See, the point is we're talking about a bus, which is longer than 10 feet and which has no chance of accelerating fast enough to lift the front.
Apparently he actual shot was done with a ramp and a kicker plate which pushed the front of the bus up -- thus the cat-like spring into the air which I mentioned -- which is what compensated for the effect I'm talking about. Without that it would have gone down how I said -- minus the bus landing upside down below the gap, because there wasn't a gap for it to fall through.
Which is why 24 is the most realistic show ever. The only unrealistic part is that we have to believe that everyone coordinates their bathroom breaks for the commercials.
Seems to me one day the terrorists will take advantage of that, and move when they know Jack is on the can.
I was just watching an old episode of Sliders the other day where the characters are carrying pump-action shotguns. Every time they cut to a new scene, the characters would re-pump their shotguns. Which was rather amusing considering that they hadn't fired a single round...
Maybe they think it's like an air BB gun, where if you pump it multiple times you get a stronger shot.
It's not the mass I was concerned with, it's the length. The front of the bus could be falling for a full second before the rear of the bus left the ramp, meaning it has already started to fall and the overall effect is to give the bus angular momentum, making it spin in a forward summersault.
Apparently they got around this in the movie shot by having a kicker plate that raised the front of the bus but not the back.
The second is more of a ballet move, in which the attacker kicks forward w/ one leg and backwards with the other, thus balancing total momentum and keeping himself more or less stationary.
Only partially, since an actual spring-split style ballet move would be a terrible kick. Most martial arts moves involve matched motion in two directions, but the "backward" move is normally not as strong. If they aren't kicking anyone, the jump-kicking martial artist remains in place simply because despite kicking their legs about in the air they haven't actually changed their total momentum. If they do kick someone, they would necessarily expect to be pushed backwards.
Unless, of course, there is some sort of incline for a takeoff (ever notice how the Duke boys always manage to find that conveniently placed incline?) or the second section is lower than the first, thus allowing for the jump to complete depsite the drop in altitude. (As the camera appeared to make the situation in Speed.)
I don't recall (been a long time since I watched the movie and I'm not watching it again), but I remember it looking like both a case of the 2nd section being lower and a ramp. The camera didn't show the ramp, but the bus' front end lifted up, as though it was a cat (a Cat Bus of course) leaping.
But the thing that was most ridiculous about this scene was that it was a bus. It's one thing when a Charger jumps a gap with a ramp. A bus, even going very fast, is going to have plenty of time where its front end is falling while the back end is still supported and even going up on the ramp. The result is going to be angular momentum imparted to the bus. So what should have happened is the front end of the bus dipped down faster than the center of mass, causing it to miss the lower section and end up landing upside down on the ground below.
I'm all for suspension of disbelief and unrealistic physics in action sequences, but busses jumping missing highway sections was just stupid.
BTW, if you want to see what is to my knowledge the ultimate example of ludicrous driving physics, watch Transporter 2.
Suggesting that the inability to search e-mail in legacy systems is "destruction of evidence" is more than a bit silly in my personal opinion.
Describing it as accidental destruction of evidence though is perfectly accurate, at least from a non-technical legal point of view.
"Through what appears to be a combination of gross communication failures, an ill-conceived plan of document retention and lackluster oversight by outside counsel, Intel has apparently allowed evidence to be destroyed."
That's pretty much what you're describing, right? Large organizations with completely inadequate data retention, which inevitably destroys data irrespective of that data's importance, in large degree because the company just doesn't have a solid plan in place? That's all AMD is alleging, that their system was inadequate to the task, not that Intel deliberately crippled their email system to lose emails they didn't want showing up during discovery. The fact that this isn't uncommon in email systems makes the argument more believable, not less.
If they were alleging deliberate destruction of evidence, that would be a whole different ball of wax.
Wow, you took that "The LiveCD was the right solution all along bit" and ran with it, eh? I mean, you seriously beat that horse well into its afterlife.
Yes, and I will continue doing so as long as you suggest that you weren't helped at all, because that is obviously a blatant lie you are using to slander a community. You were helped, the solution you said was "physically impossible" not only was physically possible, it was the correct solution. You were a whiny and insulting bitch about it. The contrast is amazing, and bears repeating.
If the first reply had been to format all drives, and I eventually had to resort to doing that, would that have been "the right solution all along"?
No, that's a last-ditch solution you don't want to try first.
Are you mental? It wasn't it being the 1st reply that made it right, it was it being right. If it had been the 4th reply that gave the right answer, I'd be saying "But the 4th reply was correct!" Booting off the Live CD isn't a last ditch solution, it's the easiest and best solution. The only way to fix the problem was to edit a config file on your HD. That required booting the computer into an OS capable of mounting the HD. The only feasible way to do that is with an Install CD. The logic is simple, and it was laid out for you amply well in the thread. You refused to acknowledge it. That doesn't mean they didn't help you. It means you are an idiot.
If finding someone I knew with a high-speed connection and CD burner were easy, I would have done that from the beginning. It wasn't. My brother's a 90+ minute drive away.
And instead of saying that, or "I would make a Live CD, but the only one I have convenient access to is an hour and a half away", you just slagged off everyone who made the suggestion as not helping and proving everything about Ubuntu's philosophy was bullshit. The only thing that you proved was that no matter how much you blather about people reading your posts, your posts simply and deliberately did not contain the information needed for the forumgoers to know what solution would work for you. You apparently like it that way, because you not only refrained from giving information like this, you refrained from answering any other specific questions.
Sad. And in the end, you were given the answer right away, even though you insulted them and everyone else for giving it to you.
A Live CD was not the right solution all along, simply because it should have been possible to fix from the install CD. Well, except replace "was" with "should have been".
Exactly. It wasn't possible. It is completely retarded to say that a Live CD was not a solution because something that wasn't a solution wasn't a solution. Something is a solution if it fixes your problem. Live CD fixed your problem in the easiest way possible, ergo it was the right solution.
You can say whatever "should" bullshit you want. "Should" and $0.50 gets you a cup of cheap coffee. You were given the right answer, and did everything possible to deny it, even though that's what you ended up doing. Truly sad.
Which is it: is the install CD a LiveCD, or isn't it?
What a stupid question, especially since you already know the answer. At the time of your slashdot post, Ubuntu Install CD == Ubuntu Live CD, thus the confusion. At the time of your post on the Ubuntu forums, install CD != live CD. Nobody on the ubuntu forum seemed to be confused on this issue, so why are you even bringing it up?
The funny part? Not only did the Ubuntu forum posters give you a solution to your problem, Ubuntu itself fixed your problem into the future, both by improving Grub and by making sure that anyone with an install CD also had a live CD.
The reason this is funny is because it means that Ubuntu learns from its mistakes. You however don't.
No, "Summary: you make the same points over there, so see my reply over there." But since you want me to rep
Do you recall all the people (including but not limited to the Berkeley guy) who insisted that as a logical consequence of having burned the install CD, I must be able to burn a Live CD?
Do you recall the exact some post where he also said "Since you're reading this, you have a computer at your fingertips"? He was pretty clearly implying that you should have access to CD burning technology regardless of the state of your own computer. You of course ignored that part of the post, because you might have had to admit that this indeed was possible, just so you could make a snarky reply, and then complain that nobody helped you. Pathetic, because in reality:
Oh, of course... that's how I eventually resorted to fixing it. It's still poor software design, and depressing that no one admits it.
So what you're telling me is that you've spent all this time bitching about how badly treated you were, how nobody helped you, how everyone gave suggestions that were physically impossible, you're saying that the correct solution, the one you eventually used, was in the very first fucking reply to your question?! And you kept bitching out the community, saying how you should "never have believed all that crap", despite already having been given the correct answer?!
Oh my GOD what an asshat you are!
By the way, everyone admits it is a problem that the installer broke. The installer should not leave the system in an unuseable state. Yet nevertheless "should" and "did" parted ways, and you were left where you were. Yes, that's bad design. This is the part where everyone has sympathy for you, and you're just lying if you say otherwise. Then you decided to come into the community forum with a chip on your shoulder, you told everyone off including the one who gave you the correct answer, and even though they were not responsible for your problem. That is when sympathy turned into hostility. Nobody is responsible for that except you.
That's what happened here: not only did they recommend a solution I couldn't do, they recommended a solution I couldn't do specifically because I listened to them in the first place, and which, if possible, would have rendered the problem moot.
Do you now consider my anger at the suggestion justifiable?
No way, for two reasons: One, you were angry and pissed and telling off the whole community before that person came along, so blaming them for your anger is just a ludicrous lie.
Two, because obviously you could implement their solution, just slightly modified. So a couple people online were allegedly dumb and said use your own burner when you couldn't. That doesn't erase the rest of the thread where people were trying to help you in spite of yourself. And a non-asshat would have replied something like "Obviously I can't use my own burner because the computer won't boot, but assuming I could get ahold of a working computer with a burner, which obviously I can, what would I do next?"
It's funny. You can pick and choose a couple posts out of the whole thread where someone was unreasonable, or where someone was unkind to you. Every post you made in that thread was rude, unhelpful, obnoxious, and filled with resentment that the all-volunteer community didn't magically fix your problem for you without you having to do anything. All before any of your own examples of people being mean to you come into play.
It's so fucking sad. You got the answer in the first reply. You have no right to feel that you weren't helped beyond what you deserved. If your second reply was "I don't have a Live CD, I'll go make one and be back", then that thread would have been nothing but yet another example of a person with trouble in Linux being helped by the community quickly and effectively. Instead, you were an asshat, and try to turn it into an example of the community being unhelpful, but in reality it is just an example of you being an asshat.
See my other reply to you for the rest.
Summary: "I feel a profound sense of entitlement to the efforts of a community of volunteers, because I'm special."
No, if you actually read the thread (*crossing fingers*), I did follow many of their suggestions, specifcally, the ones tailored to the troubleshooting I had already done. None followed up after that.
I read the thread. I read the thread when you first posted this shit, when I was completely willing to go along with your premise that the community (at least one web forum subsection of the community) had treated you badly and refused to help someone in need, since I'd seen it happen before. However your first post before there was a single reply made it clear you weren't giving all the story, hiding the fact that you began with an atagonistic attitude. Your first reply to someone suggesting the live CD proved that you were being a complete asshat, and I was shocked as I kept reading and still saw people trying to help you, while you continued to blow them off.
Every reply you got after that which wasn't an outright flame you should consider a blessing you did not deserve. I sure as fuck wouldn't have replied after your second post.
You protrayed it as an example of the community gone bad. It turns out it was actually an example of an asshat barging into a community and demanding help while insulting those he was demanding help from, and lo and behold, said community didn't like the asshat.
Frankly it continues to amaze me that you want people to read that thread. Your story of being the poor abused supplicant blown off by the evil community works much better when we can't see what an asshole you were. I actually believed you, before I read it and realized the truth.
Is it too much to ask that people read my posts? Are you going to defend the community as a whole, when so many of them didn't bother to read what I had posted?
Some didn't, one even appoligized for it. Are you going to assault the community as a whole when so many of them tried to help you? Yes, yes you are. I find it funny because the one who appoligized really had no need to. You said "no error in burning the CD", but you never said shit about actually checking the md5 of either the CD or the downloaded.iso to verify that the data was correct -- writing the wrong data with no errors is not the same as having the right data.
But apparently you were being given the benefit of the doubt by the guy who appologized. I feel no need to do so. As far as I'm concerned you ran off on this expedition without so much as making sure the boot CD was correctly downloaded. And you'd probably blame the Ubuntu Community Forums for not making the Internet perfect, because you're entitled to an error-free internet connection.
I have to follow their suggestions? Fine, as long as someone can go on record saying "You need proprietary software to run Ubuntu."
Someone, somewhere, has found a Linux live CD useful in fixing a broken windows install when they didn't have a Windows install CD. Therefore you need free software to run Windows? Does that make any sense to you?
But more importantly, that has nothing to do with the fact that you were given a solution to your problem. You invent a reason not to like that answer -- you were running Windows before, so I highly doubt you care about using proprietary software to fix a problem -- just so that you can claim that you got no help. Well, you did. You were just unwilling to do anything about it. That is not the same thing. One is the community being unhelpful, the other is you being a giant asshole.
The only things I felt entitled to were:
1) having my posts read 2) non-miserable software design 3) people following up when I try their suggestions 4) people recommending solutions that are possible given my predicament. 5) that attempting to install Ubuntu would, at worst, not work, NOT that it would lock me out of all OSes.
What kind of rich-boy handed-everything-on-a-platter white priviliged fuck upbringing did
It's a catch 22. More people would use Linux if the games were there. But the games aren't there because not enough people use linux.
Which is why Wine/Cedega exist and why they are both good and bad. Good, because they attempt to break the Catch 22 by bringing the games to Linux without having to have the large user base to justify ports. Bad, because even as the Linux userbase expands because of the increased amount of games, it also removes the incentive for the game makers to make Linux games.
WoW is a perfect example. I'm sure there are a goodly number of people who would be running Windows just for WoW, but instead they can use Linux. Yet Blizzard, who has flatly stated they have no interest in supporting Linux, certainly isn't going to see this as motivation to start doing so. After all, the Linux users get the support they need through Cedega, and if Cedega didn't exist, most of the people would just dual-boot to Windows anyway.
So unfortunately the windows emulators doesn't really break the Catch 22, it just changes the rules. Still, I love having it as a Linux user.
Can't blame him for being pissed, only for being a dick about it. Just my opinion.
You make a good point, and I agree. If he showed any ability to distinguish between his justified anger and his unjustified abuse of community members providing free support for a problem they didn't cause, even in retrospect, then I could also think he maybe has a point.
Who recommends burning a CD from a computer that can't load an OS?
I don't recall them saying it had to be the computer with the problem. Sure, this didn't make it easy for you, but I'm willing to bet that with just a little effort you could have found another computer with a burner and a high speed connection. I'm am 100% certain that it was "physically possible". And if you had done this, your problem would have been fairly simple for the forum members to solve for you. Instead you yelled at and insulted members of a community volunteering to help you with a problem for even suggesting that you take the most straightforward method of fixing the computer, because you "shouldn't have to".
Sorry, but you did have to, "should" doesn't enter into it. You didn't want to. Your problem didn't get fixed. What a surprise.
I listed four things, none of which had anything to do with my attitude, that had to happen, and did happen, for me to be in my predicament. None of them should have happened. Ubuntu should not have recommended Grub, at least not without explaining the possible consequences. Grub should not freeze when it gets that error. The files should be where there's supposed to be. The commands to diagnose should not fail.
Of course! Ubuntu/Grub had a serious bug, and should never have put you in that situation. Sympathy was naturally on your side. You managed to burn through most of that sympathy two sentences into your first post, and you burned through the rest when you replied to serious attempts to help with derision.
If any one of those had not happened, the install would have gone fine. Think about it.
And if you hadn't been an asshat with a sense of entitlement and a "I shouldn't have to" attitude towards self-help, you would have gotten better help to try to fix it when the install didn't go fine. Think about it.
You and the people in that thread are the reason I haven't tried a linux distro since my 3rd and final attempts a few years ago. The guy gave all the information I'd expect a user needing help with 'doze to give (ie. more than enough.) He progressively got more and more frustrated and the kids went for blood.
And if the amount of information given turned out not to be enough, and people on the 'doze forum asked for more, would this 'doze user refuse to provide the information because he felt he shouldn't have to, then blame the forum when he got no help?
"More frustrated"? Sorry, he was a dick from the first post. Back in the day I was in more than one "help with windows" user community forum, and nobody who acted like such a dick as him got any help either. Frankly, he was lucky to get more than one attempt at help after the way he responded. If you think a guy acting like that should be entitled to free help from the community, then fine, don't use Linux, we don't want you in our community.
I find it hard to believe than anyone thinks they could walk into any volunteer-based help group anywhere with that kind of attitude and expect to get help. This is -not- specific to the Linux community.
You pointing to that thread and not seeing that shows everyone else that the fanboys are too obtuse to realize that linux isn't ready for the mainstream desktop.
Yeah, Linux isn't ready for the mainstream desktop because people who walk into a community forum with a sense of entitlement soon find that they aren't entitled to anything. If you want to feel entitled to help regardless of your attitude, then pay for a commercial support contract. Their help desk is paid to listen to asshats who demand that the help desk fix their problem without them doing anything at all. They'll still think you're a dick, but they will keep listening to you because they're paid to. Nobody else will.
But when people recommend doing exactly what I already said I did several times... sorry, problem ain't on my end.
Some did, others asked for actual pertinent information or for reasonable -- even if difficult given your situation -- action to assist them in diagnosing your problem for free. You refused them all regardless, saying "I shouldn't have to". Sorry bucko, you do have to, "should" and "should not" ain't involved. Don't know what your ultimate problem was, but a problem was definitely on your end, sitting in your chair.
Don't give me this crap about reading the posting guidelines only to be angered by the response. You were an asshat from the word "go", treated everyone like shit as if it was their fault you had the problem in the first place. What, you think you're entitled to free help no matter what kind of jerk you are? Walk into a Salvation Army or a free clinic with that kind of attitude and see how far you get, and they at least get paid to be there.
Sorry the ubuntu installer broke. Not sorry about what happened on the forum, because that was a completely and utterly predictable response to your own actions. As in your fault. You keep bringing it up as if anyone should feel sorry for you, and no one does for reasons that are plain as day.
Every day you continue to deny that you had anything to do with that is another day you deny yourself some basic growth as a human being.
What's really upsetting is that I, and my party of missionaries, are due to be sacrificed by a cannibalistic tribe at noon today, and we were really hoping for a Solar eclipse as a result.
It's pretty cool that the cannibalistic tribe's prison has internet terminals. You have to give them credit for that at least.
Okay, I didn't really realize you were taking the devil's advocate position.
The question is really: at what age (or more properly at what state of maturity) do children manage to separate reality from virtual?
Right. One thing that has always bothered me in these debates is that the anti-games side will say "Children shouldn't be playing GTA!" or "Children will mimic anything!" which I agree with completely... except that they want to extend it to teenagers and I think that's ridiculous.
The answer's somewhere inbetween. It'd be awfully nice to have a test that could determine where it is for a given person.
It's not cut and dry, either, because the brain's development is a process. I think ultimately it is up to the parent to decide when their child is ready for certain things. Unfortunately a lot of parents don't want to take the time to determine what games have what content, and worse a large subset of those parents want the government to do the job not only for them but for everyone.
OK, I can agree with that: Section 107 is not a defense against DMCA access control provision violations.
Hooray, logic prevails! Welcome to 1998, glad to have you join us.
I did no such thing. I argued that the GPL claims that you accept it when you run it.
Oh, okay, that almost makes sense. Now, I'm quite certain the GPL is not intended to make that claim. For one, the authors of the GPL have always made that intent clear, and Eben Moglen has always been aware of and supportive of fair use rights. For two, the GPL contains specific language addressing this: "The act of running the Program is not restricted". I'll accept there is ambiguity in the language. You could argue that the act of running the program is not restricted, but the copy necessarily made when running the program is. I think that's a stretch, but it's plausible. Since a lot of contract interpretation is about intent, I think the Preamble would make it difficult for you to make that argument stick in court -- even before you got to the fact that fair use makes the argument moot.
Anyone who interacts with small children -- or even monkeys or parrots -- has seen them imitate behavior.
Of course. And for small children, violent video games can be a very bad influence because a small child does not have a firm grasp on the difference between reality and fantasy.
I think the imitation behavior is so obvious, that the burden of proof is on the people who deny a connection, who say that humans *don't* get more violent from seeing violence.
As we get older (as in, double digits) and our brains incorporate the concepts of reality vs fantasy, we don't imitate in the same way anymore. We will imitate real-life behaviors, what we see our parents and peers do, but we won't arbitrarily imitate simulated actions in a computer.
It's like conditioning -- it only works if you believe you are experiencing real rewards/consequences. Pavlov's experiment wouldn't have worked if he used fake dog food. For a small child a video game can provide an example for emmulation in a very real sense. For older children, the mental rewards of video games are inherently tied to the act of playing a video game, not to the act of performing those same actions in real life.
A teenager is going to imitate their parents, their peers that they look up to, but not the Power Rangers. It is so obvious that the focus of imitation has shifted from simple monkey-see-monkey-do behavior to more social-oriented sophisticated immitation, that I am going to have to turn it around and say the burden is on you to show that they still mindlessly immitate violent behavior they see in a video game.
The reality is that the only children above age 10 that become violent from playing games or watching a movie are the ones that have failed to incorporate the reality/fantasy barrier into their psyche, or in other words they are nuts. How many people have actually comitted violence they learned from entertainment media compared to the number who consume said media? What is the rate per capita of violent sociopaths in the population at large? I think you'll find the numbers are very similar.
For something that is supposedly so automatic, very few people seem to be conditioned by these influences. I'd say whatever our imitative instincts are, they don't apply to fictional material outside of a few extreme degenerate cases.
Yeah, you could consider it an argument in favor of our current path, if you belive preventing an attack on the U.S. is more important than anything else. I realize that. One thing, though, is that to truly accept my argument you would have to believe that our current actions are playing right into our enemy's hands. In which case it's hard to also believe that we should continue with this course of actions.
But really, USAPATRIOT is a domestic thing. It doesn't really affect terrorists either way, but it does make our lives worse. It's part of the government's usual opportunistic power grab mentality.
Let's ignore the attacks on the USS Cole, and the bombing of the Embassy in Kenya and Tanzania, those don't count because they were under the Clinton Administration?
No, they don't count because they didn't happen on U.S. soil. You'd have to be insane to claim that there are fewer terrorist attacks on U.S. interests abroad today.
But the whole argument is that they'd be attacking us here if they weren't attacking us there. Clearly that isn't the case.
The simple answer is to claim the lions rock idea, which does make sense, but you probably don't live next door to a zoo, do you? Statistically you can predict that we should have been attacked in the last six years if we took no precaution, so that means in all likely hood the DHS works.
Statistically the last attack before 9/11 on U.S. soil was in 1993, so no you wouldn't necessarily expect there to have been an attack by now, and the lack of such an attack is completely inconclusive regarding the efficacy of DHS.
So one day after 10 years of peaceful living, I think to myself, well I've never been murdered or robbed, why don't I get rid of my gun and security system? Joe finds this out. Do you think I'm going to be safe the next day?
Well you were safe from Joe for the 10 years before you got the gun and security system, so yeah, I'd think it's safe to say that you overstated the threat of Joe, and really the gun and security system did nothing.
But that's not really the case. Before, you weren't without a security system, it was just a modest and practical one. Then one day Joe broke in, actually walked in by posing as a repair man which is actually his job, and you got all paranoid and decided you needed a gun and a super invasive security system that checked the bodily orfices of everyone that came into your house. Even though none of the security systems you implemented would have prevented Joe's attack, you still maintain that it is necessary. All it does is piss of your family and guests, though.
We fought terrorism before 9/11. We don't need USAPATRIOT or DHS to do it now.
Slashdot Mirror
See, the point is we're talking about a bus, which is longer than 10 feet and which has no chance of accelerating fast enough to lift the front.
Apparently he actual shot was done with a ramp and a kicker plate which pushed the front of the bus up -- thus the cat-like spring into the air which I mentioned -- which is what compensated for the effect I'm talking about. Without that it would have gone down how I said -- minus the bus landing upside down below the gap, because there wasn't a gap for it to fall through.
Which is why 24 is the most realistic show ever. The only unrealistic part is that we have to believe that everyone coordinates their bathroom breaks for the commercials.
Seems to me one day the terrorists will take advantage of that, and move when they know Jack is on the can.
*Yes, I'm aware that would involve killing everyone aboard, and probably destroying the bus anyway
;)
Would have been a better scene.
You must be reading a different post than I. And by the time you get to the 2nd? Please. Pure asshole.
I was just watching an old episode of Sliders the other day where the characters are carrying pump-action shotguns. Every time they cut to a new scene, the characters would re-pump their shotguns. Which was rather amusing considering that they hadn't fired a single round...
Maybe they think it's like an air BB gun, where if you pump it multiple times you get a stronger shot.
It's not the mass I was concerned with, it's the length. The front of the bus could be falling for a full second before the rear of the bus left the ramp, meaning it has already started to fall and the overall effect is to give the bus angular momentum, making it spin in a forward summersault.
Apparently they got around this in the movie shot by having a kicker plate that raised the front of the bus but not the back.
The second is more of a ballet move, in which the attacker kicks forward w/ one leg and backwards with the other, thus balancing total momentum and keeping himself more or less stationary.
Only partially, since an actual spring-split style ballet move would be a terrible kick. Most martial arts moves involve matched motion in two directions, but the "backward" move is normally not as strong. If they aren't kicking anyone, the jump-kicking martial artist remains in place simply because despite kicking their legs about in the air they haven't actually changed their total momentum. If they do kick someone, they would necessarily expect to be pushed backwards.
Unless, of course, there is some sort of incline for a takeoff (ever notice how the Duke boys always manage to find that conveniently placed incline?) or the second section is lower than the first, thus allowing for the jump to complete depsite the drop in altitude. (As the camera appeared to make the situation in Speed.)
I don't recall (been a long time since I watched the movie and I'm not watching it again), but I remember it looking like both a case of the 2nd section being lower and a ramp. The camera didn't show the ramp, but the bus' front end lifted up, as though it was a cat (a Cat Bus of course) leaping.
But the thing that was most ridiculous about this scene was that it was a bus. It's one thing when a Charger jumps a gap with a ramp. A bus, even going very fast, is going to have plenty of time where its front end is falling while the back end is still supported and even going up on the ramp. The result is going to be angular momentum imparted to the bus. So what should have happened is the front end of the bus dipped down faster than the center of mass, causing it to miss the lower section and end up landing upside down on the ground below.
I'm all for suspension of disbelief and unrealistic physics in action sequences, but busses jumping missing highway sections was just stupid.
BTW, if you want to see what is to my knowledge the ultimate example of ludicrous driving physics, watch Transporter 2.
Suggesting that the inability to search e-mail in legacy systems is "destruction of evidence" is more than a bit silly in my personal opinion.
Describing it as accidental destruction of evidence though is perfectly accurate, at least from a non-technical legal point of view.
"Through what appears to be a combination of gross communication failures, an ill-conceived plan of document retention and lackluster oversight by outside counsel, Intel has apparently allowed evidence to be destroyed."
That's pretty much what you're describing, right? Large organizations with completely inadequate data retention, which inevitably destroys data irrespective of that data's importance, in large degree because the company just doesn't have a solid plan in place? That's all AMD is alleging, that their system was inadequate to the task, not that Intel deliberately crippled their email system to lose emails they didn't want showing up during discovery. The fact that this isn't uncommon in email systems makes the argument more believable, not less.
If they were alleging deliberate destruction of evidence, that would be a whole different ball of wax.
You could predict dupes with high accuracy with a one-sided die. :P
Wow, you took that "The LiveCD was the right solution all along bit" and ran with it, eh? I mean, you seriously beat that horse well into its afterlife.
Yes, and I will continue doing so as long as you suggest that you weren't helped at all, because that is obviously a blatant lie you are using to slander a community. You were helped, the solution you said was "physically impossible" not only was physically possible, it was the correct solution. You were a whiny and insulting bitch about it. The contrast is amazing, and bears repeating.
If the first reply had been to format all drives, and I eventually had to resort to doing that, would that have been "the right solution all along"?
No, that's a last-ditch solution you don't want to try first.
Are you mental? It wasn't it being the 1st reply that made it right, it was it being right. If it had been the 4th reply that gave the right answer, I'd be saying "But the 4th reply was correct!" Booting off the Live CD isn't a last ditch solution, it's the easiest and best solution. The only way to fix the problem was to edit a config file on your HD. That required booting the computer into an OS capable of mounting the HD. The only feasible way to do that is with an Install CD. The logic is simple, and it was laid out for you amply well in the thread. You refused to acknowledge it. That doesn't mean they didn't help you. It means you are an idiot.
If finding someone I knew with a high-speed connection and CD burner were easy, I would have done that from the beginning. It wasn't. My brother's a 90+ minute drive away.
And instead of saying that, or "I would make a Live CD, but the only one I have convenient access to is an hour and a half away", you just slagged off everyone who made the suggestion as not helping and proving everything about Ubuntu's philosophy was bullshit. The only thing that you proved was that no matter how much you blather about people reading your posts, your posts simply and deliberately did not contain the information needed for the forumgoers to know what solution would work for you. You apparently like it that way, because you not only refrained from giving information like this, you refrained from answering any other specific questions.
Sad. And in the end, you were given the answer right away, even though you insulted them and everyone else for giving it to you.
A Live CD was not the right solution all along, simply because it should have been possible to fix from the install CD. Well, except replace "was" with "should have been".
Exactly. It wasn't possible. It is completely retarded to say that a Live CD was not a solution because something that wasn't a solution wasn't a solution. Something is a solution if it fixes your problem. Live CD fixed your problem in the easiest way possible, ergo it was the right solution.
You can say whatever "should" bullshit you want. "Should" and $0.50 gets you a cup of cheap coffee. You were given the right answer, and did everything possible to deny it, even though that's what you ended up doing. Truly sad.
Which is it: is the install CD a LiveCD, or isn't it?
What a stupid question, especially since you already know the answer. At the time of your slashdot post, Ubuntu Install CD == Ubuntu Live CD, thus the confusion. At the time of your post on the Ubuntu forums, install CD != live CD. Nobody on the ubuntu forum seemed to be confused on this issue, so why are you even bringing it up?
The funny part? Not only did the Ubuntu forum posters give you a solution to your problem, Ubuntu itself fixed your problem into the future, both by improving Grub and by making sure that anyone with an install CD also had a live CD.
The reason this is funny is because it means that Ubuntu learns from its mistakes. You however don't.
No, "Summary: you make the same points over there, so see my reply over there." But since you want me to rep
Do you recall all the people (including but not limited to the Berkeley guy) who insisted that as a logical consequence of having burned the install CD, I must be able to burn a Live CD?
... that's how I eventually resorted to fixing it. It's still poor software design, and depressing that no one admits it.
Do you recall the exact some post where he also said "Since you're reading this, you have a computer at your fingertips"? He was pretty clearly implying that you should have access to CD burning technology regardless of the state of your own computer. You of course ignored that part of the post, because you might have had to admit that this indeed was possible, just so you could make a snarky reply, and then complain that nobody helped you. Pathetic, because in reality:
Oh, of course
So what you're telling me is that you've spent all this time bitching about how badly treated you were, how nobody helped you, how everyone gave suggestions that were physically impossible, you're saying that the correct solution, the one you eventually used, was in the very first fucking reply to your question?! And you kept bitching out the community, saying how you should "never have believed all that crap", despite already having been given the correct answer?!
Oh my GOD what an asshat you are!
By the way, everyone admits it is a problem that the installer broke. The installer should not leave the system in an unuseable state. Yet nevertheless "should" and "did" parted ways, and you were left where you were. Yes, that's bad design. This is the part where everyone has sympathy for you, and you're just lying if you say otherwise. Then you decided to come into the community forum with a chip on your shoulder, you told everyone off including the one who gave you the correct answer, and even though they were not responsible for your problem. That is when sympathy turned into hostility. Nobody is responsible for that except you.
That's what happened here: not only did they recommend a solution I couldn't do, they recommended a solution I couldn't do specifically because I listened to them in the first place, and which, if possible, would have rendered the problem moot.
Do you now consider my anger at the suggestion justifiable?
No way, for two reasons:
One, you were angry and pissed and telling off the whole community before that person came along, so blaming them for your anger is just a ludicrous lie.
Two, because obviously you could implement their solution, just slightly modified. So a couple people online were allegedly dumb and said use your own burner when you couldn't. That doesn't erase the rest of the thread where people were trying to help you in spite of yourself. And a non-asshat would have replied something like "Obviously I can't use my own burner because the computer won't boot, but assuming I could get ahold of a working computer with a burner, which obviously I can, what would I do next?"
It's funny. You can pick and choose a couple posts out of the whole thread where someone was unreasonable, or where someone was unkind to you. Every post you made in that thread was rude, unhelpful, obnoxious, and filled with resentment that the all-volunteer community didn't magically fix your problem for you without you having to do anything. All before any of your own examples of people being mean to you come into play.
It's so fucking sad. You got the answer in the first reply. You have no right to feel that you weren't helped beyond what you deserved. If your second reply was "I don't have a Live CD, I'll go make one and be back", then that thread would have been nothing but yet another example of a person with trouble in Linux being helped by the community quickly and effectively. Instead, you were an asshat, and try to turn it into an example of the community being unhelpful, but in reality it is just an example of you being an asshat.
See my other reply to you for the rest.
Summary: "I feel a profound sense of entitlement to the efforts of a community of volunteers, because I'm special."
No, if you actually read the thread (*crossing fingers*), I did follow many of their suggestions, specifcally, the ones tailored to the troubleshooting I had already done. None followed up after that.
.iso to verify that the data was correct -- writing the wrong data with no errors is not the same as having the right data.
I read the thread. I read the thread when you first posted this shit, when I was completely willing to go along with your premise that the community (at least one web forum subsection of the community) had treated you badly and refused to help someone in need, since I'd seen it happen before. However your first post before there was a single reply made it clear you weren't giving all the story, hiding the fact that you began with an atagonistic attitude. Your first reply to someone suggesting the live CD proved that you were being a complete asshat, and I was shocked as I kept reading and still saw people trying to help you, while you continued to blow them off.
Every reply you got after that which wasn't an outright flame you should consider a blessing you did not deserve. I sure as fuck wouldn't have replied after your second post.
You protrayed it as an example of the community gone bad. It turns out it was actually an example of an asshat barging into a community and demanding help while insulting those he was demanding help from, and lo and behold, said community didn't like the asshat.
Frankly it continues to amaze me that you want people to read that thread. Your story of being the poor abused supplicant blown off by the evil community works much better when we can't see what an asshole you were. I actually believed you, before I read it and realized the truth.
Is it too much to ask that people read my posts? Are you going to defend the community as a whole, when so many of them didn't bother to read what I had posted?
Some didn't, one even appoligized for it. Are you going to assault the community as a whole when so many of them tried to help you? Yes, yes you are. I find it funny because the one who appoligized really had no need to. You said "no error in burning the CD", but you never said shit about actually checking the md5 of either the CD or the downloaded
But apparently you were being given the benefit of the doubt by the guy who appologized. I feel no need to do so. As far as I'm concerned you ran off on this expedition without so much as making sure the boot CD was correctly downloaded. And you'd probably blame the Ubuntu Community Forums for not making the Internet perfect, because you're entitled to an error-free internet connection.
I have to follow their suggestions? Fine, as long as someone can go on record saying "You need proprietary software to run Ubuntu."
Someone, somewhere, has found a Linux live CD useful in fixing a broken windows install when they didn't have a Windows install CD. Therefore you need free software to run Windows? Does that make any sense to you?
But more importantly, that has nothing to do with the fact that you were given a solution to your problem. You invent a reason not to like that answer -- you were running Windows before, so I highly doubt you care about using proprietary software to fix a problem -- just so that you can claim that you got no help. Well, you did. You were just unwilling to do anything about it. That is not the same thing. One is the community being unhelpful, the other is you being a giant asshole.
The only things I felt entitled to were:
1) having my posts read
2) non-miserable software design
3) people following up when I try their suggestions
4) people recommending solutions that are possible given my predicament.
5) that attempting to install Ubuntu would, at worst, not work, NOT that it would lock me out of all OSes.
What kind of rich-boy handed-everything-on-a-platter white priviliged fuck upbringing did
It's a catch 22. More people would use Linux if the games were there. But the games aren't there because not enough people use linux.
Which is why Wine/Cedega exist and why they are both good and bad.
Good, because they attempt to break the Catch 22 by bringing the games to Linux without having to have the large user base to justify ports.
Bad, because even as the Linux userbase expands because of the increased amount of games, it also removes the incentive for the game makers to make Linux games.
WoW is a perfect example. I'm sure there are a goodly number of people who would be running Windows just for WoW, but instead they can use Linux. Yet Blizzard, who has flatly stated they have no interest in supporting Linux, certainly isn't going to see this as motivation to start doing so. After all, the Linux users get the support they need through Cedega, and if Cedega didn't exist, most of the people would just dual-boot to Windows anyway.
So unfortunately the windows emulators doesn't really break the Catch 22, it just changes the rules. Still, I love having it as a Linux user.
Can't blame him for being pissed, only for being a dick about it. Just my opinion.
You make a good point, and I agree. If he showed any ability to distinguish between his justified anger and his unjustified abuse of community members providing free support for a problem they didn't cause, even in retrospect, then I could also think he maybe has a point.
Who recommends burning a CD from a computer that can't load an OS?
I don't recall them saying it had to be the computer with the problem. Sure, this didn't make it easy for you, but I'm willing to bet that with just a little effort you could have found another computer with a burner and a high speed connection. I'm am 100% certain that it was "physically possible". And if you had done this, your problem would have been fairly simple for the forum members to solve for you. Instead you yelled at and insulted members of a community volunteering to help you with a problem for even suggesting that you take the most straightforward method of fixing the computer, because you "shouldn't have to".
Sorry, but you did have to, "should" doesn't enter into it. You didn't want to. Your problem didn't get fixed. What a surprise.
I listed four things, none of which had anything to do with my attitude, that had to happen, and did happen, for me to be in my predicament. None of them should have happened. Ubuntu should not have recommended Grub, at least not without explaining the possible consequences. Grub should not freeze when it gets that error. The files should be where there's supposed to be. The commands to diagnose should not fail.
Of course! Ubuntu/Grub had a serious bug, and should never have put you in that situation. Sympathy was naturally on your side. You managed to burn through most of that sympathy two sentences into your first post, and you burned through the rest when you replied to serious attempts to help with derision.
If any one of those had not happened, the install would have gone fine. Think about it.
And if you hadn't been an asshat with a sense of entitlement and a "I shouldn't have to" attitude towards self-help, you would have gotten better help to try to fix it when the install didn't go fine. Think about it.
You and the people in that thread are the reason I haven't tried a linux distro since my 3rd and final attempts a few years ago. The guy gave all the information I'd expect a user needing help with 'doze to give (ie. more than enough.) He progressively got more and more frustrated and the kids went for blood.
And if the amount of information given turned out not to be enough, and people on the 'doze forum asked for more, would this 'doze user refuse to provide the information because he felt he shouldn't have to, then blame the forum when he got no help?
"More frustrated"? Sorry, he was a dick from the first post. Back in the day I was in more than one "help with windows" user community forum, and nobody who acted like such a dick as him got any help either. Frankly, he was lucky to get more than one attempt at help after the way he responded. If you think a guy acting like that should be entitled to free help from the community, then fine, don't use Linux, we don't want you in our community.
I find it hard to believe than anyone thinks they could walk into any volunteer-based help group anywhere with that kind of attitude and expect to get help. This is -not- specific to the Linux community.
You pointing to that thread and not seeing that shows everyone else that the fanboys are too obtuse to realize that linux isn't ready for the mainstream desktop.
Yeah, Linux isn't ready for the mainstream desktop because people who walk into a community forum with a sense of entitlement soon find that they aren't entitled to anything. If you want to feel entitled to help regardless of your attitude, then pay for a commercial support contract. Their help desk is paid to listen to asshats who demand that the help desk fix their problem without them doing anything at all. They'll still think you're a dick, but they will keep listening to you because they're paid to. Nobody else will.
But when people recommend doing exactly what I already said I did several times ... sorry, problem ain't on my end.
Some did, others asked for actual pertinent information or for reasonable -- even if difficult given your situation -- action to assist them in diagnosing your problem for free. You refused them all regardless, saying "I shouldn't have to". Sorry bucko, you do have to, "should" and "should not" ain't involved. Don't know what your ultimate problem was, but a problem was definitely on your end, sitting in your chair.
Don't give me this crap about reading the posting guidelines only to be angered by the response. You were an asshat from the word "go", treated everyone like shit as if it was their fault you had the problem in the first place. What, you think you're entitled to free help no matter what kind of jerk you are? Walk into a Salvation Army or a free clinic with that kind of attitude and see how far you get, and they at least get paid to be there.
Sorry the ubuntu installer broke. Not sorry about what happened on the forum, because that was a completely and utterly predictable response to your own actions. As in your fault. You keep bringing it up as if anyone should feel sorry for you, and no one does for reasons that are plain as day.
Every day you continue to deny that you had anything to do with that is another day you deny yourself some basic growth as a human being.
Follow up question: Do they run linux?
What's really upsetting is that I, and my party of missionaries, are due to be sacrificed by a cannibalistic tribe at noon today, and we were really hoping for a Solar eclipse as a result.
It's pretty cool that the cannibalistic tribe's prison has internet terminals. You have to give them credit for that at least.
Okay, I didn't really realize you were taking the devil's advocate position.
The question is really: at what age (or more properly at what state of maturity) do children manage to separate reality from virtual?
Right. One thing that has always bothered me in these debates is that the anti-games side will say "Children shouldn't be playing GTA!" or "Children will mimic anything!" which I agree with completely... except that they want to extend it to teenagers and I think that's ridiculous.
The answer's somewhere inbetween. It'd be awfully nice to have a test that could determine where it is for a given person.
It's not cut and dry, either, because the brain's development is a process. I think ultimately it is up to the parent to decide when their child is ready for certain things. Unfortunately a lot of parents don't want to take the time to determine what games have what content, and worse a large subset of those parents want the government to do the job not only for them but for everyone.
OK, I can agree with that: Section 107 is not a defense against DMCA access control provision violations.
Hooray, logic prevails! Welcome to 1998, glad to have you join us.
I did no such thing. I argued that the GPL claims that you accept it when you run it.
Oh, okay, that almost makes sense. Now, I'm quite certain the GPL is not intended to make that claim. For one, the authors of the GPL have always made that intent clear, and Eben Moglen has always been aware of and supportive of fair use rights. For two, the GPL contains specific language addressing this: "The act of running the Program is not restricted". I'll accept there is ambiguity in the language. You could argue that the act of running the program is not restricted, but the copy necessarily made when running the program is. I think that's a stretch, but it's plausible. Since a lot of contract interpretation is about intent, I think the Preamble would make it difficult for you to make that argument stick in court -- even before you got to the fact that fair use makes the argument moot.
Anyone who interacts with small children -- or even monkeys or parrots -- has seen them imitate behavior.
Of course. And for small children, violent video games can be a very bad influence because a small child does not have a firm grasp on the difference between reality and fantasy.
I think the imitation behavior is so obvious, that the burden of proof is on the people who deny a connection, who say that humans *don't* get more violent from seeing violence.
As we get older (as in, double digits) and our brains incorporate the concepts of reality vs fantasy, we don't imitate in the same way anymore. We will imitate real-life behaviors, what we see our parents and peers do, but we won't arbitrarily imitate simulated actions in a computer.
It's like conditioning -- it only works if you believe you are experiencing real rewards/consequences. Pavlov's experiment wouldn't have worked if he used fake dog food. For a small child a video game can provide an example for emmulation in a very real sense. For older children, the mental rewards of video games are inherently tied to the act of playing a video game, not to the act of performing those same actions in real life.
A teenager is going to imitate their parents, their peers that they look up to, but not the Power Rangers. It is so obvious that the focus of imitation has shifted from simple monkey-see-monkey-do behavior to more social-oriented sophisticated immitation, that I am going to have to turn it around and say the burden is on you to show that they still mindlessly immitate violent behavior they see in a video game.
The reality is that the only children above age 10 that become violent from playing games or watching a movie are the ones that have failed to incorporate the reality/fantasy barrier into their psyche, or in other words they are nuts. How many people have actually comitted violence they learned from entertainment media compared to the number who consume said media? What is the rate per capita of violent sociopaths in the population at large? I think you'll find the numbers are very similar.
For something that is supposedly so automatic, very few people seem to be conditioned by these influences. I'd say whatever our imitative instincts are, they don't apply to fictional material outside of a few extreme degenerate cases.
Yeah, you could consider it an argument in favor of our current path, if you belive preventing an attack on the U.S. is more important than anything else. I realize that. One thing, though, is that to truly accept my argument you would have to believe that our current actions are playing right into our enemy's hands. In which case it's hard to also believe that we should continue with this course of actions.
But really, USAPATRIOT is a domestic thing. It doesn't really affect terrorists either way, but it does make our lives worse. It's part of the government's usual opportunistic power grab mentality.
Let's ignore the attacks on the USS Cole, and the bombing of the Embassy in Kenya and Tanzania, those don't count because they were under the Clinton Administration?
No, they don't count because they didn't happen on U.S. soil. You'd have to be insane to claim that there are fewer terrorist attacks on U.S. interests abroad today.
But the whole argument is that they'd be attacking us here if they weren't attacking us there. Clearly that isn't the case.
The simple answer is to claim the lions rock idea, which does make sense, but you probably don't live next door to a zoo, do you? Statistically you can predict that we should have been attacked in the last six years if we took no precaution, so that means in all likely hood the DHS works.
Statistically the last attack before 9/11 on U.S. soil was in 1993, so no you wouldn't necessarily expect there to have been an attack by now, and the lack of such an attack is completely inconclusive regarding the efficacy of DHS.
So one day after 10 years of peaceful living, I think to myself, well I've never been murdered or robbed, why don't I get rid of my gun and security system? Joe finds this out. Do you think I'm going to be safe the next day?
Well you were safe from Joe for the 10 years before you got the gun and security system, so yeah, I'd think it's safe to say that you overstated the threat of Joe, and really the gun and security system did nothing.
But that's not really the case. Before, you weren't without a security system, it was just a modest and practical one. Then one day Joe broke in, actually walked in by posing as a repair man which is actually his job, and you got all paranoid and decided you needed a gun and a super invasive security system that checked the bodily orfices of everyone that came into your house. Even though none of the security systems you implemented would have prevented Joe's attack, you still maintain that it is necessary. All it does is piss of your family and guests, though.
We fought terrorism before 9/11. We don't need USAPATRIOT or DHS to do it now.