Those of you that play WoW may be aware of the add-ons. WoW more or less pioneered a method of interface modifications where anyone can create a modification using Lua code.
Now game modifications aren't a new concept, but the fact that Blizzard has provided resources to do this is fairly novel. They have allowed for customization, but still have means to deal with what they consider cheating.
Now most software based game modifications (notably excluded are hardware based Game Genie or Game Shark) are historically written by fans who want to expand their gameplay. Many of these add-ons were in fact licensed under the GPL (if you don't know, look it up).
Add-ons are various and many. They are spread out all over the interwebz. Needless to say, it can be quite confusing to sort through them all. An obvious solution is is to create a website where add-ons might be centrally stored and distributed. Enter websites like Curse and WoWinterface.
These solutions of course are not perfect. They depend on the permission of the add-on copyright holder, and a sufficient number of add-ons. Competing websites too diminish the completeness of each other.
Then there was an unconventional solution: WoW Matrix. This is a cross platform (works under Windows, Mac, and even Linux which is not supported by WoW) program that downloads, extracts, and installs add-ons without having to browse for them. It replaces at least 2 pieces of software, and greatly simplifies the process. To top it all off, it alerts you to new versions of your add-ons and updates as needed. The disadvantage of this is that it is more or less a parasite that uses the bandwidth of the hosting site, and circumvents the viewing of revenue producing advertisements on those sites.
Needless to say, Curse and WoW Interface don't like WoW Matrix very much. Thier solution: change their download links to block WoW Matrix. This of course is a perfectly legitimate and not dishonorable method; I have no complaint about it.
They didn't stop there. Anyone who has used WoW add-ons for any legnth of time knows that when WoW is updated, many add-ons stop working. Curse and WoW Interface know this too, so they deliberately timed their blockage with the release of WoW version 3.1. A legitimate, but not so honorable move. The only purpose I can see behind this was to discredit WoW Matrix, who could not anticipate the change and could not adjust for alternate loctions for the new add-on variations. Now WoW Matrix users, some with dozens of add-ons had few working add-ons
Many of the less than computer savy players have no idea how to download, extract, and install an add-on without some assistant computer. Curse has their own program, but it is slow, only works with Curse hosted add-ons, and only works in Windows (to their credit, a Mac version is in Beta).
WoW Matrix is adjusting by hosting all add-ons that it has a license to. Most of these are the GPLed add-ons.
Here's what's really pissing me off. The add-on Cartographer was written by an employee of Curse. This add-on was previously distributed under GPL. This version can redistributed and modified at the discression of the licensee. The author of course as a Curse employee can't release a new version under GPL, because then WoW Matix would be allowed to distriute it. They have deliberately replaced the GPL from their current version.
Now if I were a programmer, familiar with Lua, and had any interest in Cartographer (which I don't because it isn't very good for my purposes) I would take the last GPLed version, and create a derivative work. However, since I have none of those things, I'll just recommend that course to others.
20090503
20090420
I think I got it figured out
So, the president isn't going to raise taxes for those making under $250K. Let's just say he only means federal income tax since he's already raised my tobacco tax.
So:
Step 1: Raise taxes on those making over $250k.
Step 2: Print a ton of money backed by....... nothing
Step 3: Spend that money
Step 4: Massive inflation
Step 5: Things cost more because money isn't worth as much
Step 6: Raise the minimum wages continuously over the next several years (because those mean employers are exploiting those poor workers)
Step 6a: Employers have massive layoffs because they can't afford to pay minimum wages......nah, let's not worry about that now.
Step 7: By the end of it all, everyone left with a job that works full time for a reasonable wage will be earning over $250k, and we can tax them to our hearts content (those evil rich people)
So:
Step 1: Raise taxes on those making over $250k.
Step 2: Print a ton of money backed by....... nothing
Step 3: Spend that money
Step 4: Massive inflation
Step 5: Things cost more because money isn't worth as much
Step 6: Raise the minimum wages continuously over the next several years (because those mean employers are exploiting those poor workers)
Step 6a: Employers have massive layoffs because they can't afford to pay minimum wages......nah, let's not worry about that now.
Step 7: By the end of it all, everyone left with a job that works full time for a reasonable wage will be earning over $250k, and we can tax them to our hearts content (those evil rich people)
20090214
The economy of efficiency
Efficiency is the concept of accomplishing a task with minimal resources.
For example: If a train leaves Chicago for Boston traveling at 60 MPH, and a train leaves from Boston for Chicago at 90 miles an hour, the train from Boston makes more efficient use of time.
Note here that we're only considering the resource of time. If we were trying to make more efficient use of fuel, the Chicago train would probably win.
Let's look at light bulbs. If bulb A costs $2 and bulb B costs $4, bulb A is makes more efficient use of money. Now if bulb B lasts 3 ties as long as A, bulb B is more efficient. If they they both have the same life span but bulb A uses $5 less worth of electricity over it's lifetime, A is more efficient.
The point is that we have to consider all of our resources and determine where we need to improve efficiency. The goal of efficiency is to reduce the use of a specific resource while still accomplishing the task.
In a modern society, the resource is simple and universal; money. We want to do the same thing with less money so we can spend our money somewhere else. The end state is improved quality of life, or at least that's the goal.
Let's go back to our light bulbs. We've changed over to light bulb C that costs a little more, but lasts longer and uses less power for the same performance. We're now spending less in the long run on bulbs and electricity. There are however some broader effects.
The power company is not making less money because we're consuming less power. Light bulb company A is now going out of business because nobody buys their product at all. The light bulb store had to lay off half of their staff because people aren't buying as many light bulbs. The freight company that delivered the bulbs fired half it's truck drivers for the same reason. Next year freight company doesn't buy as many tucks, so the truck making company fires it's truck makers.
Now we come to the real problem: efficiency leads to superfluous resources.
Our major resource of concern as previously stated is money. What do we do when have superfluous money? There are actually a couple of options:
a. Improve efficiency
This means that we'll take the money we saved by switching to bulb C and invest in a new fuel efficient car. This option of course is limited as we can only improve efficiency to the point that technology allows. After we have upgraded all of our resource consuming habits, what do we then do with the excess money?
b. Improve lifestyle
This was the ultimate goal of efficiency. I want to spend less on light bulbs so I can afford a steak dinner every Friday. I want to spend less on gas so I can save up for a new plasma TV.
c. Conserve
Put the money in the bank, put canned food in the pantry, stock up on ammo, save up for the kid's college, etc.
d. Address prior obligations (i.e. pay off debts)
Option a continues to circulate money, but is the fastest way to eliminate resource demand.
Option b creates new resource demand.
Option c depending on the application can circulate money or stop circulation. If you're storing wads of cash in your mattress, there is no circulation. If you're stocking up on consumables or even keeping your funds in a bank, circulation continues.
Option d circulates money to those to whom we are obligated, and they have the same options we did with our surplus.
We can apply this principle to automation as well. The purpose behind automation is to allow for fewer man-hours to accomplish the same task. If I have have a filing cabinet with 5000 records and I need them sorted alphabetically, this could take hours. To perform the same task when the records are stored in a computer database, the task takes a few seconds. Automation invariably results in less people work.
This brings me to the ultimate purpose behind this essay: electronic health care records. Beyond my personal reservations about having my medical records floating on the internet for anyone designated by the government to see (remember folks, just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you), the fact that this project is lauded as means of creating jobs is absurd.
Automation does not create jobs, it eliminates them.
For example: If a train leaves Chicago for Boston traveling at 60 MPH, and a train leaves from Boston for Chicago at 90 miles an hour, the train from Boston makes more efficient use of time.
Note here that we're only considering the resource of time. If we were trying to make more efficient use of fuel, the Chicago train would probably win.
Let's look at light bulbs. If bulb A costs $2 and bulb B costs $4, bulb A is makes more efficient use of money. Now if bulb B lasts 3 ties as long as A, bulb B is more efficient. If they they both have the same life span but bulb A uses $5 less worth of electricity over it's lifetime, A is more efficient.
The point is that we have to consider all of our resources and determine where we need to improve efficiency. The goal of efficiency is to reduce the use of a specific resource while still accomplishing the task.
In a modern society, the resource is simple and universal; money. We want to do the same thing with less money so we can spend our money somewhere else. The end state is improved quality of life, or at least that's the goal.
Let's go back to our light bulbs. We've changed over to light bulb C that costs a little more, but lasts longer and uses less power for the same performance. We're now spending less in the long run on bulbs and electricity. There are however some broader effects.
The power company is not making less money because we're consuming less power. Light bulb company A is now going out of business because nobody buys their product at all. The light bulb store had to lay off half of their staff because people aren't buying as many light bulbs. The freight company that delivered the bulbs fired half it's truck drivers for the same reason. Next year freight company doesn't buy as many tucks, so the truck making company fires it's truck makers.
Now we come to the real problem: efficiency leads to superfluous resources.
Our major resource of concern as previously stated is money. What do we do when have superfluous money? There are actually a couple of options:
a. Improve efficiency
This means that we'll take the money we saved by switching to bulb C and invest in a new fuel efficient car. This option of course is limited as we can only improve efficiency to the point that technology allows. After we have upgraded all of our resource consuming habits, what do we then do with the excess money?
b. Improve lifestyle
This was the ultimate goal of efficiency. I want to spend less on light bulbs so I can afford a steak dinner every Friday. I want to spend less on gas so I can save up for a new plasma TV.
c. Conserve
Put the money in the bank, put canned food in the pantry, stock up on ammo, save up for the kid's college, etc.
d. Address prior obligations (i.e. pay off debts)
Option a continues to circulate money, but is the fastest way to eliminate resource demand.
Option b creates new resource demand.
Option c depending on the application can circulate money or stop circulation. If you're storing wads of cash in your mattress, there is no circulation. If you're stocking up on consumables or even keeping your funds in a bank, circulation continues.
Option d circulates money to those to whom we are obligated, and they have the same options we did with our surplus.
We can apply this principle to automation as well. The purpose behind automation is to allow for fewer man-hours to accomplish the same task. If I have have a filing cabinet with 5000 records and I need them sorted alphabetically, this could take hours. To perform the same task when the records are stored in a computer database, the task takes a few seconds. Automation invariably results in less people work.
This brings me to the ultimate purpose behind this essay: electronic health care records. Beyond my personal reservations about having my medical records floating on the internet for anyone designated by the government to see (remember folks, just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you), the fact that this project is lauded as means of creating jobs is absurd.
Automation does not create jobs, it eliminates them.
20090212
Bread and circuses
If anyone hasn't guessed guessed by now, I don't like what's going on in the fed today.
The problem is largely due to expectations; the American population expects the Fed to fix all their problems for them, and the Fed thinks they can actually accommodate them.
Obama's going to get me heath care, Obama's going to get Osama, Obama's going to fix the economy, Obama's going to get me a job, Obama's going to get me a new kitchen.
Now the President nor the rest of the fed isn't doing much to discourage these notions which means one of a couple things:
1. They're content to let the idiots be idiots so long as it keeps them in power. In this case we should remove them from office for being unethical.
2. They actually think they can provide all of these things to the people. In this case we should remove them from office because they're morons.
3. They are deliberately misleading the public in order to gain power and further their personal agendas. In this case they should be removed from office and tried for treason.
Let's be realistic; the president isn't going to give you a new kitchen. You're already on a 2 year waiting list for public housing, what makes you think more money in a failed program will somehow fix it?
We have the same military we've had since 2001, you think change out a couple of people will somehow make Bin Laden appear? If we do catch him, do you really think it's going to make that much of a difference other than a short term morale boost?
When the fed mandates better benefits at McDonalds, and McDonalds has to downsize to pay for it, even more people will be out of work, therefore have no work related benefits.
The government heath care currently in place already sucks. This is because the government sucks at providing services. A new universal health care system run by the government will suck universally.
It will cost more than comparable private insurance, but unlike private insurance we'll be paying for it whether we want to or not. That's right folks, it's not free; nothing is. It will be completely inefficient (because it's the government) and cost everyone a ton of money. Low income people will have poorly managed and limited availability health care, just like they do now. The middle class will now be forced to use the same limited availability and poorly managed system because they won't be able to afford private insurance after their taxes. The wealthy while they still might be able to afford private insurance will still be paying a ton for everybody else to have shitty health care.
Then we have a plan to "stimulate" the economy. Anyone who looks at the proposals can easily see that the results will not be worth the cost. The biggest problem is the assumption that the fed has some control over the economy, which they don't.
A year, two years from now when these "new" programs fail to deliver as promised (and they will fail) what do we do then? Will we spend more money on more worthless projects? Will we get mad at the blues and elect a red congress (that way we can blame someone else a couple years later)? Or will there be riots in the streets, looting and robbing because the government didn't meet their expectations?
Personally I think that's the order of likelyhood since we never learn from our mistakes, but I don't plan on being unprepared in the event of public backlash.
The problem is largely due to expectations; the American population expects the Fed to fix all their problems for them, and the Fed thinks they can actually accommodate them.
Obama's going to get me heath care, Obama's going to get Osama, Obama's going to fix the economy, Obama's going to get me a job, Obama's going to get me a new kitchen.
Now the President nor the rest of the fed isn't doing much to discourage these notions which means one of a couple things:
1. They're content to let the idiots be idiots so long as it keeps them in power. In this case we should remove them from office for being unethical.
2. They actually think they can provide all of these things to the people. In this case we should remove them from office because they're morons.
3. They are deliberately misleading the public in order to gain power and further their personal agendas. In this case they should be removed from office and tried for treason.
Let's be realistic; the president isn't going to give you a new kitchen. You're already on a 2 year waiting list for public housing, what makes you think more money in a failed program will somehow fix it?
We have the same military we've had since 2001, you think change out a couple of people will somehow make Bin Laden appear? If we do catch him, do you really think it's going to make that much of a difference other than a short term morale boost?
When the fed mandates better benefits at McDonalds, and McDonalds has to downsize to pay for it, even more people will be out of work, therefore have no work related benefits.
The government heath care currently in place already sucks. This is because the government sucks at providing services. A new universal health care system run by the government will suck universally.
It will cost more than comparable private insurance, but unlike private insurance we'll be paying for it whether we want to or not. That's right folks, it's not free; nothing is. It will be completely inefficient (because it's the government) and cost everyone a ton of money. Low income people will have poorly managed and limited availability health care, just like they do now. The middle class will now be forced to use the same limited availability and poorly managed system because they won't be able to afford private insurance after their taxes. The wealthy while they still might be able to afford private insurance will still be paying a ton for everybody else to have shitty health care.
Then we have a plan to "stimulate" the economy. Anyone who looks at the proposals can easily see that the results will not be worth the cost. The biggest problem is the assumption that the fed has some control over the economy, which they don't.
A year, two years from now when these "new" programs fail to deliver as promised (and they will fail) what do we do then? Will we spend more money on more worthless projects? Will we get mad at the blues and elect a red congress (that way we can blame someone else a couple years later)? Or will there be riots in the streets, looting and robbing because the government didn't meet their expectations?
Personally I think that's the order of likelyhood since we never learn from our mistakes, but I don't plan on being unprepared in the event of public backlash.
20081210
My Linux Conversion
So this will probably end up being a pretty long story. It spans years and pock marked with minor developments.
To start at the beginning, I first really began using computers about the time that Windows was first becoming available (3.0 I believe). Mind you I didn't have this fancy Windows stuff... I was on a top of the line 286 processor with 1 MB of RAM. I had Geoworks for a GUI but never used it. No need, I had DOS. On a related note, I still use DOS. The command line is very often the easiest way to accomplish complex file management task quickly, and with batch file it provides for simple automation of routine tasks.
When the `95 revolution came out, I was not impressed. The operating system had begun to take over the the machine, and do things that I didn't want it to. This is what really turned me off from Windows; by default it categorized all users as idiots and just did everything for you. Not only did this waste system resources with unneeded functions, but it stifles further learning.
I went from that hand-me-down 286 to a fancy new win95 machine sometime in early 98. I kept that thing until about 2000 when I upgraded to a shiny new98 machine around 2000 (win2k didn't install for some reason, and ME sucked....friend built it). After a bunch of false starts and stupid software decisions, I started to really learn the OS. When I discovered Black Viper, it really started to perform to it's maximum potential.
My current machine is an HP built for XP media center purchased in 05. I got it mostly for games. My intent was to set up two machines side by side; one for internet, one for every everything else. The reason for this was that I had learned the internet was a dangerous place filled with resource wasting spyware/adware code that my Windows machine would happily installed just by thinking about the internet. Granted this was less common since I had grown and learned, and formatted, and reinstalled repeatedly (had my format down to a science). Sanitary browsing practices eliminate most of your unwanted code, but never 100%.
It wasn't until I tried to download America's Army v 2.7 or so that I looked at an alternate browser. IE 6 had worked good enough for a while, but it wouldn't download a file that big. Not very trusting, I installed Firefox just for that download, and it worked perfectly. I confess, I had a lot of reservations about this odd software that wasn't MS owned. It worried me; how could I trust it? So of course I researched. Research led to interest, and when I discovered the add-ons, I was hooked.
Firefox led me to look more into open source software. I had been using some OSS for years (namely CDex) but never paid attention to the license. The inevitable result was really learning about Linux.
Reading up on Linux, I liked what I heard. I had a spare hard drive in my old machine (now running 2k) so I formatted it and looked for a distro.
Suse didn't download, and neither did Fedora. Debian downloaded and installed just fine, but the desktop seemed unattractive, and the sound didn't work right off (damn turtle beach card). Ubuntu installed just fine, and the sound problem resolved when I connected the digital output. For quite a while (until it died about 2 years back) it was my internet machine, while I did everything else on XP.
Sometime later during a virus scan on the XP machine discovered something bad on the B drive that I didn't even know I had. This drive was actually my restore partition, and as often happens, the malware installed itself there where I could not delete it (thanks Windows). The solution was obvious, disable system restore ( which is worthless), format the partition. Now I've got 8 GB on my hard disk not being used; what a perfect opportunity to install Linux. Now there's something I find quite appropriate about using the Windows system restore partition for Linux.
Well, my old machine died, the parts went to the wife's PC, and I got her old Mac for my internet machine.
A few months back, XP decided to upgrade to SP3. Windows upgrades are normally not a problem but this one left the OS completely unbootable. I could still boot Ubuntu (7.10 at the time) but I had some difficulty running WoW with it.
After a complete re-image with the XP recovery disks, I decided to hit Ubuntu a bit harder. The recovery disk left my entire hard disk in the original partitions, and completely wiped out my previous Ubuntu install (Windows ate my Linux as the saying goes). The install also took a full day, and then another day or two to remove crap software, disable annoying RAM wasters, and install updates (SP3 excluded)
This time I decided to resize partitions to give me more room for Linux. I ended up with about 100 GB for Windows, 5 for root, 3 for swap (the 8 gigs at the front of the drive reserved for recovery), 30 for usr, and 65 for home. Might not be a great way to partition, but it's working so far (also left some unformatted space between partitions for later expansion)
Ubuntu install takes an hour or so, then some minimal configuration to allow proprietary formats (namely MP3 and video files). I used the proprietary driver for my ATI video card (integrated) and also installed Wine with some minor configuration.
I backed up my WoW before any of the formatting, so that just involved a 1 hour copy over the home network from my Linkstation (big time saver over downloading all of those updates from the net). WoW ran horribly with Wine, but it ran.
Everything I had read told me that ATI video sucks for Linux, and Nvidia has a better reputation even in Windows, so I decided it was time for an upgrade. Armed with list of well supported cards from Ubuntu's web site, specs of my computer, and a general idea of what I wanted, I set off for Best Buy (because there is no Fry's here). The poor guy in the computer department was so confused when I told him what I was trying to do; he kept assuring me that all the cards would work with whatever version of Windows I was using.
The endstate was that I now have a dual monitor (digitial and VGA) card with onboard RAM (freeing up system memory). Not a spectacular card (the wife's video card puts my entire computer to shame) but more than adequate for my needs.
Setting it up in XP was easy enough. I have experience with dual monitors under XP at work, and it came with a Windows disk.
Linux was a bit harder, since I had to learn how to do it under this OS, but with the Nvidia Settings app, it's super easy.
When they say Nvidia has great Linux drivers, they ain't kidding. WoW runs perfectly with this new card.
That was pretty much all she wrote. Other than installing the new expansion (WOTLK) I've been MS free for a couple of months.
And yes, I'm completely ignoring the fact that I haven't posted anything of any significance in over a year.
To start at the beginning, I first really began using computers about the time that Windows was first becoming available (3.0 I believe). Mind you I didn't have this fancy Windows stuff... I was on a top of the line 286 processor with 1 MB of RAM. I had Geoworks for a GUI but never used it. No need, I had DOS. On a related note, I still use DOS. The command line is very often the easiest way to accomplish complex file management task quickly, and with batch file it provides for simple automation of routine tasks.
When the `95 revolution came out, I was not impressed. The operating system had begun to take over the the machine, and do things that I didn't want it to. This is what really turned me off from Windows; by default it categorized all users as idiots and just did everything for you. Not only did this waste system resources with unneeded functions, but it stifles further learning.
I went from that hand-me-down 286 to a fancy new win95 machine sometime in early 98. I kept that thing until about 2000 when I upgraded to a shiny new98 machine around 2000 (win2k didn't install for some reason, and ME sucked....friend built it). After a bunch of false starts and stupid software decisions, I started to really learn the OS. When I discovered Black Viper, it really started to perform to it's maximum potential.
My current machine is an HP built for XP media center purchased in 05. I got it mostly for games. My intent was to set up two machines side by side; one for internet, one for every everything else. The reason for this was that I had learned the internet was a dangerous place filled with resource wasting spyware/adware code that my Windows machine would happily installed just by thinking about the internet. Granted this was less common since I had grown and learned, and formatted, and reinstalled repeatedly (had my format down to a science). Sanitary browsing practices eliminate most of your unwanted code, but never 100%.
It wasn't until I tried to download America's Army v 2.7 or so that I looked at an alternate browser. IE 6 had worked good enough for a while, but it wouldn't download a file that big. Not very trusting, I installed Firefox just for that download, and it worked perfectly. I confess, I had a lot of reservations about this odd software that wasn't MS owned. It worried me; how could I trust it? So of course I researched. Research led to interest, and when I discovered the add-ons, I was hooked.
Firefox led me to look more into open source software. I had been using some OSS for years (namely CDex) but never paid attention to the license. The inevitable result was really learning about Linux.
Reading up on Linux, I liked what I heard. I had a spare hard drive in my old machine (now running 2k) so I formatted it and looked for a distro.
Suse didn't download, and neither did Fedora. Debian downloaded and installed just fine, but the desktop seemed unattractive, and the sound didn't work right off (damn turtle beach card). Ubuntu installed just fine, and the sound problem resolved when I connected the digital output. For quite a while (until it died about 2 years back) it was my internet machine, while I did everything else on XP.
Sometime later during a virus scan on the XP machine discovered something bad on the B drive that I didn't even know I had. This drive was actually my restore partition, and as often happens, the malware installed itself there where I could not delete it (thanks Windows). The solution was obvious, disable system restore ( which is worthless), format the partition. Now I've got 8 GB on my hard disk not being used; what a perfect opportunity to install Linux. Now there's something I find quite appropriate about using the Windows system restore partition for Linux.
Well, my old machine died, the parts went to the wife's PC, and I got her old Mac for my internet machine.
A few months back, XP decided to upgrade to SP3. Windows upgrades are normally not a problem but this one left the OS completely unbootable. I could still boot Ubuntu (7.10 at the time) but I had some difficulty running WoW with it.
After a complete re-image with the XP recovery disks, I decided to hit Ubuntu a bit harder. The recovery disk left my entire hard disk in the original partitions, and completely wiped out my previous Ubuntu install (Windows ate my Linux as the saying goes). The install also took a full day, and then another day or two to remove crap software, disable annoying RAM wasters, and install updates (SP3 excluded)
This time I decided to resize partitions to give me more room for Linux. I ended up with about 100 GB for Windows, 5 for root, 3 for swap (the 8 gigs at the front of the drive reserved for recovery), 30 for usr, and 65 for home. Might not be a great way to partition, but it's working so far (also left some unformatted space between partitions for later expansion)
Ubuntu install takes an hour or so, then some minimal configuration to allow proprietary formats (namely MP3 and video files). I used the proprietary driver for my ATI video card (integrated) and also installed Wine with some minor configuration.
I backed up my WoW before any of the formatting, so that just involved a 1 hour copy over the home network from my Linkstation (big time saver over downloading all of those updates from the net). WoW ran horribly with Wine, but it ran.
Everything I had read told me that ATI video sucks for Linux, and Nvidia has a better reputation even in Windows, so I decided it was time for an upgrade. Armed with list of well supported cards from Ubuntu's web site, specs of my computer, and a general idea of what I wanted, I set off for Best Buy (because there is no Fry's here). The poor guy in the computer department was so confused when I told him what I was trying to do; he kept assuring me that all the cards would work with whatever version of Windows I was using.
The endstate was that I now have a dual monitor (digitial and VGA) card with onboard RAM (freeing up system memory). Not a spectacular card (the wife's video card puts my entire computer to shame) but more than adequate for my needs.
Setting it up in XP was easy enough. I have experience with dual monitors under XP at work, and it came with a Windows disk.
Linux was a bit harder, since I had to learn how to do it under this OS, but with the Nvidia Settings app, it's super easy.
When they say Nvidia has great Linux drivers, they ain't kidding. WoW runs perfectly with this new card.
That was pretty much all she wrote. Other than installing the new expansion (WOTLK) I've been MS free for a couple of months.
And yes, I'm completely ignoring the fact that I haven't posted anything of any significance in over a year.
20080910
Activity
Just a quick note that I haven't posted here in quite a while, and probably won't for a while.
20070823
The militia
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The anti freedom movement declares somehow that the second amendment refers to the National Guard. This I don't get at all.
How it can refer to an agency created over 100 years after it's ratification?
How is it the rest of the Bill of Rights protects the rights of individuals, but the 2nd only protects the "rights of the government"
How does a government have rights?
Why would we need to amend the constitution to provide for a militia, when the constitution already provides for it?
In what manner does "the people" mean "the state"?
The term "militia", has until recent times meant an amateur military organization. An army is a dedicated professional force which would be augmented by the militia in times of emergency. The militia is sometimes formed and trained at the time it is needed.
The original militia consisted of all eligible persons. Eligibility used to consist of white, able bodied men between 18 and 45. They were required to provide their own arms and ammunition.
The inappropriately named Militia Act of 1903 created the National Guard which is a very poor representation of a state militia. The Guard is a professional army, uniformly trained and equipped. It is subordinate to regular army and must obey the regulations of the federal government before those of the state.
The closest thing we have to a real militia is the selective service. The only problem with this agency, is that those conscripted fall under the authority of the regular armed forces. A true militia would answer to the government. While the militia would often fight along with the army, their command met at the commander in chief.
I am no fan of conscription, and I would like to see the selective service eliminated. Compulsory service is never as effective as volunteer service. Those forced to serve are often a distraction to operations rather than an asset. If a nation can't find sufficient staff for their war, that is a clear indication that the people do not support it (voting at it's best).
What I propose is a national militia. This force would be composed of all volunteer citizens, of the age of majority, non-felons, and more or less able bodied (more specific standards of course would be developed). These militiamen would be required to provide their own arms and ammunition (also to certain reasonable standards... a .22 just wouldn't do) and be subject to activation for domestic defense only. An initial period of training would be provided and periodic training conducted at the convenience of the member. The government would be responsible for the administration, and providing personnel and facilities for training. No equipment, ammunition, or salary would be issued. The only advantage would be qualification (and preference) to purchase from the Civilian Marksmanship Program. In order to have a well equipped militia, the CMP would start selling surplus selective fire rifles to militia members.
I think it's a reasonable solution for everyone concerned. The militia would return, and serve it's intended function. As an added benefit, it takes away one more stupid anti-gun argument.
The anti freedom movement declares somehow that the second amendment refers to the National Guard. This I don't get at all.
How it can refer to an agency created over 100 years after it's ratification?
How is it the rest of the Bill of Rights protects the rights of individuals, but the 2nd only protects the "rights of the government"
How does a government have rights?
Why would we need to amend the constitution to provide for a militia, when the constitution already provides for it?
In what manner does "the people" mean "the state"?
The term "militia", has until recent times meant an amateur military organization. An army is a dedicated professional force which would be augmented by the militia in times of emergency. The militia is sometimes formed and trained at the time it is needed.
The original militia consisted of all eligible persons. Eligibility used to consist of white, able bodied men between 18 and 45. They were required to provide their own arms and ammunition.
The inappropriately named Militia Act of 1903 created the National Guard which is a very poor representation of a state militia. The Guard is a professional army, uniformly trained and equipped. It is subordinate to regular army and must obey the regulations of the federal government before those of the state.
The closest thing we have to a real militia is the selective service. The only problem with this agency, is that those conscripted fall under the authority of the regular armed forces. A true militia would answer to the government. While the militia would often fight along with the army, their command met at the commander in chief.
I am no fan of conscription, and I would like to see the selective service eliminated. Compulsory service is never as effective as volunteer service. Those forced to serve are often a distraction to operations rather than an asset. If a nation can't find sufficient staff for their war, that is a clear indication that the people do not support it (voting at it's best).
What I propose is a national militia. This force would be composed of all volunteer citizens, of the age of majority, non-felons, and more or less able bodied (more specific standards of course would be developed). These militiamen would be required to provide their own arms and ammunition (also to certain reasonable standards... a .22 just wouldn't do) and be subject to activation for domestic defense only. An initial period of training would be provided and periodic training conducted at the convenience of the member. The government would be responsible for the administration, and providing personnel and facilities for training. No equipment, ammunition, or salary would be issued. The only advantage would be qualification (and preference) to purchase from the Civilian Marksmanship Program. In order to have a well equipped militia, the CMP would start selling surplus selective fire rifles to militia members.
I think it's a reasonable solution for everyone concerned. The militia would return, and serve it's intended function. As an added benefit, it takes away one more stupid anti-gun argument.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
