shaneroche

Forget it. I just discovered that the original posts which I had quoted have since been edited, so I look like a fool. Nevertheless, at the time I posted, my quotes were edited but the originals left untouched, though now noone is likely to believe that. Sorry to waste your time.

I posted in this thread: http://forums.xisto.com/topic/28470-gay-lesbian-youth-time-cover-story-on-gays/ and my quotes of two other posters were edited. One word was turned to *bleeb* and the other *happy* - but the original posts which I qouted still show the words themselves. How do I know what I shouldn't quote? I post in a lot of sites, am a very responsible person, and yet I have already been reprimanded here (after just a couple of days), so I don't need MORE trouble. Please help me avoid it. I am not making an issue of this. I am just want to stay on the right side of the law. Also, I searched with the terms "post language automatically edited" using "most relevant" and found nothing. So please don't send my post to spam because I am sure I am not the first person to ask this, BUT I CAN'T FIND relevant question/answer posts. Notice from saint-michael: question answer topic closed

PREGNANT? HOW???? You didn't (and the two poster following you) read too carefully did you? The OP's quote of the Time article read, "boys are admitting to having their first SAME (emphasis added) sex experience at 14 and Girls at 16." The article was about *happy* youth, something should have clicked - actually iivosevic heard the click, but proceeded to forget it just as quickly.

By all means. Since we don't know where you live we have to just take your word for it that a) a repressive regime is not part of reason that there are never riots, that the lowest social classes merely feel jealousy. As a matter of historical fact, even when France was a racially and cultural homogenous society, there was plenty of civil strife due to social injustice and inequality. They even went so far as to cut of the heads of their monarchs. The lower classes of French society of the 18th Century were more than just "jealous." If you require other examples, please don't ask me, the historical record is replete with them. You come very close to saying what you really mean: some racial groups (in this case, North Africans and sub-Saharan Africans) just breed like rabbits ("procreate more than the norm" I think you said), they get out of control, and then you just can't control them? Do I have it more or less? And France failed to prevent them from "procreating" and disturbing the correct racial balance...? I don't even know where to begin. It is, for example, a fact that ALL racial groups, in poverty, have higher growth rates. Rich communities of ALL racial groups, have LOWER growth rates. This phenomenon hold true between nations as well - those with the highest per capita incomes have the lowest growth rates, and vice versa. This income/population growth function has been attributed (by everyone who has seriously studied it to education about, and access to, family planning resources (basically, contraception). Even between similar income levels, better educated groups defer child bearing later, and have few children. And of course MONEY (Wealth) provides greater access to education. Every immigrant group that has come to the U.S., after a period of integration, has seen it's population growth rates stabilize. The stabilization ALWAYS coincided with greater prosperity within those groups. The exception are blacks and hispanics, who, for many of the same issues seen in France, continue to suffer from institutionalized discrimination and a lack of true integration and acceptance by the larger (white) population. Before making arguments that you yourself concede are politically incorrect, perhaps you should stop and consider WHY they are politically incorrect. I will tell you why - because these arguments are not only sophmoric and intellectually lazy, but they double the insult by blaming the group that has actually been victimized.

Strictly speaking everything you say is true. But the youths of north African descent (because VERY few are immigrants, rather they are FRENCH citizens BORN in France), are not likely to reason in your manner. They are angry frustrated alienated individuals. Does that excuse their actions? NO. But don't confuse (as is often done in these forums), a lack of moral justification, with IRRATIONALITY. If the French had, long ago, made a genuine effort to make their society truly egalitarian (as they are so fond of claiming it is), then the problem of chronic unemployment and societal exclusion that exists for French Muslims would have been FIXED (and not just talked about) and we would not be seeing these images nightly. In other words, if these people had been treated the way you or I expect to be treated, then they would be a work, or on the computer, or playing sports after school, or at the mall. But they have NONE of these things. I have travelled a lot in France, and have been to Paris MANY times. The train from Paris to Versailles goes right through one of these neighborhoods, and I can guarantee you that you would not want to live there. I do not condone what is happening, but I understand it. And the simple fact is that now French politicians are going to DO something about these problems, something they have never done before, because to do nothing now, would clearly invite lasting and profound civil disorder.

Just one quick follow up to my last post. I can make XP install on your system as it is right now, but you will have no room for programs. But with 6gb, (which I have on my laptop, along with 64mb ram AND XP), you have room for XP AND you can install Microsoft Office, and a small but good selection of programs (including utilities/AV/firewall). And with more RAM it will run faster, no doubt, but with 64 it will run about the way it does right now probably (slow, but tolerable).

Upgrade your HD on eBay to 6-10gb, with patience that will cost you less than 20 bucks with shipping (make sure to only buy from sellers with 98,6% positive feedback, and at least 50 or so total score). Also for well under 20 bucks you can add 128Mb RAM. For maybe 35 bucks, with shipping, you should be able to do those two upgrades. If you have a desktop, then even less (I assumed you had a laptop and checked some auctions closing right now). Then read this thread (to start) http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/ - you don't have to buy a new computer no matter what anyone says, with patience and a can do spirit you can get decent performance out of anthing made in the last 8 years or so and have fun doing it! If you can afford a new computer, great. But if money's tight, don't buy that crap about how it's cheaper to buy new than to upgrade. The older the machine, the less that is true (because the upgrades themselves are almost in zero demand - who buys 128mb ram these days?). With those two upgrades, you can run XP on your system. I would also look at mirror sites for blackviper.com (the site is down right now), and apply his services configuration. Make sure you have all updates to BIOS and drivers. Good luck!

YES!!! I do this as well, but on 5 gb everthing fits ok - just depends on how many progs you have. On my laptop, the c: partition is only 2.5Gb! The other advantage to this is that you can restore (I use Ghost, it's the best) your partition without affecting other files. About once a month I restore this partition (5min), and my system runs like it did at the time I completed the install. NO degradation due to registry clutter, EVER.

Man somebody had been digging in the backyard - Magiccode9 the last post in this thread was on Dec 16 of 2004. I suspect these people (if they're not dead yet), probably are NOT monitoring the thread to look for replies. I am being sarcastic, but posting in old threads bumps it foreward and now I click on it and end up miffed because it's an ANCIENT thread. I scrounge through old threads for info all the time but I don't post in them, unless it's an important addition for possible future readers... Just my opinion.

Did I? I replied directly to your comments and expressed my understanding of what I thought the OP was saying (and not saying). Yes Hence my aknowledgement of the absolute authority of the site moderators/administrators. As an Attorney and member of the Massachusetts Bar Association (though I currently practice and reside overseas), I am more familiar with the intricacies of the law than most people on this site. I was not inviting debate merely stating a principle of statutory interpretation. As you may recall, it was immediately after making that statement that I bowed to your authority, so please do not interprete my thoughts as rebellion (though that, of course, is your prerogative).

I ran the Shields Up tests, and passed with flying colors. I forgot to mention that I have disabled EVERY non-essential windows service that I can. My OS has been severely tweaked and that may have something to do with the results. I do this for both security and (mostly) for performance... I don't know if this has anything to do with it, but shields up said that for a windows networked computer, mine was very unusual in that it was COMPLETELY invisible... A few of the test results (severely edited so that I don't get busted for "cut and paste"): Your Internet port 139 does not appear to exist! Unable to connect with NetBIOS to your computer. All attempts to get any information from your computer have FAILED. (This is very uncommon for a Windows networking-based PC.) Your system has achieved a perfect "TruStealth" rating. Not a single packet solicited or otherwise was received from your system as a result of our security probing tests. Anyway, thanks for the advice on where to find another test - I didn't know this one, but I have run McAfee's test and they couldn't breach my security either. How about that for a newbie?

Actually, I tested access times before and after partitioning. For boot and other system files, I saw measured no difference. But for program files there was a significant increase in access speed. Program files (and some system files) will migrate with defragmentation (not to mention the fact that programs added later may be located quite far from the leading edge of the platter. From a performance point of view, there are good reasons to partition. BuffaloHELP answered my real question: Are separate partitions safe from infection? He (or she) also clarified my misunderstanding about how system restore works. I still want to find the way to do this without using system restore as it sucks up lots of disk space and RAM (when it decides to establish a restore point). I hate those slowdowns... Thanks to everyone for the feed back. Forrest

I am not sure the OP was implying anything other that that the user must have WinAvi and Nero to convert and burn. And he most certainly was not "promoting to duplicate a DVD that is not legally owned." He was talking about converting and burning avi's to dvd. I didn't see him say anything about ripping dvds, etc. And finally, while dicussing such topics may be a violation of forum rules, it is NOT a violation of copyright law. That is why publications such as HIGH TIMES have never been banned - the United States Constitution (I assume we are talking about U.S. law here) guarantees the right to the free exchange of ideas. This right is not unlimited - if I go to a persons house and explain how to them step by step how to illegally modify a firearm WHILE THEY ARE DOING THE WORK, that looks (in the eyes of the courts) more like complicity than speech. Yet I am free to publish and sell a pamphlet on how to do it. I would say that the OP's speech fell into the latter category. Of course, forum rules are whatever the webmaster wants them to be.

I use seven disk partitions. This is the basic layout:c: os/program filesd: page filee: my docs/favoritesf: beta versionsg: eMule incoming/temp filesh: eMule archivei: Ghost imagesThe idea is this: 1. c: partition (5gb) is dedicated to os/program files. As the first © partition is made on the leading (outside) edge of the platter, the LINEAR velocity is greatest for the part of the disk containing THESE files. Additionally, program files cannot MIGRATE (during defragmentation) towards the center of the disk, which would slow access times to these files. 2. paging file is static and on a separate partition - no slowdowns as windows tries to resize this file (which it will in the default config).3. my other files are stored according to the speed with which I need access. For example, Ghost images are rarely accessed, so they are on the last (innermost) partition. Linear velocity is slowest here, but I don't care.My question really is this: I have an additional motive (besides speed) for storing MY FILES on a separate partition. I believe that viruses/worms/spyware/etc. infects the c: partition (system files/registry/etc). The problem with system restore (besides more system slowdowns), it seems to me, is that if you are hosed by a virus, and restore to a previous point, you lose all files created since last restore point. Keeping lots of restore points costs losts of hd space. So I Ghost only my c: partition, and if I have to restore with Norton Ghost, I can restore only the sys/prog files, leaving my (uninfected) personal files untouched. I have good security so I haven't had to test my theory yet. I have done lots of restores in the past 18 months though, as it takes 5 minutes to restore my system to the way it was ten minutes after I did a clean install of XP and all my programs. All the crap that accumulates that you can't remove I wipe by in essence doing a clean install, with programs, in five minutes, but leaving my personal files/movies/music untouched. I need a critique of this setup as well. I have already requested one of my security setup as well in the security forum.Thanks for everyones time and input.Forrest

Yeah, what about that? I know this is a little off-topic, but I leave mine on 24/7 (live in Spain and P2P is quite legal here still), and want to know what people think the costs are? I don't follow my electricity bill that closely, but if has added anything significant it isn't more than 20 bucks a month or I would have noticed the increase I believe. But does anyone actually know what the average power consumption of the AVERAGE desktop is over time? I have been more or less up 24/7 for about 18 months since I bought this desktop, and no failures yet. Ocassionally I have to clean dust out as it get dirty and starts to blow the fan more (and so it gets louder). I always know it's dirty from how loud the fan is. Thoughts? Don't flame me, didn't want to start a new topic for such a silly question. It's not THAT important.

Yeah, that's what I hear, but is it true that some pages don't load right on Firefox? That's why I opted to just beef up with antispyware, so that can run IE without a problem. I have never seen it used, just have tripped over some flame wars on the subject... Forrest

I use mine for p2p (I live in Spain and it's still legal here if "sin animo de lucro" - without motive of profit. I also listen to NPR over the net, skype friends in the States, and browse. I also buy lots of stuff on eBay.com, eBay.es, eBay.fr, eBay.it, eBay.de... you get the idea. There's lots of cool stuff in Europe people! I also burn stuff to dvd (mostly episodes of star trek that I can't get here or don't feel like watching in Spanish). That's about it, other than wordprocessing, keeping financial accounts, paying bills, writing emails and im's, and photoshoping my vacation pics. Oh, and I post on Xisto.comForrest

Man am I an oldie:Toshiba laptop386sx 33mghz 512k RAM, 110mb HD, 10"xga Windows 3.1How about that? At the time (93?) I paid 600 bucks for it used, and it had cost about 1500 bucks a year and a half before THAT. I thought it was the coolest thing I would ever want to own.Now?2.8 Ghz P4 HT, 1024 MB RAM, 2x120gb hd, 1x76gb scsi 15,000 rpm Cheeta hd, 17" sony lcd, XP Pro SP2.I sold the laptop to a five year old for 5 bucks, he thought it was cool (as in antique cool)Forrest

I would just like to have comments on any holes that I might have. I have been using this configuration for a while, but want to hear what others think. Here's my security setup:OS: XP Pro SP2AV: AVG Antivirus, updates/scans automaticallyFirewall: Sygate Personal FirewallAntiSpy: Spybot Search and Destroy, manual update/scan, teatimer prevents unauthorized registry changes. Spyware Blaster, manual update, automatic scan. Backup: Norton Ghost (system restore disabled)With the exception of OS and Norton Ghost, all items are FREE and have sterling reputations. I prefer Ghost to System Restore, consumes fewer resources, I control backups, and I keep don't keep my personal files on c: partition anyway...Any thoughts/criticisms?Forrest