|
Lets Paint The Kettle Black,Do You Have A Bitch On Whats Going On Around The Site Or Any Thing Negative To Report
|
|
Senior Member
2 product reviews
|
11. October 2006 @ 23:31 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
Case: Links to sites offering possibly pirated content (including torrent files and ed2k links). PERMITTED
It doesn't matter now, because the user's temp ban has finished.
But, I pointed out that very same rule as posted by ketola, and Jannejt still banned a poor bloke for asking where he could download games from. I class Jannejt as a friend(We chat in the #ad_buddies room) but, I just think it was a bit harsh is all.
Feel free to have a look Here
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 11. October 2006 @ 23:54
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
Senior Member
|
12. October 2006 @ 00:06 |
Link to this message
|
~LoL~, Jannejt was probably just tired or something, I have a feeling gorge14 didn't read the forum rules looking at that post...
He asked:
Quote:
can some1 tell me a page to download free ps2 games plese help
That is straight piracy, Bubba linked to black-cats (a BT tracker) which is permitted & was OK, meaning gorge14 got his answer, in a way that reflects the forum rules, maybe the temp ban was a wee bit harsh...I dunno :-)
The question undoubtable was phrased wrong, so I guess he could've done with a flick through the forum rules.
|
Senior Member
2 product reviews
|
12. October 2006 @ 00:22 |
Link to this message
|
|
the thing is though, that he didn't ask for a direct link at all. just asked for a link to a page where he could dl games.
And then my post was edited by a mod. So I figured skrew it, I didn't break any forum rules and edited it back.
oh and lol@triple post
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 12. October 2006 @ 00:22
|
Senior Member
|
12. October 2006 @ 02:55 |
Link to this message
|
|
Gerry1,
How to jam a cell phone, figure out what band it operates on, say 900 MHZ or so, Google RF Jammer, buy a few electrical goodies at your local radio parts store, make a 3 watt Jammer, and voila! instant peace and harmony, until they figure out who is jamming them and then there will be hell to pay 'cuz they can't discuss who was sleeping with who last night, and who is a 'Ho 'cuz they stole my man and yada yada yada.
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
12. October 2006 @ 06:54 |
Link to this message
|
THIS IS THE BIGGEST BITCH I HAVE FOR TODAY,THE RIAA LOVES YE,NOT
New Copy Protection to Make Playing DVDs on a PC Difficult
Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Wednesday October 11, @04:18PM
from the thankfully-there-are-alternatives-to-windows dept.
Windows Hardware
The Cowardly Pirate writes "ZDNet's Hardware 2.0 blog is reporting that new copy-protection software for DVD publishers from a company called ProtectDisc not only makes it difficult to rip movies that you've purchased but also prevents discs from playing in a Windows PC at all. From the article: 'Protect DVD-Video is the brainchild of a company called ProtectDisc. Part of the copy-protection mechanism is a non-standard UDF (Universal Disc Format) file system which results in the IFO file on the DVD (this is the file responsible for storing information on chapters, subtitles and audio tracks) appearing to the PC as being zero bytes long.'"
Protect DVD-Video - A slap in the face for PC and Media Center owners
Posted by Adrian Kingsley-Hughes @ 4:38 am
Digg This!
The movie industry seems determined to continue on a course where it happily erodes the rights of legitimate users, all in the name of securing profits. The latest example of this comes in the form of a DVD copy protection technology called Protect DVD-Video which actually prevents a DVD being played on a Windows PC using Windows Media Player, Windows Media Center Edition or any software players based on DirectShow.
Protect DVD-Video is the brainchild of a company called ProtectDisc. Part of the copy-protection mechanism is a non-standard UDF (Universal Disc Format) file system which results in the IFO file on the DVD (this is the file responsible for storing information on chapters, subtitles and audio tracks) appearing to the PC as being zero bytes long.
The upshot of this is that if you have a DVD disc protected by Protect DVD-Video and you try to play the disc in a PC-based system using, say, Windows Media Player, the process will fail.
Now, lets be clear here, we are taking about a genuine, legitimate DVD disc not working in a PC, not a pirated disc or a download via a torrent. Protect DVD-Video protects a DVD by basically making it un-playable in a DVD drive that's in a Windows-based PC (I've no information on whether this also locks out Linux users - I would imagine that it does).
Remember how I told you that Protect DVD-Video was the brainchild of ProtectDisc? Well, the interesting thing about this company is that it is run by Volkmar Breitfeld, who is also managing director of ACE (who market the FluxDVD copy protection). However, dig a little deeper and you find that Breitfeld used to work for the "other side" and is known for his work developing tools to circumvent copy protection, such as InstantCopy and InstantCD/DVD.
As with most copy protection mechanisms, a way round it is never that far behind. SlySoft have a product called AnyDVD which works in the background to automatically remove the copy protection of a DVD movie as soon as it's inserted into the drive. The other day they released an updated version of AnyDVD which effortlessly bypasses Protect DVD-Video.
"With this copy protection the film industry clearly overshot the mark", says Giancarlo Bettini, CEO at SlySoft. "The premium customer who spent a lot of money on his multimedia home cinema and who, for quality reasons, would never even consider watching anything else but an original DVD, is being slapped in the face. These customers with their shelves stuffed with rightfully acquired DVDs, can't watch their videos."
As usual, I don't have a problem with anyone protecting their intellectual property and making sure that they are paid fairly for their work, but I am dismayed when, time after time, they seem to blur the line between fair use and piracy. The more that legitimate users are being made to feel like they have been cheated out of being able to use what they've paid for, the more people are being pushed into looking for tools that allow them to circumvent copy protection ? simply to use what they paid for. That sets a worrying trend that will ultimately make things worse for the movie and recording industry. Imagine if keys were outlawed and people had to turn to lockpicks to get into their own homes? Would that make us all more secure? I doubt it! The same thing is happening here. The entertainment industry is forcing ordinary users to look for tools to bust copy protection in order to use a product they?ve paid for, ordinary users feels abused and ripped off by a big, faceless corporation, and the next time they want a song or movie, they're less likely to pay for it and more likely to acquire it through other channels.
And to be honest, who can blame them?
Adrian is a technology author who has devoted over a decade to helping users get the most from technology. He also also runs a popular blog called The PC Doctor.
http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/index.php?p=114
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
12. October 2006 @ 07:12 |
Link to this message
|
ANOTHER BITCH
Radioactive Snails Crawl Up From Beneath
Posted by samzenpus on Thursday October 12, @02:39AM
from the all-the-powers-of-a-man-sized-snail dept.
It's funny. Laugh. Science
slidersv writes "Reuters is reporting discovery of radioactive snails in the area where three hydrogen bombs were lost by US in the 1966. The radioactive creatures crawl up from underground, where authorities suspect deposits of uranium and plutonium may be located."
Radioactive snails lead to Spain-U.S. atomic probe
Wed Oct 11, 2006 8:35 PM IST171
MADRID (Reuters) - The discovery of radioactive snails at a site in southeastern Spain where three U.S. hydrogen bombs fell by accident 40 years ago may trigger a new joint U.S.-Spanish clean-up operation, officials said on Wednesday.
GO HERE TO READ THE ARTICLE
http://in.today.reuters.com/news/newsArt...&archived=False
|
|
gerry1
Suspended permanently
|
12. October 2006 @ 07:17 |
Link to this message
|
|
It really is a hell of a slap in the face for people with media center PCs. (Any idea, Ireland, if the push/marketing of these media center PCs for the last three or four years has met with success in the general public?)
|
|
ddp
Moderator
|
12. October 2006 @ 07:23 |
Link to this message
|
|
rav, deleted the 2 clone posts
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
12. October 2006 @ 07:27 |
Link to this message
|
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
12. October 2006 @ 07:44 |
Link to this message
|
Myth - "Windows 95/98/ME is as reliable as XP." - Comparison Chart - Reliability Video
Reality - "Windows XP is 10-30 times more reliable then Windows 95/98/ME. Windows XP Professional is built on the proven code base of Windows 2000, which features a 32-bit computing architecture, and a fully protected memory model. Windows XP offers several enhancements that make it the most reliable version of Windows yet: Application Compatibility, Compatibility Mode, Improved Device and Hardware Support, Shared DLL Support, Shutdown Event Tracker, Windows Driver Protection, Device Driver Rollback, Windows Installer, Auto Update, Dynamic Update, Windows Update, Shadow Copy Integration with Backup, Last Known Good Configuration, Automated System Recovery, System Restore Enhancements, Error Messaging and Product Support, Online Crash Analysis, " - Source
Microsoft: Windows XP Reliability Study (PDF)
http://etestinglabs.com/clients/reports/microsoft/msxprely.pdf
- Windows XP Professional ran over 30 times as long without encountering problems as those running Windows 98 SE.
- None of the Windows XP Professional systems had a single application or operating system failure during the test period.
- None of the Windows 2000 Professional Gold systems had a single application or operating system failure during the test period.
THIS IS THE REASON I USE WINDOWS 2000 INSTEAD OF XP-POOP
Do not get me wrong on xp-poop i do have two xp-poop systems running..
xp-sp1 and xp-sp2..
sp-1 is more stable...then sp-2 and windows 2000 is more stable then xp-poop sp1 or sp-2...
NOTE-WINDOWS 2000 WAS INSTALLED 12-7-1999 AND I AM STILL USING IT..
CAN YE SAY THAT ABOUT XP-POOP....
WINDOWS 2000
a good read here,and its a dam good read
XP Myths - Myths Regarding Windows XP
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/SupportCD/XPMyths.html
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 12. October 2006 @ 08:11
|
|
gerry1
Suspended permanently
|
12. October 2006 @ 07:47 |
Link to this message
|
|
@BlivetNC ... I really am quite serious my friend! It isn't something I'd do all the time but rather as a totally warranted and easily justified response to the rudest of people.
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
12. October 2006 @ 07:56 |
Link to this message
|
MY THIRD BITCH
deleting the Prefetch Folder in XP-POOP is bull crap..as i hear that a lot..
Prefetcher Cleaning the Prefetch Folder Negative
Myth - "Deleting the contents of the Prefetch folder improves performance."
Reality - "Every time you delete an application's Prefetch (.PF) file you will cripple that application's load time the next time you go to launch it. This can temporarily increase load times by as much as 100%. For one thing, XP will just re-create the Prefetch (.PF) trace files anyway; secondly, it trims the files if there's ever more than 128 of them so that it doesn't needlessly consume space. However you do not regain optimal application load times back until after the second time you launch the same application due to the Prefetch (.PF) trace file being re-created. Prefetch (.PF) trace files are not a cache and are not preloaded into memory upon windows startup. They are never even accessed until you launch an application. Only one Prefetch (.PF) trace file per application is created. There is never ANY reason to delete these files. Cleaning the Prefetch folder is actually a temporary self-inflicted unoptimization. Why you would want to deliberately hurt your PC's performance I have no idea." - Source - Source 2 - Source 3 - Source 4
Malware/Viruses - Some people irresponsibly recommend cleaning this folder due to possible Malware/Virus infection. Malware/Viruses can place an infected file(s) in any folder and the Prefetch folder is no different. Do these same people recommend deleting the contents of the Windows folder because it is a popular location to find an infected file(s)? Of course not, you simply clean or delete the infected file(s) not the contents of the folder. This Myth got started due to the indiscriminate nature of the Windows Prefetcher, which will Prefetch any executable file that you load or loads during Windows start up. Thus it is quite common on an infected machine to find a Prefetch (.PF) trace file in the Prefetch folder with the same name as an infected executable. These files are NOT Malware/Viruses. They are there to improve the load time, in this case ironically, of the Malware/Virus but do not contain any infected code. Once the associated infected executable is deleted, these Prefetch (.PF) trace files do nothing and will eventually automatically be cleaned by Windows.
CCleaner - Finally the useless, performance slowing cleaning option "Old Prefetch data" was moved to the advanced section and is now not selected by default. Never select this option for cleaning as it will increase application and Windows load times. This option removes Prefetch files that are a few weeks old based on the NTFS last access date. Since Windows XP already cleans this folder at 128 entries, this is a useless option that will only reduce system performance. You should never delete a Prefetch file for any installed application since that would cripple it's load times. Just because a program was not used in a few weeks does not mean you want it to load as slow as possible when you do decide to use it. If you disable the NTFS last access date stamp then this option will delete the whole contents of the Prefetch folder after a few weeks, which will cripple Windows Boot and all application load times. The Prefetch folder is also ridiculously small so cleaning Prefetch files before the 128 limit will reclaim next to no disk space. This option clearly needs a warning to prevent people from unknowingly hurting their system performance. Anyone who claims this should be cleaned for ANY reason does not understand how Windows Prefetching works. - Source
Bad Advice - This bad advice to clean the prefetch folder is posted frequently on the Internet by people who do not understand how the Windows XP Prefetcher works. Their explanations are 100% inaccurate. - Bad Advice 1 - Bad Advice 2 - Bad Advice 3 - Bad Advice 4
a lot to read here
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/SupportCD/XPMyths.html
|
Member
|
12. October 2006 @ 08:35 |
Link to this message
|
It just get my nerves, so excuse if I sound more stupid than ordinary. Following the same logic as the RIAA @$$e$, when I buy a car I'm only buying the mode of transport not the vehicle?? So all mechanic shops would be ilegal, because I couldn't repair it but had to buy a new one instead??
!!!
Chuck
"Men are slower to recognize blessings than misfortunes." Titus Livius (59BC-17AD)
|
Senior Member
|
12. October 2006 @ 10:41 |
Link to this message
|
|
Thanks for removing the other 2 posts ddp, my connection was playing up in the early hours of the morn, thats usually when I start my Bit Torrent transfer & go to work, cheers.
|
Senior Member
|
12. October 2006 @ 10:59 |
Link to this message
|
|
Why do you hate windows xp so much ireland? I think it's the best os microsoft ever made. well untill vista comes. But i won't get it untill they fix all the bugs and stuff. But the reason i want vista is because of halo 2.
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
12. October 2006 @ 11:09 |
Link to this message
|
|
rihgt682
i do not hate xp-poop...i have it on two computers..
i have to spend more time keeping it running right..
its not as stable as 2000...period
i burn and rip movies under 20 mim..
WINDOWS 2000 WAS INSTALLED 12-7-1999 AND I AM STILL USING IT..
moveing the hd from newer mother to mother..and cloneing the hd to another hd as needed
how meny time did ye have to install or reformat xp-poop?
CAN YE SAY THAT ABOUT XP-POOP....
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 12. October 2006 @ 11:21
|
Senior Member
2 product reviews
|
12. October 2006 @ 11:23 |
Link to this message
|
|
Windows 2000 is no were near as stable as Linux but thats a given. I ran a Linux test server on an old pc my dad brought home from work and I ran it for about 6 months non-stop (I had it even backup on a power supply that had ~2 hours of battery so the occational power outage didn't shut down the computer) I finally shut it down because I didn't have any real use for it.
Windows 2k is the most stable OS Microsoft has put out as far as my knowlage goes. I have had to reformat this computer I am on right now (XP Pro SP2) once sense I got it two years ago and that was due to it being sluggish, not from a virus etc.
I am going to stay with XP as long as possible though as Vista requires too much to be useful to me.
"The only people who should buy Monster cable are people who light cigars with Benjamins." - Gizmodo
|
|
jorahan
Suspended permanently
|
12. October 2006 @ 11:31 |
Link to this message
|
|
Can I have a bitch about people bitching to an all time high bitching record or 108 bitching pages?
Ich bin der Träumer
私が持っているあなたのすべて
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
12. October 2006 @ 11:43 |
Link to this message
|
|
Pop_Smith
i was a beta tester when xp-poop came out..boy was it junk
it took a total rewrite that was needed to fix the problems
and that was sp-2..
sp-2 added more problems..on about 60% of the computers out..
i ran a test with xp-poop sp-2 about 2-months ago
using mcafee..it was the best virus and Trojan catcher i seen..
the virus even went into mbr of the hard drive..
ye should know what that means..ye have clean the mbr and a total reformat..
i use norton..since year 2000...on win 2000...
p4 3gh and 4g ram...
i just got done with two movies with win 2000,both came in under 20 min...
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 12. October 2006 @ 11:50
|
|
tocool4u
Suspended permanently
|
12. October 2006 @ 11:51 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
Windows 2000 is no were near as stable as Linux
I wouldn't say that. Linux you have more control and more robust features. Linux actually has alot of bugs and patches updated daily along with crahses of programs but not really anything with the system files. I would say Win 2000 is more stable.
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
12. October 2006 @ 13:30 |
Link to this message
|
|
@jorahan
You may bitch as often as you like. The 108 pages just goes to show how many UNHAPPY members we have here! LMFAO
@ireland
XP is POOP! But I will stick with it over Vista. Unfortunately 2000 is the only version I have not had the misfortune to use!
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 12. October 2006 @ 13:32
|
Member
|
12. October 2006 @ 15:25 |
Link to this message
|
|
@gerry1
Different time zones*** I was up pretty late though. Glad to see you all.
Sam fisher watches you |
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
12. October 2006 @ 17:20 |
Link to this message
|
|
Not really a bitch as much as a question
this is just my opinion/thinking...why hasnt ALKOHOL been named a Mod or Staff member...that is one smart cat there.i dont think there is much he dont know....IMHO.........
peace love and apple grease...
|
Senior Member
2 product reviews
|
12. October 2006 @ 17:42 |
Link to this message
|
|
I thought he was a Mod, lol. Maybe he got an invitation and declined it? I honestly have no idea as I thought he was a Mod.
"The only people who should buy Monster cable are people who light cigars with Benjamins." - Gizmodo
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
Senior Member
|
12. October 2006 @ 18:25 |
Link to this message
|
|
@Gerry1
give me a week and let me see what I can come up with.
=)
|
