Which isn't "as far as the law is concerned".

No offence, but your opinion on this doesn't matter.

Mod parent troll.

My eeepc is mainly for watching vids on the move or in bed, most flavours of linux et al don't allow me that (at least not legally).

I run Ubuntu Server on both my custom built nat router and my VPS, both without X, so I know my way around non-"colorful-clickable toy-OSes". I considered Debian, and to be honest there is very little difference, so I stuck with the Linux distro I knew best.

I've got the Windows 7 Beta on my (originally Linux) eee 901. I got it second hand from someone who'd wiped the stock linux for a (dodgy) XP install, so I've never seen the original linux distro. From what I've heard, I don't want too.

It's a tough call between putting Ubuntu or Windows 7 on it once the 7 beta expires though.

I have several shares in my network places, all on the same server. Yet Windows seems to randomly remove some of them sometimes, even though they're all on the same server (so it can't be the server being down), and I add the shares manually. Turning on or off "Automatically search for network shares" doesn't help either.

My current workaround is to manually add them again whenever I want one and it is missing.

I broke a 16GB SD card recently (fairly expensive mistake, and lost a game save I'd rather not have) and found a few things out:

1: That switch isn't connected inside the card, instead the _drive_ detects the position of it. Same idea as the old floppy disk write protects, but without the excuse that the disk isn't electronic and doesn't write itself.

2: The chips inside fill the card almost completely. Two large (presumably flash) chips take up the full width of the card and most of the length (up to just before the cut corner). The rest is taken up by a controller chip and a few tiny resistors and caps.

3: The circuit board inside is flexible. The damage turned out to be that the card was bent, which peeled the "board" away from the chips' contacts. The contacts are 0.5mm (or 0.02") apart. I don't have a soldering iron fine enough to repair that...

What's to stop him going back to WoW after having sex? Or getting bored with whatever "less addictive" thing you'd have him do.

Hell, how are you planning to stop him playing WoW long enough to even try something else?

I was going to suggest making him pay the internet bill. Change it to his name and don't set up direct debit.

Then see whether he can manage to get away from his pc long enough to pay the bill (or even can afford it), or whether it gets cut off.

Either way, the problem might be solved.

OK then, he's addicted to 20/7 entertainment. How does switching WoW for something else help him revise and do his exams?

I'm running a GTX 285 on a 480W PSU. You really don't need much more.

I didn't know that US cities "historically" against guns are the more crime ridden, but UK cities have dramatically lower crime levels all round.

You say that guns are most dangerous when the criminals have them, so you need them too. I say that the majority of US criminals get their guns the same (legal) way you do, and without so many guns on legal sale, nearly all criminals would be gun free. In the UK, guns are extremely rare among criminals, hence the windbag politicians going after knives. Unfortunately you can't turn around. If you abolished guns now, everyone would still have them.

You also misquote me as having never seen a gun. I have both seen and (I think I forgot to mention it) fired pellet guns and farm rifles. Admittedly I haven't fired a regular pistol, but the pellet guns were both pistol and rifle styles, both firing metal pellets. The pellet rifle belongs to my little brother, and some of the metal "pellets" he has are a pointed-tipped "piercing" kind. Which, to be honest, is a little scary in his hands.

This has been an interesting conversation, maybe I'll speak to you again some time :)

It's a thin line, and one I don't think the masses can walk, especially with the adrenaline of a real life-threatening situation.

You yourself said that they're more likely to miss than hit. Thankfully people tend to run away from trouble, otherwise they might be more likely to hit bystanders than the person they're aiming for.

Perhaps you have more faith in the average person than I do, but then how do you explain the criminals? If you trust everyone to use their guns for good, your trust is very misplaced. The vast majority of shootings in the US are not justified by the law.

I'll admit I don't have any real experience about this, the only guns I've seen in real life are pellet guns (still deadly) and farm rifles. But then I don't think you've ever killed anyone in self defence either.

We're both arguing about things we don't really know about.

So basically, you're saying you are in favour of anyone killing anyone else that they think deserves it?

Your definition of "deserves" may be "intends harm", but you aren't the one holding the gun in every crime in the US. The stupid masses will be.

I am insulted by the way you quote "only raping you" as if I said that. I would never belittle the people who have suffered rape by claiming it was "only".

What I was saying is that if stopping someone without killing them is possible, that is what should be done. Yet if you shoot someone, death is almost inevitable. With the adrenaline rush you'd get when you're actually in that situation, you're unlikely to be able to think and aim well enough to "just" disable someone.

With the sheer number of Christians in the US, you'd think more would stick to their teachings and believe that people can be reformed and earn god's forgiveness no matter what they have done, instead of believing that criminals are all deserving of being shot to death.

You're ok with killing someone to stop them doing something which is significantly less than killing someone themself?

I'm so glad I don't know you in real life.