Venting

[Spongy]

Terestas: It's normal to have a few instances of svchost.exe, although just how many I'm not sure. (I believe around 5 is what I've noticed in my Windows XP installations).

If you wanna skip out on viruses, use Linux or Mac OS. ;P

[Howlitzer]

@Terastas: Are you running multiple spyware/antivirus programs? Or are you running multiple *different types* of security programs?

If you're running multiple antivirus or spyware programs simultaneously, this doesn't always make your computer safer....in fact, depending on how these programs work and interact, they could prevent each other from properly working.

[Berserker]

http://www.howtogeek.com/howto/windows- ... t-running/

[RedEye]

@Terastas: Are you running multiple spyware/antivirus programs? Or are you running multiple *different types* of security programs?

If you're running multiple antivirus or spyware programs simultaneously, this doesn't always make your computer safer....in fact, depending on how these programs work and interact, they could prevent each other from properly working.

In my experieince, they usually try to turn each other off; leaving the computer relatively unprotected in their Brand-war exchanges.

[Terastas]

If you wanna skip out on viruses, use Linux or Mac OS. ;P

@Terastas: Are you running multiple spyware/antivirus programs? Or are you running multiple *different types* of security programs?

If you're running multiple antivirus or spyware programs simultaneously, this doesn't always make your computer safer....in fact, depending on how these programs work and interact, they could prevent each other from properly working.

Different types. Two of them I even acquired through the exact same source (that being my service provider), so I would be very surprised if they're canceling each other out. And the third one is CCleaner, which isn't a true-to-form security program but can sometimes act like one as a last resort. So I'm pretty sure it's not a compatibility issue; computer companies can be stupid, but I seriously doubt they would be that stupid.

[Spongy]

If you wanna skip out on viruses, use Linux or Mac OS. ;P

The hell was that for?

[Silent Hunter]

The hell was that for?

Asuming he is serious, I am willing to guess he is annoyed because you basically said "Get X". To many people that is quite annoying and does not solve anything at all. He already KNOWS that there are other options. It's not cookie cutter as you refered to Viruses but the princible applies. Be careful about it.

[Terastas]

The hell was that for?

Asuming he is serious, I am willing to guess he is annoyed because you basically said "Get X". To many people that is quite annoying and does not solve anything at all. He already KNOWS that there are other options. It's not cookie cutter as you refered to Viruses but the princible applies. Be careful about it.

There was no "facepalm" emoticon, so I used that instead.

Truthfully, I'm not surprised that somebody decided to rub Linux or Mac OS in my face about this. It does aggravate me that people who use Linux sometimes act like this makes them immune to experiencing computer problems in general, but even here in the venting thread, I didn't want to get into that.

Just try to keep in mind for the future that some people here (like me) are on a budget. Even if I was dumb enough to think unplugging this computer indefinitely and getting a Mac would prevent me from ever having computer troubles again, I can't afford to do that anyway.

[Silent Hunter]

Truthfully, I'm not surprised that somebody decided to rub Linux or Mac OS in my face about this. It does aggravate me that people who use Linux sometimes act like this makes them immune to experiencing computer problems in general, but even here in the venting thread, I didn't want to get into that.

Of course. Plus Linux is not without its problems. To be fair to Linux and its various distro's, those are usually driver problems, something they cannot fix but the flaw still stands. Plus Mac's can be overrated to hell and back at times too. As you said though, venting thread, wont drag this off its theme.

On that theme. Computers can be a b**** to upgrade and maintain. My laptop battery has gone quite flat recently and the charges for a new one make me a sad wolf. I want this laptop to last another year. I guess its general wear etc but hey, still annoying.

[Terastas]

On that theme. Computers can be a b**** to upgrade and maintain. My laptop battery has gone quite flat recently and the charges for a new one make me a sad wolf. I want this laptop to last another year. I guess its general wear etc but hey, still annoying.

*nods* Mine has a crap battery life now too. Was usually good for five or six hours when it was new -- now it's good for five or six minutes before it starts giving me "shutting down [whatever] to conserve power" warnings. It's my own fault -- I never let it run down like I was supposed to. Doesn't bother me much though since I only got the laptop for its portability. I might be a techno-geek, but not so much that I can't make it through the average train ride without taking it out. I know what you mean about wanting the computer to last forever too -- this one's served me well for four years and counting (and that's still two years shy of my record).

Oh, and I don't know what I or my security programs did, but I've been pop-up free for twelve hours now, so I think I'm out of the woods right now. Still going to take it easy on teh intranets for a few days just to be on the safe side anyway.

[AngryGothChick]

My computer decided to crash on me. Now my printer won't work, I can't save videos or pictures and my backup disks might not work. So 2 years of the videos I worked on and the writing works I done are also gone. Great.

I have to go back for my goddamn permit tomorrow,and I'm so stressed about it.

Relationship problems have me down again. I'd love to make a move on my friend, but they just got out of a relationship and I KNOW they don't seem like like that. And now a kid (he's the little bro of one of my friends who just got into a college) who also had a crush on the same person as me,and wanted to ask them out; asked me out not too long ago.

Okay... not much to seriously vent about. But damnit, I want to get involved some how.

[Terastas]

The Republican party has made no secret of the fact that they are all committed to denying Obama a "victory" in the health care reform debate for no reason at all except that they want to hurt his image and use it to win seats back in 2010, yet they still have the balls to whine that "this isn't bipartisan" and that they were not included in negotiations. Well, duh! Would you reach across the aisle to someone that had no want except to see you fail?

I don't care if anyone's offended by this -- if anyone still identifies as a Republican after everything the Republicans as a party have done in the last twelve months, I would feel better knowing that they hate my guts.

[Gevaudan]

Frankly, I'm tired of this whole debate. I'm appalled at both parties, and being underage there's nothing I can do at the moment except watch other people decide my future. I feel so passionate and yet so helpless when it comes to politics. Whether or not my views are correct, my arguments will hold no credibility until I can vote. For the duration of my lifetime in hindsight, things have been getting worse politically. Now I can actually understand it all, but it doesn't help that I can't vote. It also doesn't help that I'm going to be competing against every other voter's opinion in the USA.

I also want to complain about something else: this new breed of "libertarian" conservatives. They are not libertarian in the slightest. They're not even Reagan-esque. They're power hungry. And the only reason they're espousing a small-government ideology now is so they can get elected and resume big-government policies. I'm talking in particular about the ones that started espousing libertarian ideas about health care and economics AFTER Obama got elected. If they were honestly libertarian, I ask myself, then where were they when Bush was in office? Why weren't they criticizing him? Most libertarians can find at least a few bones to pick with Bush (and most other presidents, for that matter...)

This isn't a jab at Republicans or conservatives, or Republicans and conservatives that have held a libertarian point of view for a long time. I'm talking about the new ones who are falsely and hypocritically "representing" libertarianism (i.e. the tea baggers, birthers, Glenn Beck, etc.). I am so sick of being associated with them just because they have more exposure and because their arguments are easier to deflate and brush off as extremism. Granted, I didn't become a libertarian until after Obama's election, but at least I honestly studied what the heck libertarianism actually was, instead of tacking it on to a preexisting ideology as a justification for my own interests. I'm not going to preach libertarianism here, and I respect everyone's political views on The Pack (or at least, I will from now on if I haven't in the past...sorry ), but please understand that I do not wish to be associated with people who misrepresent my own political views.

[Terastas]

This isn't a jab at Republicans or conservatives, or Republicans and conservatives that have held a libertarian point of view for a long time. I'm talking about the new ones who are falsely and hypocritically "representing" libertarianism (i.e. the tea baggers, birthers, Glenn Beck, etc.). I am so sick of being associated with them just because they have more exposure and because their arguments are easier to deflate and brush off as extremism. Granted, I didn't become a libertarian until after Obama's election, but at least I honestly studied what the heck libertarianism actually was, instead of tacking it on to a preexisting ideology as a justification for my own interests. I'm not going to preach libertarianism here, and I respect everyone's political views on The Pack (or at least, I will from now on if I haven't in the past...sorry ), but please understand that I do not wish to be associated with people who misrepresent my own political views.

Believe it or not, even I (not a literal communist, but someone that will take great pride if I'm ever accused of being one) can support a libertarian viewpoint. . . To a degree. There are some things that I believe the government has absolutely no right having any legal position on and/or spending tax dollars in any attempt at regulation (religion, marriage, abortion, etc.). On the other hand, a government's primary (if not only) concern should be the safety and well being of it's people -- that said, there are some things that it would be completely irresponsible for the government to not attempt to regulate, if not provide directly (food, housing, education, security, etc).

Health care is, in my opinion, one of the latter. It's something we can't live without, which is why the unrestricted private companies with no standards held to them are able to abuse their consumers to the fullest extent possible. They will charge you top dollar for that service, and if they can deny you coverage when you need it, they will.

The case that illustrated it best for me was when the parents of a two-year-old daughter appeared on the Today Show to testify that their daughter had been denied coverage because she was "too small." Supposedly it was a part of their clause on "pre-existing conditions," but as an accompanying legal adviser testified, the only pre-existing condition a two-year-old ever had was being a fetus.

Neither the socialist nor libertarian model can be applied to everything. The key should be recognizing one from the other.

In terms of recognizing what should be socialized and what should be libertarian, the Republican's couldn't possibly be any further from the truth. They (claim to) have a major beef with Obama trying to hold the health care companies accountable, but they didn't have issue with Bush potentially pissing away tax payer dollars trying to make gay marriage illegal. Evidently they think tax dollars are meant to be spent on frivolous moral crusades as opposed to keeping the country safe and stable.

I used to declare myself a centrist, but those days are over. The Republican Party has earned my eternal resentment, and anyone that ever votes Republican ever again after this can consider themselves to have earned it as well.

[Gevaudan]

On the other hand, a government's primary (if not only) concern should be the safety and well being of it's people -- that said, there are some things that it would be completely irresponsible for the government to not attempt to regulate, if not provide directly (food, housing, education, security, etc)....Neither the socialist nor libertarian model can be applied to everything. The key should be recognizing one from the other.

Indeed, especially if such a government has an open and direct line of communication with its people through a democratic process. Although I might disagree with you about whether a government is necessary and whether it can provide services better that a free market in certain instances, I can see what you mean, so I'm won't argue.

These debates would be so much easier to sort through (and sit through) if political science was more scientific and less political, know what I mean?

[Terastas]

Although I might disagree with you about whether a government is necessary and whether it can provide services better that a free market in certain instances, I can see what you mean, so I'm won't argue.

Oh I never said that. The free market / private sector is absolutely capable of providing a better service than the government.

The other end of that sentence, however, is "but if they they don't have to, they won't."

Obama said in a speech when this debate began that he did not want to put the insurance companies out of business; he just wanted to hold them accountable. A public option would have done just that; they wouldn't have been free to abuse their customers willy-nilly because their customers would have had the option of going public.

The thing about any government plan run by taxpayer money is that the taxpayers will always have a bee up their a** about anything being payed for that they feel is unjustified or unnecessary. A government plan, therefore, would be one aimed at providing the absolute essentials for healthy living but nothing else. I remember trying to sum it up in a debate a while back with something like this:

"Can't afford to pay for a cup of soup, a roof over your head, some bus tokens and a liver transplant? Here you go."

"Can't afford to buy that lobster with truffles, twenty-six room mansion, Rolls Royce limousine and cosmetic pectoral implants you always wanted? Deal with it ya' materialistic jerk!"

There's another thread at a (adult) forum I post at too, and the example that keeps coming up is the case of Nataline Sarkisyan, a teenager who died because her respective health care provider refused to pay for a much-needed liver transplant. I always laugh (or scream) when I see Republican meat-puppets like Sarah Palin harping on about "death panels." Even if the public option did have a death panel (which it doesn't), how would that be any different from the system we have now? By allowing themselves the right to deny life-saving treatment, the insurance companies have reserved themselves the right to condemn people to death.

Could the private sector do better than the government? In theory, yes. But if they don't have to, they won't.

[Gevaudan]

Oh I never said that. The free market / private sector is absolutely capable of providing a better service than the government. The other end of that sentence, however, is "but if they they don't have to, they won't."

Exactly. I just think that the solution to giving companies the incentive to do so lies in the free-market direction. I think that competition is a healthier way to force companies to do better, which is why I'm not entirely against the public option as a concept.

[JoshuaMadoc]

[11:51] <Kitetsu> i'm timing mysself to see how long it'll take for me to fizzle out when using 3ds max
[11:53] <Teldurn> Fizzle out?
[11:53] <Kitetsu> yes, having a BSOD
[11:54] <Kitetsu> because i've been desperately trying to learn how to make new .skeleton files for Torchlight with what little resources i have since everyone i've asked help for either doesn't know or is giving me the sarcastic cold shoulder
[11:55] <Kitetsu> and i'm extremely illiterate at 3D so it'll be a matter of time
[12:02] <Teldurn> I used to do 3d animation.
[12:03] <Kitetsu> and i'm doing it right now out of pure necessity
[12:03] <Kitetsu> ... since no one's coming up to tell me how to import existing TL .skeleton files to MAX
[12:06] <Teldurn> I've never tried doing anything in 3d for game stuff.
[12:06] <Teldurn> so unfortunately, I'm not any help to you. >_>
[12:07] <Kitetsu> well at least you said you're not able to help, i can understand that
[12:08] <Kitetsu> what i can't stand is waiting an hour or more for a reply only to get "lol" as the only reply.
[12:08] <Teldurn> Ugh, that's frustrating.
[12:08] <Kitetsu> yes, yes it f*** is
[12:08] <Kitetsu> it's not the first time and it's made me give up on everything too easily.


Why don't I get this problem when I'm drawing? Because I have resources everywhere, plus I've self-trained myself long enough for me to have confidence in being independent at drawing. But no, not everything else. Either you confuse yourself into learning bumarse or you get people using body language that translates to remarking sardonically at your intellectual retardation.

Really, guys, what's the f*** point of making manuals if you won't even give me one?

[Terastas]

HOW DARE HE!!!

I. . . That. . . Urghurgh. . . I can't even put into words how much that absolutely [expletive] pisses me off! I. . . He. . . Gaahahah my brain hurts!

[Howlitzer]

HOW DARE HE!!!

I. . . That. . . Urghurgh. . . I can't even put into words how much that absolutely [expletive] pisses me off! I. . . He. . . Gaahahah my brain hurts!

out of curiosity, and at risk of getting shot....are you primarily furious at the usage of JFK in that video, or the "lowering taxes to create more jobs" message?

[RedEye]

Hard to say, since both are long dead.

With JFK, it's obvious; I've been to his grave.

With Lower Taxes, which programs would you see cut or eliminated to do this without making the National Debt even worse than it is?

Sad, simple fact: We elected the people who spend our taxes so freely, and if they spend enough on us; we re-elect them! Human nature, I guess.

[Howlitzer]

The usage of JFK....I find mildly offensive...mainly for the blatant political usage of it. If that was what Terastas was furious about, I am with him on that to a degree.

The message there, though, hardly makes me angry, I'm no advocate for high taxes... I feel people have the right to keep the majority of the money they have worked for and earned....but the way I see it, lowering taxes is far too a simplistic approach to the problem. As is raising them.

Put simply, as naive and idealistic as this sounds, the existing tax system needs to go poof and be redone...or at the very least put down on a table, looked at carefully, and SPELL CHECKED...it's become convoluted to the point of dysfunction through modifications, appendations, and reinterpretations of existing taxes and new ones...with very little removal of complication. Logically, that isn't going to help track and manage the flow of money.

It's like an author publishing a book, without having removed any margin notes, proofreading marks, or striked out and appended sections since the first draft....after several revisions. It would probably be an unreadable mess, even if the story itself was a masterpiece.

We have taxes on taxes. Those taxes have taxes. Some of the taxes get filed in a cardboard box, put in a pile, relabeled, lost, found, a percentage returned on an annual basis, then taxed again. It's a bureaucratic mess crapped on by an enigma... there is no way in hell that the money going in is being fully utilized, so why make it an even bigger mess by ADDING to it before trying to fix it?

[Terastas]

out of curiosity, and at risk of getting shot....are you primarily furious at the usage of JFK in that video, or the "lowering taxes to create more jobs" message?

Both.

One half of it is that it royally pisses me off that he's trying to kiss up to Ed Kennedy's mourners by parroting a speech word for word by his brother (a president who the Republican party of Kennedy's time practically advocated for the assassination of, much as they are doing with Obama in present day). It's a very shallow, very underhanded tactic that just reeks of B.S. up the yin-yang.

The other part of it is that, having been through Bush and Romney, we already know that when Joe Brown promises lower taxes, he actually means "lower taxes for the rich."

This is the same prick that, when asked about the possibility of universal health care, said "oh we already have that," referring to the Romney system where the "public option" means "get a health care plan from the private sector or else!"

It pisses me off that he's daring to draw the comparison and that he's so deliberate in doing so, it pisses me off that he actually thinks we'll all be dumb enough to fall for the same bull**** Dubya had been spewing out for eight years (and which effectively brought this country to economic ruin). There is literally nothing redeemable about him.

[RedEye]

Hmph. There are threads for Politics and Taxes. This isn't one of them.

I will point out again that the source of this mess is not so much the Government as the People, who put the politico's into power (including the power to tax).

That's what is so wonderful about our country: We get the government that we as a nation deserve. Not what we want; what we deserve.

In that our system is a system of checks and balances, the ultimate check is what and who the People will approve as a system and system operator on voting day.

Some of the Founding Fathers are probably laughing their incorporeal heads off at what the People will put up with these days. Ah well, it seemed a good idea at the time...

[Silent Hunter]

Some of the Founding Fathers are probably laughing their incorporeal heads off at what the People will put up with these days. Ah well, it seemed a good idea at the time...

I'd argue that that the whole Founding Fathers worship and worship of the Constitution in America is part of the greater problem. I have never seen a country so blindly worship a law document as the Constitution before.

On the whole raising tax issue? The only way to get rid of that monster debt you have is to either raise taxes or cut services dramatically (looks at the US defence budget). Otherwise it will keep growing and growing and growing with no foreseeable end.