test them in heat cupboards to check this out, while running number crunching apps and hitting the fd and hd. The cooler something is, the longer it lasts generally.
Modern PCs have multiple temp sensors, and the first Xbox console has them, along with a variable speed fan. If the device reaches a certain threshold temp, ideally it should shutdown automatically. If it's really nice, it tells you why. That would have maybe prevented your hard-drive failure.
Having the problem presented as memory/cpu gliches isn't a great way to do it. An update could solve this problem, but not the heating problem. Provide that is the issue here, it may be something else entirely.
Doh, also wanted to add...the UK comedy "Little Britain" has a hypnotist character who does all sorts of things like this. E.g. when playing scabble he'll invent new words and trick the other players into thinking they are real. I'm sure the picking up woman thing was in there as well...
A UK TV show, perhaps the police drama "The Bill", covered a story where the police investigated allegations of this. And the hypnotist I met did say that his wife is easilly hypnotised. Make of that what you will...;-)
I'm not a fan of anecdotal stories myself. While my experience wasn't scientific, it was "controlled" to a certain degree. They didn't turn up expecting to be faced with a scepticm, and I got unrestricted access to the subjects.
I probably feel the same way as you on the idea of benefits. Despite now being a believer in the fact that hypnosis isn't a stage trick, I'm not sure if I'd still want it done. The side-effects of messing with your mind in these ways are completely unpredicatable, and if any were to occur, unproveable. Likewise on any benefits. Sure, you could get minor surgery done without anestetic, but is that actually safer than the anestetic?
How many of you have it on the carpet.
on
Xbox 360 Very Unstable
·
· Score: 3, Informative
turning it upside down?/worked on the old PS
A defect caused by a poor design, and only in the early models. Sounds familiar! A moving part was made of plastic and it wore a groove down in it over time. This messed up the lens alignment as it wasn't hitting the disk at 90 degrees. Turning it upsidedown meant that that gravity did the same job as the plastic sled. You could fix it by filling the groove with glue or some other filler to level it off.
My main point: How many of the people with problems have the machine sitting on a carpet? I see this at friends places all the time. Most devices have vent holes on the bottom and passive ventilation is essential from bottom to top. If you place it on a carpet, you cover half of the vents and remove most of the airflow. If the xbox 360 is already a hot potato, this could even lead to a fire hazard. However, it should not be crashing. If it's overheating, the BIOS should notice and shutdown long before you start to get random glitches.
If you don't have a desk to put it on, put a hard-back book between it and the floor.
I didn't "lie". I may have incorrectly said that you "hate" the French, using the wrong word perhaps. That is not a "lie" and you'd think someone as pedantic as you over word use would not stoop to such hypocracy. "You said it, it's not true, that makes it a lie.". Hmm, no. That's not what a lie is. A lie is a deliberate distortion of the truth. Me saying "you hate France" is at worst an incorrect assertion. Had you first told me you love French people, THEN you might say I was lying. But you didn't and I made an obvervation based on your attitude.
I didn't admit "I lied" because I didn't lie. I have already said (numerous times) that I may have been extreme in my obvservation on your "hatred".
Then you compare my "lies" to politician lies! lol, madness!! My "lie" was an incorrect assertion on your feelings to the French. Politicians lies kill people generally. Saying "I think you hate the French" is not on a par with "we did not use phosphurus weapons" and it is ludicrus to suggest so.
Grow up. And I note that not once did you respond to any of your bitchslapping on WW1/WW2 history. I think it is you who has little character...from my point of view you are the one shouting "liar liar, pants on fire" like a child.
PS I still think you hate French people. Oh the "lies", please, won't someone please think of the children!
A couple of years ago, I'd have agreed with you. I was definately a sceptic. Then I met a semi-famous UK stage hypnotist, who was filming scenes for a TV show. A friend in the production company wanted to use my flat to film a few scenes, which was pretty interesting.
Two people showed up to be on the show that day. They had never met and I got the chance to chat to both folk prior to the hynosis. They were then taken into my lounge and put under, on camera. They filmed for a bit then did individual scenes on camera. While this was done, the other person was sent to my kitchen where I was hanging around. I got the chance to speak to them on a one-to-one basis, while they were under.
Boy was I shocked!! The "couple" had never met before yet each of them spent the whole time bitching about the other!! They were under the impression that they were at a marrage guidance councilor, with their "relationship" in trouble. The bloke was bitching about how their last vacation was to location X while he wanted to go to Y.
As soon as I clocked, fuck, this is for real, I started to get really paranoid. I was completely concious of everything I said, in order to not break the spell (well, I was the host and that would be bad karma), but most importantly I was concerned that I could do damage to them in some way! Of course, the whole time I was trying not piss myself laughing at them, me and one of the production girls (who was working on paperwork in the room) kept on giving each other funny glances at some of the more outlandish things they were saying.
This completely changed my point of view on the subject. The couple did not know each other. I was there when they first met, just me, the two of them, and one of the production crew (a close friend of mine). There was no reason for them to keep up some sort of stage act for my benefit.
Both people were the kinds of folk you'd normally expect to do such a TV show. The reality TV generation, anxious for their 15 minutes. Anyway, this leads me to my thoughts on how it works, something I read a little on after this experience. Many believe that it is simply suggestion, and people just go along with it for the ride. I'd agree that was a large part of it; you have to be willing to get put under. However, there is definately something deep within the subconcious at work here, as the reactions to my questions about their "partner" were really heartfelt and genuine. They really believed that they were married, and to be honest that scared the shit out of me.
All of the girls on the production team avoided the hypnotist after hours. I wonder why...;-)
and I think this is a step forward to the point where browsers will refuse to give SSL encryption without SSL authentication succeeding.
That would be bad. My people run home webservers for their own personal use. Using authentication is neccessary if, like me, you have a large mp3 collection on the web. If you use authentication, then you really ought to use encryption. I've looked into getting a proper cert, but it's extremely expensive and a recurring fee. It's just not worth it. A lot of people use SSL for different things without needing to get a certificate from one of the trust authorities.
Sigh, this is going nowhere fast, but you seem annoyed and I'm getting a kick out of that. Beats doing work...
I NEVER said I hated the French.
So, let me get this straight. To like someone is to post slanderous comments in an international message board, where you are guaranteed offence if you want it? Which is it? Do you like them or hate them? Something in between?
Now, AT THE VERY LEAST, you don't like the French, of that there is no doubt. Perhaps I was wrong in saying you "hated" them, but from everyone elses point of view (including the mods it seems), you are simply France bashing. You may call me a liar for pointing out your irrational hatred, but you are beginning to look sillier with every post.
The truth is that you are not smart enough to see the subtle differences, so you ridicule those who do because you're ashamed of your shortcomings
The "subtle differences" are just semantics, no more. Whether you hate because of colour, race, nationality, religion or football team, it still makes you an arsehole. Somehow, many people in this world think nationalism is acceptible, while racism is wrong. Nope, sorry, you are still a twat. You hate^H^H^H^H "insult" the French because of where they are from. Sad.
It doesn't take someone who is "smart enough" to know that racism, nationalism and sectarianism are different hatreds. You are either trying to be funny, or pretty dumb to think for a second that I genuinely believe that they are 100% the same thing.
I detest everything your current government has done. Yet, never once have I given any American hastle over that, even though you are culpable for voting this lot in. Twice. I would go so far as to say I hate who's running the show. However, I'm not going to hold that against the citizens of the country, especially 50 years after-the-fact as you seem to be doing on your unneccessary anti-France rants. Nine times out of ten, you'll get a +1 funny for your "france surrenders" type of gag. Now and again, you'll annoy someone like me who will take issue with you and have a go back. You can't take a little bit of critism without screaming like a child. How would you feel if you were the butt of jokes all the time?
Just because you aren't intelligent enough to see the differences, that is no reason to pretend there are no differences.
And vice versa if you sed s/differences/similarities/g. I think that's what you are getting so worked up about. You don't have an issue with Nationalism, do you? But you feel racism is wrong, and you don't like being put in the same the boat. Well, most Europeans dislike 'em all, as these wars we are discussing are a direct result of that sort of thinking.
Who quit first and why? Germany, and because they were incapable of continuing.
Em, no. Bulgaria quit first. And quit with the high and mighty "we saved your ass". The USA was only a leaked memo away from being on the Germans side. It was only when they threatened you directly (almost, via Mexico) did you decide to pick a side. It could even be argued that you were allies with the hun in the earlier part of the war. And going back on an earlier post; you did not "turn the tide". You were only involved in the last couple of months, and the troops had numerous commanding and equipment problems. On volume of numbers, had the war gone on, it WOULD have made a huge difference. But that's not what happened. I'd say "too little too late", but that would not be fair on anyone that took part.
STOP BEING SUCH A LIAR
Please point out my "lies" or STFU. I'll leave the end of your rant alone, it needs no response. How old are you anyway?
I'm neither "outsmarted" or "embarased". Care to try again? And try to respond to my points this time, instead of cherry-picking the bits that you think will make your point.
Sigh, you are splitting hairs. You are still a fascist. I couldn't care less if you hate someone due to race, nationality or religion. It's all the same to me, weak minded morons with a master-race fetish.
I demonstrated you were wrong (numerous times)
Where? I mean, like are we taking part in the same conversation? The only real statement you make is about historians agree WW2 would have been different without the US. I replied by saying "what's your point?" I repeat that, what is your point? What have you demonstrated that I have wrong? I'm on the edge of my seat here...
you're making claims of persecution that are false.
You hate French people, which you have already admitted to. You slander them and make silly torts that would be better off in a monty python movie. All I'm doing is suggesting that you only show your own ignorance by continuing to do so.
The fact that I lump rascism into the same bucket as all the other trends you seem to adore means nothing. Oh woopie do, your stricter definition of racism is more accurate to the dictionary definition. Wow. You've won man, can I be your friend?
and because of their cowardly behavior in several conflicts.
Which? WW2 we have already discussed, and although you probably don't agree, any sane person with some historical context would not shit on the French for surrendering in WW2. Would you have prefered that those who could fight just lined up in front of the tanks with their non-existant army? Did you expect the same in Iraq? If you don't stand a chance, it is better to hide and fight another day.
If you in any way hate the French because of the recent Iraq war, then you are a pathetic fool. You guys were wrong in every single respect. The French were right, and my country (UK) also wrong. Do you dislike people for being correct? Perhaps that's why you seem to be taking this discussion so personally...
No, what happened here is that you decided to take on a more educated, less impressionable, less naive person who out-thought you.
Hmm, no. First off, someone with those attributes would NEVER make such a statement...if you want to go a little further why not have a couple of ribs removed, then you can suck yourself off to your hearts content.
And because of your inability to keep pace, you have decided to resort to the trick five year old children use, "YES HUH! You're WRONG, and I'M RIGHT!!!"
Excuse me? What are you smoking? I replied stating history and facts, referencing REAL things that happened and the context in which they happened. You are the one arguing like the five year old, you undeservingly arrogant fool.
is a lie. Germany quit, FIRST, because they were losing.
No, the war wasn't going anywhere and it was having a MASSIVE toll on all sides. The rules of war had changed and WW1 was VERY different to all preceeding conflicts, in terms of the armed losses as well as the civilian ones, which was a new development. Throw in mustard gas and some other nasty weapons. Probably the Germans (+ their many allies) would have lost, we'll never know. But NO nation wanted it to continue. I think you underestimate the reality of trench warfare and the costs involved, for very little gain. We are talking entire towns deprived of all the eligable men across my country. Armies fought for months to gain a couple hundred yards. In fact, in early 1918 the Germans made massive advances and it took a long time and a massive force to push them back to the former Hindenburg Line. Towards the end, the climate in German was becoming very anti-war, with the country beginning to fall apart. It is then that they started to look for an easy way out that might allow the leaders to stay in power. That failed ultimately and it changed the face of the entire continent.
By the way, I'm planning to print that, just so my friends can laugh at you.
Knock yourself out. If your friends are even remotely interested in a random argument you had on slashdot, then I feel for you, I really do. Get some new ones if you can.
last time I looked, we were allies. If we could focus on the issues rather than attacking each other, maybe we could actually get something productive accomplished.
Hear hear!!
We don't have the fascist government/corporation linking that rules US politics; our leaders aren't tied to these businessmen.
This comment is so naive that it warrents no further response. Do you truly believe that nonsense? I'd expect that kind of lunacy from a fifteen year old.
Oh, come on! Are you trying to say Harliburton hasn't done well out of this? The arms industry? All of your top leaders are from these comunities. Money buys the US election, almost every one has been won by the party that spent the most. Why would business seek to make political bribes (sorry, "campaign contributions") without return on investment? If you think that the US government isn't knee-deep in big business, then it is you who is naive. The PNC owns your government and they aren't being secret about it; they never have.
A bit of Schadenfreude? Guess it depends on how far back you want to look at our history
Of course not. I am merely trying to explain what war is. It amazes me how many Americanms are completely gung-ho when it comes to starting a war elsewhere, but apparently 9-11 "changed the world forever". Without having experience a real war on your homeland, you have zero concept of how it really is. 9-11 is the closest I can think off.
(you went back to WWII, so obviously Pearl Harbor comes to mind)
Not on the mainland, doesn't count. It's still got that "far off" feeling. The same things apply here, e.g. no one gave a toss about the IRA until they switched from blowing up bits of Northern Ireland and instead went to England. And that's just a short ferry ride away. The "somewhere else" syndrome is strong anywhere.
Obviously we loved it, and did it for the oil, so we could pay double what we used to at the pumps...sheesh.
What makes you think it was done for your benefit? Sheesh, look at the oil profits for last year, up up up and away!! And now that the second largest reserves on the planet are now under allied control, peak oil is less of a concern for the US economy. But it wasn't about the oil, just the money that it brings.
You make it sound like the U.S. just sat back and watched WWII...shame on you.
I'm not saying those who fought did not experience it. Of course they did! What America missed was the bombered towns & bridges. The dead civilians & children. Having half your town die over the course of a few years. You had plenty of GIs lost (coincidentally I was reading some correspondance between the airborne and home just a week ago, heartbreaking), but you still have not "seen" war as a society.
When you say "war" to a European, we think of Spitfires, Fokkers and hiding terrified in a bomb shelter (many of which are still around). Even when you catch a train on the subway the images of people sheltering in the same tunnels is never far from your mind. When you say it to a typical American, images of Hollywood spring to mind...
Maybe you should take a closer look at some of the graveyards littered with American bodies around Europe.
I have. It's pretty fucked up when you can stand a central spot and see gravestones as far as the eye can seen in every direction.
Why would you attempt to make any linkage between WWII and the Iraqi war
Because it explains why Europe isn't all that into this whole war thing. Americans, without a grasp of how war affects people on the ground, don't have that cultural memory, and are more inclined to choose war war over jaw jaw.
Find a single historian that will tell you the Allies had any chance of winning the war without the US.
Likewise Great Britain and the Soviets. What's your point? Besides, you are wrong, many historians reckon the Russians would have won regardless, it would have just taken a couple more years. They reached Berlin first, something I'm sure you don't know.
It was specifically the US intervening in BOTH wars that turned the tide, and claiming otherwise is historical revisionism and ignorance.
No, not the case for WW2. Hitlers downfall was invading Russia. D-day and all that followed would not have been possible had the entire German army been in France.
I'm no WW1 expert, but you are the first person I've heard say that it was the US that was instrumental in "winning" it. (the fact that you think we "won" clearly shows your ignorance). The end was called because it wasn't going anywhere. No one "won" WW1 and the losses were a large part of the French rolling over in WW2.
France is a COUNTRY, you do know what that is right? And you do realize that the French are NOT a race right?
You are insulting someone based off where they are born. OK, that's not "race" per se, but it is rascism. We can argue semantics here, but it doesn't change the fact that you are acting like a fascist, the very enemy you supposedly "saved" me from.
what did your post add to the discussion?
Go back and look at your post I replied to and ask the same question.
Europe opposed Iraq because their own selfish interests were with Saddam.
Your world view is entirely moronic. One or two businessmen in one or two countries may have felt that way, but not "Europe opposed because...". We don't have the fascist government/corporation linking that rules US politics; our leaders aren't tied to these businessmen. Most of us opposed it because it was based on lies and done entirely for profit. Go check my posting history on any political topic if you don't believe me. We said it was wrong, a bad idea and we were 100% right. Your (and my) children will pay the price when the second generation of Iraqi orphans fly planes into our buildings in retaliation for the horror yours and my (UK) country have inflicted on them. We've already had our first homeland islamic terrorism ever as a direct result of this. And we are doing this to make the world "safer"? You actually buy that?
Speaking of which, 9/11 was the US's only taste of conflict on your homeland. How did it feel? Did you like it? That was just a taster of WAR, something you guys cannot seem to grasp. War is like 9/11 everyday, for a few years. That feeling of fear, never knowing what's next? Oh yes, that's war. Europe on the other hand KNOWS war; we've seen enough of it. I just have to look out of my lounge window to see the impact of WW2; new out-of-place buildings, bunkers etc, they are all there. Europe opposed the war because we know what war is. The US seems to think it's all a movie or a video game, something you can just change the channel on when you are bored.
And the main reason they're against corporations raping the people is because they think that's the job of the government.
Although the fact that their country still exists because of The US doesn't seem to slow the French down.
You did study US history in school, right? You do know that your country exists because of them?
Plus "The US" is way wrong, it was the allies and you are insulting everyone who laid down their lives for your freedom when you assert otherwise. In terms of numbers, the US's involvement wasn't all that great; Russia won WW2 if anything. Anyone who says "France surrenders" is also saying "I am completely ignorant on matters of history".
So the question is why to you feel the need to stick up for the French?
Many of us will stand up against racism, regardless of who it's against. I don't think I've ever even met a Frenchman, but I'll still take their side over that of a nazi like yourself. "We hate them because of where they are from". Good going, way to drag the human race back a half-century.
Oh right, they can't fight for themselves (ZING!).
Go read about WWI. It's even topical, what with 11/11 just passing. Learn what happened. Find out why France was unable to mount a defense in WW2. Then, learn how resistance fighting works, essentially you don't meet the invading troops on the battlefield. You hide and mount insurgent attacks. Sound familiar? They really ought to teach you guys some history in school, and not the propaganda "USA! USA! USA!" stuff you currently get indoctinated with from kindergarden up. Perhaps then you might learn something and stop continuing to make the same mistakes. The methods used in Iraq are very similar to the French resistance, and if your leaders weren't so moronic and ignorant they might have seen it coming. We tried to warn them regardless, but hey, they just stupid I guess.
Oh, and BTW, for a "zing" you have to be either funny or insightful. You failed.
Slashdot Mirror
You don't even need to see the screen. By sampling the glare from the monitor (produced by the sweep on the TV tube) you can reconstruct the full picture! Very clever technology, looks like the tinfoil hat brigade aren't going to be getting ANY natural light from now on...
Windows XP is stable. It's the third-party device drivers that cause the vast majority of the problems. Seriously, get the drivers right and the box will stay up as long as any Linux box. I've got an old PC as a media player, it's got hardly any cruft on it and it's rock solid. I'd quote the uptime, but it's low at the moment due to me doing some electrical work in my flat recently. The only thing that forces a reboot is the odd Windows Update, which is sounds like they've now sorted. Nice. Uptime is stability.
Once the makers of the thousand hardware devices start bundling close-sourced drivers for Linux, you'll see the exact same problems there. I mention closed-source specifically, as the ones that provide OSS drivers "get it" and will have theirs fixed for them as and when required.
Why not? It happened in meatspace here in the UK. A minor celebrity got in trouble over photos of her new baby when she tried to get them developed.
We've got to think of the children!
Now this is what really bothers me. What "proof" are they offering? A list of dates and IPs? What does that prove? How can they prove (in a legal sense) ANYTHING? Unless they had a tech-savy police officer observe the packets and analyse them, their "proof" is worthless. Their word against mine and they have a financial stake in this. Can you say "conflict of interest"?
If they were to pull the same stunt with me, I'd provide similar "proof" that the lead lawyer on their side is downloading kiddie porn all day. My "proof" is just as valid as theirs. Who do they think they are?
You could say that about many new laws; an uninformed electorate seems to be the norm these days, hell it's encouraged.
It's all thetans anyway...
Joking aside, for an interesting real life story on this topic, look up The Guinea Pig Club, a collection of 600 WW2 airmen who were disfigured by burns and the like. Your comment reminded me of it as they were one of the first hospitals to realise the importance of psychological health in the recovery process. In addition to pioneering skin-grafting, the made the men feel part of a group, were relaxed & open about the techniquies they were using. They even served beer in the hospital. Instead of feeling down about their disfigurement, the men looked forward to life.
From the short summary I linked to:
If you are Arab, say you are travelling alone and are then seen speaking to other Arabs boarding the same flight, you can bet your ass that you will be denied access. This is what screening is supposed to be looking out for.
This idea has been around for years; it's why many banks and governments offices that deal with the public play musak over a speaker system. It's not for the listening pleasure; it's to make it hard to overhear other customers private conversations.
I'd prefer to understand the mechanisms before taking part. It would be like having surgery done by someone that didn't know how the body worked. Sure, everyone thinks it won't happen to them, but mental illness hits something like 1 in 4 in the western world. My point on effects being unprovable is that the onset of these illnesses may be decades later. Did the earlier hypnosis trigger it? You'd never know. It's well know than childhood experiences affect how we react to different things. Trauma can cause serious problems later in life.
Basically, IMHO it's a complete black art, messing in an unchartered area. Each to their own, but if I were to even consider using it for some form of quick-fix solution to something, I'd read a whole lot of stuff on it first.
He he, I used to deal with it for a living! :-) (as part of other things in my job). I do know how temp is a big factor in electronic failure. We used to test them in heat cupboards to check this out, while running number crunching apps and hitting the fd and hd. The cooler something is, the longer it lasts generally.
Modern PCs have multiple temp sensors, and the first Xbox console has them, along with a variable speed fan. If the device reaches a certain threshold temp, ideally it should shutdown automatically. If it's really nice, it tells you why. That would have maybe prevented your hard-drive failure.
Having the problem presented as memory/cpu gliches isn't a great way to do it. An update could solve this problem, but not the heating problem. Provide that is the issue here, it may be something else entirely.
Doh, also wanted to add...the UK comedy "Little Britain" has a hypnotist character who does all sorts of things like this. E.g. when playing scabble he'll invent new words and trick the other players into thinking they are real. I'm sure the picking up woman thing was in there as well...
A UK TV show, perhaps the police drama "The Bill", covered a story where the police investigated allegations of this. And the hypnotist I met did say that his wife is easilly hypnotised. Make of that what you will... ;-)
I probably feel the same way as you on the idea of benefits. Despite now being a believer in the fact that hypnosis isn't a stage trick, I'm not sure if I'd still want it done. The side-effects of messing with your mind in these ways are completely unpredicatable, and if any were to occur, unproveable. Likewise on any benefits. Sure, you could get minor surgery done without anestetic, but is that actually safer than the anestetic?
A defect caused by a poor design, and only in the early models. Sounds familiar! A moving part was made of plastic and it wore a groove down in it over time. This messed up the lens alignment as it wasn't hitting the disk at 90 degrees. Turning it upsidedown meant that that gravity did the same job as the plastic sled. You could fix it by filling the groove with glue or some other filler to level it off.
My main point: How many of the people with problems have the machine sitting on a carpet? I see this at friends places all the time. Most devices have vent holes on the bottom and passive ventilation is essential from bottom to top. If you place it on a carpet, you cover half of the vents and remove most of the airflow. If the xbox 360 is already a hot potato, this could even lead to a fire hazard. However, it should not be crashing. If it's overheating, the BIOS should notice and shutdown long before you start to get random glitches.
If you don't have a desk to put it on, put a hard-back book between it and the floor.
I didn't "lie". I may have incorrectly said that you "hate" the French, using the wrong word perhaps. That is not a "lie" and you'd think someone as pedantic as you over word use would not stoop to such hypocracy. "You said it, it's not true, that makes it a lie.". Hmm, no. That's not what a lie is. A lie is a deliberate distortion of the truth. Me saying "you hate France" is at worst an incorrect assertion. Had you first told me you love French people, THEN you might say I was lying. But you didn't and I made an obvervation based on your attitude.
I didn't admit "I lied" because I didn't lie. I have already said (numerous times) that I may have been extreme in my obvservation on your "hatred".
Then you compare my "lies" to politician lies! lol, madness!! My "lie" was an incorrect assertion on your feelings to the French. Politicians lies kill people generally. Saying "I think you hate the French" is not on a par with "we did not use phosphurus weapons" and it is ludicrus to suggest so.
Grow up. And I note that not once did you respond to any of your bitchslapping on WW1/WW2 history. I think it is you who has little character...from my point of view you are the one shouting "liar liar, pants on fire" like a child.
PS I still think you hate French people. Oh the "lies", please, won't someone please think of the children!
A couple of years ago, I'd have agreed with you. I was definately a sceptic. Then I met a semi-famous UK stage hypnotist, who was filming scenes for a TV show. A friend in the production company wanted to use my flat to film a few scenes, which was pretty interesting.
Two people showed up to be on the show that day. They had never met and I got the chance to chat to both folk prior to the hynosis. They were then taken into my lounge and put under, on camera. They filmed for a bit then did individual scenes on camera. While this was done, the other person was sent to my kitchen where I was hanging around. I got the chance to speak to them on a one-to-one basis, while they were under.
Boy was I shocked!! The "couple" had never met before yet each of them spent the whole time bitching about the other!! They were under the impression that they were at a marrage guidance councilor, with their "relationship" in trouble. The bloke was bitching about how their last vacation was to location X while he wanted to go to Y.
As soon as I clocked, fuck, this is for real, I started to get really paranoid. I was completely concious of everything I said, in order to not break the spell (well, I was the host and that would be bad karma), but most importantly I was concerned that I could do damage to them in some way! Of course, the whole time I was trying not piss myself laughing at them, me and one of the production girls (who was working on paperwork in the room) kept on giving each other funny glances at some of the more outlandish things they were saying.
This completely changed my point of view on the subject. The couple did not know each other. I was there when they first met, just me, the two of them, and one of the production crew (a close friend of mine). There was no reason for them to keep up some sort of stage act for my benefit.
Both people were the kinds of folk you'd normally expect to do such a TV show. The reality TV generation, anxious for their 15 minutes. Anyway, this leads me to my thoughts on how it works, something I read a little on after this experience. Many believe that it is simply suggestion, and people just go along with it for the ride. I'd agree that was a large part of it; you have to be willing to get put under. However, there is definately something deep within the subconcious at work here, as the reactions to my questions about their "partner" were really heartfelt and genuine. They really believed that they were married, and to be honest that scared the shit out of me.
All of the girls on the production team avoided the hypnotist after hours. I wonder why... ;-)
"Although the fact that their country still exists because of The US doesn't seem to slow the French down."
I think we are arguing for the same thing here. The post I replied to was ignorantly asserting that the US were the only ones involved.
Another phrase that's getting popular is "infected with DRM". It's another good re-name to something that the public will understand.
That would be bad. My people run home webservers for their own personal use. Using authentication is neccessary if, like me, you have a large mp3 collection on the web. If you use authentication, then you really ought to use encryption. I've looked into getting a proper cert, but it's extremely expensive and a recurring fee. It's just not worth it. A lot of people use SSL for different things without needing to get a certificate from one of the trust authorities.
I NEVER said I hated the French.
So, let me get this straight. To like someone is to post slanderous comments in an international message board, where you are guaranteed offence if you want it? Which is it? Do you like them or hate them? Something in between?
Now, AT THE VERY LEAST, you don't like the French, of that there is no doubt. Perhaps I was wrong in saying you "hated" them, but from everyone elses point of view (including the mods it seems), you are simply France bashing. You may call me a liar for pointing out your irrational hatred, but you are beginning to look sillier with every post.
The truth is that you are not smart enough to see the subtle differences, so you ridicule those who do because you're ashamed of your shortcomings
The "subtle differences" are just semantics, no more. Whether you hate because of colour, race, nationality, religion or football team, it still makes you an arsehole. Somehow, many people in this world think nationalism is acceptible, while racism is wrong. Nope, sorry, you are still a twat. You hate^H^H^H^H "insult" the French because of where they are from. Sad.
It doesn't take someone who is "smart enough" to know that racism, nationalism and sectarianism are different hatreds. You are either trying to be funny, or pretty dumb to think for a second that I genuinely believe that they are 100% the same thing.
I detest everything your current government has done. Yet, never once have I given any American hastle over that, even though you are culpable for voting this lot in. Twice. I would go so far as to say I hate who's running the show. However, I'm not going to hold that against the citizens of the country, especially 50 years after-the-fact as you seem to be doing on your unneccessary anti-France rants. Nine times out of ten, you'll get a +1 funny for your "france surrenders" type of gag. Now and again, you'll annoy someone like me who will take issue with you and have a go back. You can't take a little bit of critism without screaming like a child. How would you feel if you were the butt of jokes all the time?
Just because you aren't intelligent enough to see the differences, that is no reason to pretend there are no differences.
And vice versa if you sed s/differences/similarities/g. I think that's what you are getting so worked up about. You don't have an issue with Nationalism, do you? But you feel racism is wrong, and you don't like being put in the same the boat. Well, most Europeans dislike 'em all, as these wars we are discussing are a direct result of that sort of thinking.
Who quit first and why? Germany, and because they were incapable of continuing.
Em, no. Bulgaria quit first. And quit with the high and mighty "we saved your ass". The USA was only a leaked memo away from being on the Germans side. It was only when they threatened you directly (almost, via Mexico) did you decide to pick a side. It could even be argued that you were allies with the hun in the earlier part of the war. And going back on an earlier post; you did not "turn the tide". You were only involved in the last couple of months, and the troops had numerous commanding and equipment problems. On volume of numbers, had the war gone on, it WOULD have made a huge difference. But that's not what happened. I'd say "too little too late", but that would not be fair on anyone that took part.
STOP BEING SUCH A LIAR
Please point out my "lies" or STFU. I'll leave the end of your rant alone, it needs no response. How old are you anyway?
I'm neither "outsmarted" or "embarased". Care to try again? And try to respond to my points this time, instead of cherry-picking the bits that you think will make your point.
I demonstrated you were wrong (numerous times)
Where? I mean, like are we taking part in the same conversation? The only real statement you make is about historians agree WW2 would have been different without the US. I replied by saying "what's your point?" I repeat that, what is your point? What have you demonstrated that I have wrong? I'm on the edge of my seat here...
you're making claims of persecution that are false.
You hate French people, which you have already admitted to. You slander them and make silly torts that would be better off in a monty python movie. All I'm doing is suggesting that you only show your own ignorance by continuing to do so.
The fact that I lump rascism into the same bucket as all the other trends you seem to adore means nothing. Oh woopie do, your stricter definition of racism is more accurate to the dictionary definition. Wow. You've won man, can I be your friend?
and because of their cowardly behavior in several conflicts.
Which? WW2 we have already discussed, and although you probably don't agree, any sane person with some historical context would not shit on the French for surrendering in WW2. Would you have prefered that those who could fight just lined up in front of the tanks with their non-existant army? Did you expect the same in Iraq? If you don't stand a chance, it is better to hide and fight another day.
If you in any way hate the French because of the recent Iraq war, then you are a pathetic fool. You guys were wrong in every single respect. The French were right, and my country (UK) also wrong. Do you dislike people for being correct? Perhaps that's why you seem to be taking this discussion so personally...
No, what happened here is that you decided to take on a more educated, less impressionable, less naive person who out-thought you.
Hmm, no. First off, someone with those attributes would NEVER make such a statement...if you want to go a little further why not have a couple of ribs removed, then you can suck yourself off to your hearts content.
And because of your inability to keep pace, you have decided to resort to the trick five year old children use, "YES HUH! You're WRONG, and I'M RIGHT!!!"
Excuse me? What are you smoking? I replied stating history and facts, referencing REAL things that happened and the context in which they happened. You are the one arguing like the five year old, you undeservingly arrogant fool.
is a lie. Germany quit, FIRST, because they were losing.
No, the war wasn't going anywhere and it was having a MASSIVE toll on all sides. The rules of war had changed and WW1 was VERY different to all preceeding conflicts, in terms of the armed losses as well as the civilian ones, which was a new development. Throw in mustard gas and some other nasty weapons. Probably the Germans (+ their many allies) would have lost, we'll never know. But NO nation wanted it to continue. I think you underestimate the reality of trench warfare and the costs involved, for very little gain. We are talking entire towns deprived of all the eligable men across my country. Armies fought for months to gain a couple hundred yards. In fact, in early 1918 the Germans made massive advances and it took a long time and a massive force to push them back to the former Hindenburg Line. Towards the end, the climate in German was becoming very anti-war, with the country beginning to fall apart. It is then that they started to look for an easy way out that might allow the leaders to stay in power. That failed ultimately and it changed the face of the entire continent.
By the way, I'm planning to print that, just so my friends can laugh at you.
Knock yourself out. If your friends are even remotely interested in a random argument you had on slashdot, then I feel for you, I really do. Get some new ones if you can.
Hear hear!!
This comment is so naive that it warrents no further response. Do you truly believe that nonsense? I'd expect that kind of lunacy from a fifteen year old.
Oh, come on! Are you trying to say Harliburton hasn't done well out of this? The arms industry? All of your top leaders are from these comunities. Money buys the US election, almost every one has been won by the party that spent the most. Why would business seek to make political bribes (sorry, "campaign contributions") without return on investment? If you think that the US government isn't knee-deep in big business, then it is you who is naive. The PNC owns your government and they aren't being secret about it; they never have.
A bit of Schadenfreude? Guess it depends on how far back you want to look at our history
Of course not. I am merely trying to explain what war is. It amazes me how many Americanms are completely gung-ho when it comes to starting a war elsewhere, but apparently 9-11 "changed the world forever". Without having experience a real war on your homeland, you have zero concept of how it really is. 9-11 is the closest I can think off.
(you went back to WWII, so obviously Pearl Harbor comes to mind)
Not on the mainland, doesn't count. It's still got that "far off" feeling. The same things apply here, e.g. no one gave a toss about the IRA until they switched from blowing up bits of Northern Ireland and instead went to England. And that's just a short ferry ride away. The "somewhere else" syndrome is strong anywhere.
Obviously we loved it, and did it for the oil, so we could pay double what we used to at the pumps...sheesh.
What makes you think it was done for your benefit? Sheesh, look at the oil profits for last year, up up up and away!! And now that the second largest reserves on the planet are now under allied control, peak oil is less of a concern for the US economy. But it wasn't about the oil, just the money that it brings.
You make it sound like the U.S. just sat back and watched WWII...shame on you.
I'm not saying those who fought did not experience it. Of course they did! What America missed was the bombered towns & bridges. The dead civilians & children. Having half your town die over the course of a few years. You had plenty of GIs lost (coincidentally I was reading some correspondance between the airborne and home just a week ago, heartbreaking), but you still have not "seen" war as a society.
When you say "war" to a European, we think of Spitfires, Fokkers and hiding terrified in a bomb shelter (many of which are still around). Even when you catch a train on the subway the images of people sheltering in the same tunnels is never far from your mind. When you say it to a typical American, images of Hollywood spring to mind...
Maybe you should take a closer look at some of the graveyards littered with American bodies around Europe.
I have. It's pretty fucked up when you can stand a central spot and see gravestones as far as the eye can seen in every direction.
Why would you attempt to make any linkage between WWII and the Iraqi war
Because it explains why Europe isn't all that into this whole war thing. Americans, without a grasp of how war affects people on the ground, don't have that cultural memory, and are more inclined to choose war war over jaw jaw.
Likewise Great Britain and the Soviets. What's your point? Besides, you are wrong, many historians reckon the Russians would have won regardless, it would have just taken a couple more years. They reached Berlin first, something I'm sure you don't know.
It was specifically the US intervening in BOTH wars that turned the tide, and claiming otherwise is historical revisionism and ignorance.
No, not the case for WW2. Hitlers downfall was invading Russia. D-day and all that followed would not have been possible had the entire German army been in France.
I'm no WW1 expert, but you are the first person I've heard say that it was the US that was instrumental in "winning" it. (the fact that you think we "won" clearly shows your ignorance). The end was called because it wasn't going anywhere. No one "won" WW1 and the losses were a large part of the French rolling over in WW2.
France is a COUNTRY, you do know what that is right? And you do realize that the French are NOT a race right?
You are insulting someone based off where they are born. OK, that's not "race" per se, but it is rascism. We can argue semantics here, but it doesn't change the fact that you are acting like a fascist, the very enemy you supposedly "saved" me from.
what did your post add to the discussion?
Go back and look at your post I replied to and ask the same question.
Your world view is entirely moronic. One or two businessmen in one or two countries may have felt that way, but not "Europe opposed because...". We don't have the fascist government/corporation linking that rules US politics; our leaders aren't tied to these businessmen. Most of us opposed it because it was based on lies and done entirely for profit. Go check my posting history on any political topic if you don't believe me. We said it was wrong, a bad idea and we were 100% right. Your (and my) children will pay the price when the second generation of Iraqi orphans fly planes into our buildings in retaliation for the horror yours and my (UK) country have inflicted on them. We've already had our first homeland islamic terrorism ever as a direct result of this. And we are doing this to make the world "safer"? You actually buy that?
Speaking of which, 9/11 was the US's only taste of conflict on your homeland. How did it feel? Did you like it? That was just a taster of WAR, something you guys cannot seem to grasp. War is like 9/11 everyday, for a few years. That feeling of fear, never knowing what's next? Oh yes, that's war. Europe on the other hand KNOWS war; we've seen enough of it. I just have to look out of my lounge window to see the impact of WW2; new out-of-place buildings, bunkers etc, they are all there. Europe opposed the war because we know what war is. The US seems to think it's all a movie or a video game, something you can just change the channel on when you are bored.
And the main reason they're against corporations raping the people is because they think that's the job of the government.
Right....
You did study US history in school, right? You do know that your country exists because of them?
Plus "The US" is way wrong, it was the allies and you are insulting everyone who laid down their lives for your freedom when you assert otherwise. In terms of numbers, the US's involvement wasn't all that great; Russia won WW2 if anything. Anyone who says "France surrenders" is also saying "I am completely ignorant on matters of history".
So the question is why to you feel the need to stick up for the French?
Many of us will stand up against racism, regardless of who it's against. I don't think I've ever even met a Frenchman, but I'll still take their side over that of a nazi like yourself. "We hate them because of where they are from". Good going, way to drag the human race back a half-century.
Oh right, they can't fight for themselves (ZING!).
Go read about WWI. It's even topical, what with 11/11 just passing. Learn what happened. Find out why France was unable to mount a defense in WW2. Then, learn how resistance fighting works, essentially you don't meet the invading troops on the battlefield. You hide and mount insurgent attacks. Sound familiar? They really ought to teach you guys some history in school, and not the propaganda "USA! USA! USA!" stuff you currently get indoctinated with from kindergarden up. Perhaps then you might learn something and stop continuing to make the same mistakes. The methods used in Iraq are very similar to the French resistance, and if your leaders weren't so moronic and ignorant they might have seen it coming. We tried to warn them regardless, but hey, they just stupid I guess.
Oh, and BTW, for a "zing" you have to be either funny or insightful. You failed.