The "problem" is that hunting rifles shoot fairly flat over a fairly long distance. Sitting in the street outside can be just as dangerous, provided the "hick" in question knows how to shoot. A stand-still is never the point when someone is trying to evict you - they're taking your house, and you'll fight to the death for it - taking as many people as you can with you. Or at least that's the general idea.
Especially their anal cavity, which is now stretched far and wide.
(It's okay. I live in PA. I'm sure there are some laws here that have similar "wtf" properties.)
Hell, I'm as "liberal" (not my choice of words) as they come, and this is all bullshit. Still, though. I saw the informal poll on msnbc.com today - out of the 27503 people who have voted (and that isn't a very high number, nor is it in any way to be an illustrative cross section of our society), 97% of the people said it was bullshit, 3% said it was okay. Even if it's inaccurate, it gives me hope that our country isn't filled with complete fucking idiots, so I'd like to go ahead and believe it anyway.
Rather than flame the SCOTUS (as if it matters what we think about them), maybe we should turn our zeal towards our state congressmen. I also fired one off to my federal representitive, but he's catching flak for shady practices in one form another, so I don't think many people are going to listen to what he says in Congress.
I kinda don't want things to just work, I want to struggle with them (just so I can actually learn what I'm doing). With that said, however, I was following whatever documentation on the gentoo site (I just went back to find it, and I can't find the exact page I WAS on, but I see it's still part of the "hardened" gentoo install documentation: http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/hardened/selinux/sel inux-x86-handbook.xml?part=1&chap=7 ). Chances are there was a new way to do it and they hadn't gotten around to updating the documentation (I'm positive I was reading right from the install documentation when I ran into this problem.) ,br>
Anyway, thanks for your help.:]
If you don't mind me asking, what did you do exactly to get it to work? emerge emu10k1 and then adding it to the autoload.modules.d/kernel-2.6 file (I forget the actual name:( ) resulted in an error on boot for me:(
The problem is, after that, the drivers get worse and worse as they're keyed toward the new card. The older detonators were beautiful on my ti4600. The newer they got, the worse the quality / framerate was in the same game. It was very sad for me:(
Negative. It said on their site they weren't ready. I tried with the newest version I could get and it wouldn't load with the 2.6 kernel - it would say "emu10k1 not supported with this kernel" or something along those lines.
Also, unless I'm actually trying to use the onboard sound, that's off in the BIOS.
Now that I have my new ram and harddrive for my primary computer, I'll be able to give it a whirl on the secondary (or tertiary) computer. My memory is too faulty for me to tell you exactly what I did right now. Either it'll work now or won't - we'll find out. (I was using Gentoo - emerging the newest emu10k1 didn't work - that much I know. We'll find out if it was just hiding from me somewhere:) )
I don't mean to troll or be flamebait here, but why would you buy an extremely high end video card if you're going to use Linux? Generally speaking, people buy high end video cards to game. The overwhelming majority of games only have Windows support (though things are happily getting better for the Linux crowd, if slowly). Linux support isn't generally a concern for those spending 600$ on a video card to play video games with.
Completely off topic, but are there emu10k1 drivers for the 2.6.x kernel yet? I've been using Windows on my second computer (used for IM, email, browsing, and PVR) for months while I wait for things to get caught up on that front. I'm not interested in switching back over to Linux if I'm not even going to have sound to watch any of the shows I record. I last tried to get things to work about 4 or 5 months ago, to no avail (onboard sound wasn't supported either, apparently:( ).
...a 64 mb GeForce 2 doesn't cost 80$. if you can even find one, I'd imagine it'd be closer to 15 or 20$. Hell, the FX 5200 can be picked up for 35$, and that's with the GeForce 3s and GeForce 4s in between there.
I agree that the blame is spread around. I think the finger has to be pointed, but if it's going to be pointed, it has to be pointed at all guilty parties, regardless of degree. No one gets off the hook.
Normally I wouldn't even care, but when someone decides that only one group is to blame and the others get off scot free, then I take exception.
If I push open your front door because the builder didn't even bother to put a door knob on it, much less a lock, then is the fault mine? Absolutely. Does the builder have responsibility in this too? Absolutely again.
In a way, hackers are kind of pointing out that the emperor has no clothes.
With that said, I, personally, find nothing wrong with a hacker trying to figure out an application / OS's vulnerabilities and sharing them with the developers. And if they do nothing about it, share it with the rest of the world to force them to. People deserve doors to have doorknobs and doors that have locks. People also deserve software that doesn't leave their anal cavity wide open for nefarious probing.
However, the hackers who run amok trying to fuck things up as much as possible for the sake of fucking it up (more script kiddies than hackers, but to the average person, they're the same); they still need to be blamed. They're still the primary culprits. But software companies can be extremely negligent at times, and thus, they bear some responsibility too. Responsibility isn't finite; just because we have two parties doesn't mean the major culprit receives any less of the blame.
I disagree to the highest degree imaginable. I'm basically saying that the end justifies the means. You're saying that the end vindicates the means. They are completely different concepts, and frankly, I find yours to be infinitely more silly than my own. Obviously, these are opinions. But I would never be able to accept yours. Sorry.
I don't necessarily see how "all war is evil" necessarily equates to "we must never go to war." I'm sorry, but all war is evil. But sometimes, if there are no other viable alternatives, we have to deal with that necessary evil. Try to avoid war at almost all costs...but sometimes it is necessary to step up to the plate. But there's no use in glorifying war or trying to make it sound better than it is; war is hell. People die. Civilians and soldiers. Teenagers will be screaming for their mother as they try to keep their guts from spilling out. Civilians will be burnt alive or killed by shrapnel. Children will see their parents cut down in front of their eyes. War is an evil act. Period. But in very specific instances, it does do some good. Sometimes evil acts have that effect. That doesn't make them less evil.
Sadly, that isn't what they do. My colo was slammed by Spamhaus a year ago because someone else there was spamming. The spammer was eventually booted - before the entire colo was blacklisted - but the person (whoever that was) that was managing this particular blacklist situation decided the colo wasn't helpful enough - and without any spam known to be currently flowing out their pipes - added them anyway.
There went the business of many webhosts who rented dedicated servers there, as their clients could no longer count on their emails being received. If it were just one IP, that was fine, but they blocked the IP of every computer this colo owned (at that datacenter, at least). Hundreds of dedicated boxes were down, and that's just boxes - not the drastically large number of people who were screwed over.
After a few months, things worked out. Spamhaus fixed the problem eventually, after daily emails back and forth between the colo and Spamhaus' contact.
I should note that this is the information the colo filtered out to their clients. With that said, my dedicated box, with 5 IPs assigned to it, was blocked because someone else's box, with a completely different IP, was spamming and the tech at the colo didn't bow to Spamhaus's demands. Blanket blocking is ridiculous - it's one thing to block an IP, it's another thing to block the entire range of IPs.
Extremely good point. I hate not having the opportunity to get a full transcript of the interview. Quoting bits and pieces is almost always done in a nefarious plot to take things out of context and make it into a "story".
Kind of related, but off topic: how many of you actually want a "story"? I don't want a story. I want information. Information with easy access to the data that spawned that particular interpretation. Hearing a writer's interpretation of the information that has been interpreted from the data - aka a story (often with even more levels of interpretation in between, depending on their sources) is essentially useless. I guess it's time to shut up again.:]
In all honesty, he should've said something _more_ than "Theo is difficult". Perhaps "There have been $NUMBER of discussions in the past regarding this exact topic. Theo and his group has their opinion and we have ours. I honestly don't care if the whole world agrees with me or not - to me, and to the people involved with Linux - it's the right way. I'd rather not become embroiled in this unwinnable dogmatic debate once again."
Granted, Linus could have been drastically more offensive, but he declined to start a flamewar, especially not with Forbes acting as the middleman. But just saying "Theo's difficult and I don't wish to comment further" is a little too trite. It would be more classy if he expounded a bit without implying that Theo is the pain in the ass that he so obviously is - but I guess suppose "classy" is a subjective term anyway. I'll stop rambling now.
Nah, you just assume I was. That's why I said "you" all through there, and not "you Europeans", or "you Asians" or "you Africans" or "you Antarcticans". I was only referring to him, in and of himself.
I thought about the same thing when I was writing the post, but I decided I was clear on him being the dumbass. Apparently, I wasn't as clear as I could have been. My bad! Hopefully you got a good laugh out of it, at least:]
That, like my previous analogy, is a bit misrepresentitive of the situation.
Would I be offended if I went to an establishment that specializes in rentals. I rented a carpet cleaner there because I have a cat that sheds excessively. I'm a repeat customer because the rates are good and the service is excellent.
Someone else, whom I've never met, also rents carpet cleaners there. Except they use them to do all sorts of nefarious and unsavory things (imagine what you will). It becomes known where this person rents this carpet cleaner - the town is outraged at his actions - so they blacklist everyone who continues to rent at that store.
Here's where we come to a possible branch in the road.
Possibility A: Suddenly people stop talking to you because you rent there. Are you angry? Absolutely. Mostly because people are jackasses. But you still stop using that rental establishment because they do nothing to alleviate the problem.
Possibility B: The rental establishment finds out - at the same time as everyone else - that their equipment is being misused and does not allow this person to rent from them again. Everyone who shops at this rental establishment is blacklisted anyway - not because the establishment has done anything unsavory on their part, but because the person making the blacklist is completely inept and power hungry. You, as a customer, are still being fucked over - not because of the rental establishment, but because of the person compiling the blacklist. What do you do? Do you leave your rental establishment, even though they're doing nothing wrong? Or do you beat the shit out of the person making the blacklist for being a cockbiting fucktard?
And that's the problem here. When blacklists are updated in an objective and timely manner, they're great. But, as seems to happen over time, the likelyhood of that happening seems to deteriorate. Entirely too many respectible and honest colos and hosting providers are being fucked by blacklist maintainers who have lost their way.
I thought my analogy was "they're both guilt by unknowing association, no matter what the end result is". Should I spell it out some more? I'll do so now.
In our current situation, we have a guy renting a car at Enterprise. He deals crack.
Later another man goes to Enterprise and rents a car. He knows nothing of the crack dealer out and about in the streets selling his wares. All he knows is that Enterprise has cars to rent and he needs to rent a car. So he rents the car.
The crack dealer gets caught by the police. Since he was driving a car he rented by Enterprise, according to this particular blacklist's logic, every person who rents a car at Enterprise is now guilty. The police then go out and arrest everyone who rented a car at Enterprise, because they are also guilty.
What's the core situation I'm describing, regardless of the details? "If someone does something wrong while using ServiceX, everyone at ServiceX gets punished. Even if no one using ServiceX knows any of the other clients there, regardless of whether they were also breaking RuleY, they get punished as well, just because someone they never met fucked up."
That's how this "analogy" I've posited ties in with this situation. If I had spent more time developing an analogy, that would be fine. But I guess I expected the readers here to use at least a smidgen of their supposed IQs and figure this out on their own. It may not be pretty, but it does work.
It's only emotional if the user lets it be. Really, if you can't manage to subdue your emotions and register the meaning behind the words, you're even less useful than my analogies. Excessive emotionality in a logical debate has no place. If you fall victim to that trap, then I'm sorry, but the argument obviously wasn't meant for you.
Right. So then, when those of us with a.nu domain name have to change ISPs constantly because, at any moment, someone else - that we have no control over - ruins the ability for our email to go to its intended recipient - we just get to suck up the 10$ a pop IP change for our DNS? And even aside that point - while hosting companies are a dime a dozen, good hosting companies aren't. When we do find one that is, we want to stick with it. It's not their fault someone else at the same colo decided to be a jackass.
Basically, you're just saying "too bad, I'm tired of being screwed over by spam" and I'm saying "wtf, I'm tired of being screwed over by blacklists that can't keep their shit together". Put yourself in my shoes - when a blacklist service becomes worse than spam and the spammers who spam, what does that tell you about blacklists?
Why is it so hard for you people to not take things so literally? I don't understand why it's me who needs to calm down. it seems like you, rather, need to chill out and just absorb the essence of what I'm saying - NOT the literal truth. Really, I'm just pointing out a like situation. Whether it's worse or better than the current one is moot - it follows the same pathways to get from point A to point B, though points A and B are different between the two scenarios. If you refuse to use your brain (and I know you have one) to discern the pathways analogies are meant to illustrate, then I truly have no idea what else I can do for you.
Slashdot Mirror
The "problem" is that hunting rifles shoot fairly flat over a fairly long distance. Sitting in the street outside can be just as dangerous, provided the "hick" in question knows how to shoot. A stand-still is never the point when someone is trying to evict you - they're taking your house, and you'll fight to the death for it - taking as many people as you can with you. Or at least that's the general idea.
I can't say I blame them.
Especially their anal cavity, which is now stretched far and wide.
(It's okay. I live in PA. I'm sure there are some laws here that have similar "wtf" properties.)
Hell, I'm as "liberal" (not my choice of words) as they come, and this is all bullshit. Still, though. I saw the informal poll on msnbc.com today - out of the 27503 people who have voted (and that isn't a very high number, nor is it in any way to be an illustrative cross section of our society), 97% of the people said it was bullshit, 3% said it was okay. Even if it's inaccurate, it gives me hope that our country isn't filled with complete fucking idiots, so I'd like to go ahead and believe it anyway.
Rather than flame the SCOTUS (as if it matters what we think about them), maybe we should turn our zeal towards our state congressmen. I also fired one off to my federal representitive, but he's catching flak for shady practices in one form another, so I don't think many people are going to listen to what he says in Congress.
They may want to consider figuring out that pesky 2nd Amendment thing first. Or invest in a lot of Kevlar.
Not that I'm advocating violence. But I do know a few "hicks" who take owning their own home very seriously.
I kinda don't want things to just work, I want to struggle with them (just so I can actually learn what I'm doing). With that said, however, I was following whatever documentation on the gentoo site (I just went back to find it, and I can't find the exact page I WAS on, but I see it's still part of the "hardened" gentoo install documentation: http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/hardened/selinux/sel inux-x86-handbook.xml?part=1&chap=7 ). Chances are there was a new way to do it and they hadn't gotten around to updating the documentation (I'm positive I was reading right from the install documentation when I ran into this problem.) :]
,br> Anyway, thanks for your help.
If you don't mind me asking, what did you do exactly to get it to work? emerge emu10k1 and then adding it to the autoload.modules.d/kernel-2.6 file (I forget the actual name :( ) resulted in an error on boot for me :(
The problem is, after that, the drivers get worse and worse as they're keyed toward the new card. The older detonators were beautiful on my ti4600. The newer they got, the worse the quality / framerate was in the same game. It was very sad for me :(
Negative. It said on their site they weren't ready. I tried with the newest version I could get and it wouldn't load with the 2.6 kernel - it would say "emu10k1 not supported with this kernel" or something along those lines.
:) )
Also, unless I'm actually trying to use the onboard sound, that's off in the BIOS.
Now that I have my new ram and harddrive for my primary computer, I'll be able to give it a whirl on the secondary (or tertiary) computer. My memory is too faulty for me to tell you exactly what I did right now. Either it'll work now or won't - we'll find out. (I was using Gentoo - emerging the newest emu10k1 didn't work - that much I know. We'll find out if it was just hiding from me somewhere
Fair enough :]
/salute
I don't mean to troll or be flamebait here, but why would you buy an extremely high end video card if you're going to use Linux? Generally speaking, people buy high end video cards to game. The overwhelming majority of games only have Windows support (though things are happily getting better for the Linux crowd, if slowly). Linux support isn't generally a concern for those spending 600$ on a video card to play video games with.
:( ).
Completely off topic, but are there emu10k1 drivers for the 2.6.x kernel yet? I've been using Windows on my second computer (used for IM, email, browsing, and PVR) for months while I wait for things to get caught up on that front. I'm not interested in switching back over to Linux if I'm not even going to have sound to watch any of the shows I record. I last tried to get things to work about 4 or 5 months ago, to no avail (onboard sound wasn't supported either, apparently
...a 64 mb GeForce 2 doesn't cost 80$. if you can even find one, I'd imagine it'd be closer to 15 or 20$. Hell, the FX 5200 can be picked up for 35$, and that's with the GeForce 3s and GeForce 4s in between there.
I agree that the blame is spread around. I think the finger has to be pointed, but if it's going to be pointed, it has to be pointed at all guilty parties, regardless of degree. No one gets off the hook.
Normally I wouldn't even care, but when someone decides that only one group is to blame and the others get off scot free, then I take exception.
If I push open your front door because the builder didn't even bother to put a door knob on it, much less a lock, then is the fault mine? Absolutely. Does the builder have responsibility in this too? Absolutely again.
In a way, hackers are kind of pointing out that the emperor has no clothes.
With that said, I, personally, find nothing wrong with a hacker trying to figure out an application / OS's vulnerabilities and sharing them with the developers. And if they do nothing about it, share it with the rest of the world to force them to. People deserve doors to have doorknobs and doors that have locks. People also deserve software that doesn't leave their anal cavity wide open for nefarious probing.
However, the hackers who run amok trying to fuck things up as much as possible for the sake of fucking it up (more script kiddies than hackers, but to the average person, they're the same); they still need to be blamed. They're still the primary culprits. But software companies can be extremely negligent at times, and thus, they bear some responsibility too. Responsibility isn't finite; just because we have two parties doesn't mean the major culprit receives any less of the blame.
And I'm rambling, again. I'm sorry.
oh, oh, oh, and...
"You're making baby Jesus cry!"
Aside from the dvorak keyboard that I've recently begun using, I'd have to agree. Though my wrists are much happier now that I'm not using qwerty.
But I digress.
I disagree to the highest degree imaginable. I'm basically saying that the end justifies the means. You're saying that the end vindicates the means. They are completely different concepts, and frankly, I find yours to be infinitely more silly than my own. Obviously, these are opinions. But I would never be able to accept yours. Sorry.
I don't necessarily see how "all war is evil" necessarily equates to "we must never go to war." I'm sorry, but all war is evil. But sometimes, if there are no other viable alternatives, we have to deal with that necessary evil. Try to avoid war at almost all costs...but sometimes it is necessary to step up to the plate. But there's no use in glorifying war or trying to make it sound better than it is; war is hell. People die. Civilians and soldiers. Teenagers will be screaming for their mother as they try to keep their guts from spilling out. Civilians will be burnt alive or killed by shrapnel. Children will see their parents cut down in front of their eyes. War is an evil act. Period. But in very specific instances, it does do some good. Sometimes evil acts have that effect. That doesn't make them less evil.
Sadly, that isn't what they do. My colo was slammed by Spamhaus a year ago because someone else there was spamming. The spammer was eventually booted - before the entire colo was blacklisted - but the person (whoever that was) that was managing this particular blacklist situation decided the colo wasn't helpful enough - and without any spam known to be currently flowing out their pipes - added them anyway.
There went the business of many webhosts who rented dedicated servers there, as their clients could no longer count on their emails being received. If it were just one IP, that was fine, but they blocked the IP of every computer this colo owned (at that datacenter, at least). Hundreds of dedicated boxes were down, and that's just boxes - not the drastically large number of people who were screwed over.
After a few months, things worked out. Spamhaus fixed the problem eventually, after daily emails back and forth between the colo and Spamhaus' contact.
I should note that this is the information the colo filtered out to their clients. With that said, my dedicated box, with 5 IPs assigned to it, was blocked because someone else's box, with a completely different IP, was spamming and the tech at the colo didn't bow to Spamhaus's demands. Blanket blocking is ridiculous - it's one thing to block an IP, it's another thing to block the entire range of IPs.
Extremely good point. I hate not having the opportunity to get a full transcript of the interview. Quoting bits and pieces is almost always done in a nefarious plot to take things out of context and make it into a "story".
:]
Kind of related, but off topic: how many of you actually want a "story"? I don't want a story. I want information. Information with easy access to the data that spawned that particular interpretation. Hearing a writer's interpretation of the information that has been interpreted from the data - aka a story (often with even more levels of interpretation in between, depending on their sources) is essentially useless. I guess it's time to shut up again.
In all honesty, he should've said something _more_ than "Theo is difficult". Perhaps "There have been $NUMBER of discussions in the past regarding this exact topic. Theo and his group has their opinion and we have ours. I honestly don't care if the whole world agrees with me or not - to me, and to the people involved with Linux - it's the right way. I'd rather not become embroiled in this unwinnable dogmatic debate once again."
Granted, Linus could have been drastically more offensive, but he declined to start a flamewar, especially not with Forbes acting as the middleman. But just saying "Theo's difficult and I don't wish to comment further" is a little too trite. It would be more classy if he expounded a bit without implying that Theo is the pain in the ass that he so obviously is - but I guess suppose "classy" is a subjective term anyway. I'll stop rambling now.
Nah, you just assume I was. That's why I said "you" all through there, and not "you Europeans", or "you Asians" or "you Africans" or "you Antarcticans". I was only referring to him, in and of himself.
:]
I thought about the same thing when I was writing the post, but I decided I was clear on him being the dumbass. Apparently, I wasn't as clear as I could have been. My bad! Hopefully you got a good laugh out of it, at least
That, like my previous analogy, is a bit misrepresentitive of the situation.
Would I be offended if I went to an establishment that specializes in rentals. I rented a carpet cleaner there because I have a cat that sheds excessively. I'm a repeat customer because the rates are good and the service is excellent.
Someone else, whom I've never met, also rents carpet cleaners there. Except they use them to do all sorts of nefarious and unsavory things (imagine what you will). It becomes known where this person rents this carpet cleaner - the town is outraged at his actions - so they blacklist everyone who continues to rent at that store.
Here's where we come to a possible branch in the road.
Possibility A: Suddenly people stop talking to you because you rent there. Are you angry? Absolutely. Mostly because people are jackasses. But you still stop using that rental establishment because they do nothing to alleviate the problem.
Possibility B: The rental establishment finds out - at the same time as everyone else - that their equipment is being misused and does not allow this person to rent from them again. Everyone who shops at this rental establishment is blacklisted anyway - not because the establishment has done anything unsavory on their part, but because the person making the blacklist is completely inept and power hungry. You, as a customer, are still being fucked over - not because of the rental establishment, but because of the person compiling the blacklist. What do you do? Do you leave your rental establishment, even though they're doing nothing wrong? Or do you beat the shit out of the person making the blacklist for being a cockbiting fucktard?
And that's the problem here. When blacklists are updated in an objective and timely manner, they're great. But, as seems to happen over time, the likelyhood of that happening seems to deteriorate. Entirely too many respectible and honest colos and hosting providers are being fucked by blacklist maintainers who have lost their way.
I thought my analogy was "they're both guilt by unknowing association, no matter what the end result is". Should I spell it out some more? I'll do so now.
In our current situation, we have a guy renting a car at Enterprise. He deals crack.
Later another man goes to Enterprise and rents a car. He knows nothing of the crack dealer out and about in the streets selling his wares. All he knows is that Enterprise has cars to rent and he needs to rent a car. So he rents the car.
The crack dealer gets caught by the police. Since he was driving a car he rented by Enterprise, according to this particular blacklist's logic, every person who rents a car at Enterprise is now guilty. The police then go out and arrest everyone who rented a car at Enterprise, because they are also guilty.
What's the core situation I'm describing, regardless of the details? "If someone does something wrong while using ServiceX, everyone at ServiceX gets punished. Even if no one using ServiceX knows any of the other clients there, regardless of whether they were also breaking RuleY, they get punished as well, just because someone they never met fucked up."
That's how this "analogy" I've posited ties in with this situation. If I had spent more time developing an analogy, that would be fine. But I guess I expected the readers here to use at least a smidgen of their supposed IQs and figure this out on their own. It may not be pretty, but it does work.
It's only emotional if the user lets it be. Really, if you can't manage to subdue your emotions and register the meaning behind the words, you're even less useful than my analogies. Excessive emotionality in a logical debate has no place. If you fall victim to that trap, then I'm sorry, but the argument obviously wasn't meant for you.
Right. So then, when those of us with a .nu domain name have to change ISPs constantly because, at any moment, someone else - that we have no control over - ruins the ability for our email to go to its intended recipient - we just get to suck up the 10$ a pop IP change for our DNS? And even aside that point - while hosting companies are a dime a dozen, good hosting companies aren't. When we do find one that is, we want to stick with it. It's not their fault someone else at the same colo decided to be a jackass.
Basically, you're just saying "too bad, I'm tired of being screwed over by spam" and I'm saying "wtf, I'm tired of being screwed over by blacklists that can't keep their shit together". Put yourself in my shoes - when a blacklist service becomes worse than spam and the spammers who spam, what does that tell you about blacklists?
Why is it so hard for you people to not take things so literally? I don't understand why it's me who needs to calm down. it seems like you, rather, need to chill out and just absorb the essence of what I'm saying - NOT the literal truth. Really, I'm just pointing out a like situation. Whether it's worse or better than the current one is moot - it follows the same pathways to get from point A to point B, though points A and B are different between the two scenarios. If you refuse to use your brain (and I know you have one) to discern the pathways analogies are meant to illustrate, then I truly have no idea what else I can do for you.