ferris209

I also love the route that the cinematic universe has taken in regards to this. I look forward to each installment.

TheBoost said:

I DONT WANT TO UPGRADE!!! I LIKE WINDOWS XP!!!!!!!!!!!!

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 I know what you mean, I was there with you a few years back. But, I can tell you Win 7 is pretty dang good, I see it as the new XP. People will be upset in 10 years when they stop supporting it.

Win 7 is the best thing since XP. Win 8 blows walrus penis, I call it Win .8, not even a full 1.

DOS, gosh, those were the days. I learned on that and progressed to Win 3. I was a wiz on DOS back in the 90's, but now can't remember hardly any commands except DIR.

DuracellEnergizer said:

I browsed a few forums and tried some of their tips, but they did nothing.

 Hmmm, could be time for a whole new Windows install, if that's doable. I find it best to re-install Windows and start from scratch at least every couple of years. It's a PITA, but worth it to have everything working right.

DuracellEnergizer said:

Earlier this afternoon, I downloaded an swf file and tried to play it, but it wouldn't open -- apparently, I didn't have Adobe Flash Player installed (this is spite of the fact that on-line Flash content seemed to operate just fine for me).

So, I decided to reinstall Flash. When I tried, however, it kept aborting, giving me the message that "Flash Player failed to register" or something like that.

Well, I figured maybe I should uninstall Flash before reinstalling it, so I did. However, not only did the download fail again, but I was no longer able to view Flash content -- like YouTube videos -- online. Now I started to worry.

So, I spent the next couple of hours reinstalling and re-uninstalling Flash over-and-over again, trying different methods to get it to work. Each attempt failed with the same damn results: "Flash Player failed to register" "ActiveX control failed to register", etc, etc.

So, in the end, I used System Restore to reset the computer back to the way it was before I started monkeying around with the sonuvabitch.

Suffice it to say, not only am I mad as heck, but I'm afraid of what will happen if I need to update my Flash software in the future. 

 Have you checked through google to see if there are any forums or boards where someone had the same issue that maybe found a fix? That typically helps me.

Warbler said:

 Wow!  Sorry this has happened to you.   You said you were sore and hurting.  How badly were you injured?   I hope not too seriously.   

No injuries, except scrapes & bruises, but my whole body has been sore. An impact like I took tends to make everything on your body hurt.

What makes you so sure you will be blamed?   You said you had full lights and siren on.  I know in my state, you are supposed to get the heck out of the way of emergency vehicles.  I always do. 

Because it is in Texas law, and our policies, that I am to use absolute due care. Honestly, I did not see the guy, despite his having seen me. So, you can bet I'll have to take the heat. Remember, this society is not exactly cop friendly. It's always our fault.

Btw, did everything turn out ok for the cop you were rushing to help? 

Yes, they got the guy taken into custody and put in jail. Other units got to him while I was sorting out my crash.

I am sure your family does not think of you as a burden.  Don't be so worried about that.  Sometimes things happen.  You are only human after all. 

Well, I'm certain they don't think of me as a burden, but this has been a burden. My wife was going to a continuing education class for her MRI career this week. I was supposed to take the kiddos to daycare on Tues & Mon, but was not able to due to crash. So, my Mom took them Tuesday, my wife ran late to her class and took them today. Plus, My Mother-in-Law had to picked them up and take them each evening because I was laid up in bed, even now. So, you can see this crash has caused a burden, albeit one that my family doesn't mind, a burden nonetheless

I will be praying for you.   hang in there.    

Thanks my friend! Don't you worry about me, I'll be back up and at it this Sunday at 6p central time.

Back on topic. I am bitching about people who do not seem to understand that you YIELD to an emergency vehicle. Due to some jackwagon last night, who said he thought I would slow down, that drove right front of me as I was coming through an intersection running full lights and siren to assist an Officer who had one at gunpoint who was suspected of being armed.

Now I'm sore, hurting, had to lay off work tonight, I've become a burden to my family; mostly due to childcare issues. And in the end I will be blamed for not seeing this jake-leg who expected me to yield to him and that my in-car mobile video malfunctioned and did not catch the wreck. On top of all of it, I totaled my Black & White Dodge Charger, which my PD is no longer buying dammit. And now for a huge investigation and a seat in front of a crash review board. Ugh!

Why did I choose this profession. Dad always told me to be a fireman.

As expected, you all speak just like people who have not been in combat, who have not survived bullets flying by you, and have never placed your life in anothers hands in a critical incident. Carry on!

Ryan McAvoy said:

ferris209 said:

the very genetic desire to protect women could interfere with a male soldiers ability to perform his job correctly.

 But wouldn't friendship between men do that too? The more friendly you are with another man ("Your brother in arms") the less likely you'd be to make the correct life-or-death choice, by your logic. Hang on... that means you are saying that unit cohesion itself, is destroying unit cohesion! Ahhh paradox!

 The dynamics of relationships between men and men are far different from men and women. Men in units learn to trust and respect each others abilities and talents, there is a cohesion that they all understand. I am not saying this dynamic can be achieved with women and men, but that it is uncommon. It is natural for men to want to pay more attention and protect women. Also, it is clear genetic make-up that none of us can change. Evolution dictated that women were to tend to the children, cooking, etc. etc. Generally all the stuff that women have done for thousands of years, but when pointed out now you're labeled a chauvinist. This evolution has also caused most women to have a noncompetitive, compassionate disposition and they hardly work well in groups because for thousands of years, they weren't intended to do any type group activities save it cooking or the like. Men, on the other hand, are generally genetically predisposed to be warriors, hunters, strategists, etc. etc. They are also generally very competitive, work as teams, and develop a bond hardly explainable.

Of course, before any of you jump on me, no I do not think these generalizations apply to all women or all men, but it is fact that they were homemakers while men were the hunters, warriors, and gatherers. It is so ingrained in every human's DNA that it is this away across many cultures, continents, and people. From Native Americans to isolated tribes in the Amazon to the Aborigines in Australia, it's just the way it was intended.

I see this regularly in my career. While men handle their calls without any backup, most women sent to similar calls are accompanied by a man. We also find that it is more difficult to work with women as they lack the physical ability to perform many tasks that are expected of us, they lack a competitive mindset and are less of a type A personality and more often than not a type B person, which is why policewomen are generally transferred to investigations, administration, property, or other not as stressful jobs as street work.

Again, I am not saying all women can't be Police Officers, but I have met a handful who were pretty good and far more fishes out of water. One of the best damn female cops I knew was a State Trooper, I'd trust her any day. But her natural her natural tendencies caught up with her, she had a child, and then got fearful of being killed on duty. She gave it up, hung her hat and badge. \

Now many women are officers, medics, etc. but being on a battlefield is a far far different experience than any of those careers.

Bingowings said:

Have you met women or men or just read about them in books?

Almost every woman I've met can pee standing up. Some of the men I know wee sitting down and everyone craps the same.

I guess if that if the situation demanded it they could do what astronauts and pilots sometimes evacuate in their combat suit.

Yes, I am married to a women and have a 5 year old daughter. Yes, I know women can pee standing up, that isn't the issue.

Warbler said:

 I don't think it takes several minutes more for a woman to urinate.

The issue is that they wear a ton of equipment around their waists and along their legs. It can take men in combat anywhere between 5-10 minutes to disrobe appropriately enough, secure your equipment, and take a crap. Fortunately, men only do this once, maybe twice, a day, but women would have to do so far more often potentially holding up a team, risking exposure in battle, increasing her chances of being separated from her equipment etc. etc.

Women in police work I know complain regularly how lucky we are to just unzip and go. Every time they go piss, they've got to completely take off their duty belt (which can be a pain especially after you got it just right and comfortable), they usually take out crap from their pockets (to keep it from falling out), they have secure their duty weapon or at least hold it, plus find somewhere to set down or hang your duty gear, don't want to just chuck it on the bathroom floor. Plus, when they are out directing traffic for a couple hours on a major accident, they have to have another officer relieve them so they can go find a pot. We, on the other hand walk out to the treeline and let loose, not tying up any other officers in the process.

Also, modesty is not welcome in the military. What would happen if her platoon unknowingly captures a shipment of hazardous cantonments? The soldiers would have to immediately strip down to naked, right there in the field to decontaminate and destroy clothes. 

Additionally, what would happen to these women should they be captured? That's great, not only could they be raped repeatedly, but we could get to see our 18-19 year old American women beheaded on LiveLeak.

Plus, if allowing women to serve on the front lines is allowed, how far behind is selective service for girls? I do not know about you guys, but I just don't think I would want my 18 year old daughter, or my son's 23 year old wife, drafted into combat.

Okay, so if you don't buy that they deserve more sanitary attention than men, how about urinating? What would take a men mere seconds, would take several minutes for a women, which could cause several issues.

Warbler said:

As for your last post about social experimentation.  I find it hard to believe you are against trying to stop sexual harrassment and sexual assauts.  I would understand you believing that certain policies to do so would be unreasonable and/or wouldn't work.  But I remember you talking about how you hold doors open for women and stand at the table with they get up to leave and act like a gentleman.  That seems to be in opposition to sexually harrasing women or sexually assaulting them.  I have to believe that you think both are wrong and abhorant.  I can't believe you are against punishing both.  As for gays serving openly in military.  I continue to not understand your opposition.  I fail to see the problems you think it is causing or would cause.  I just don't see it.  As for women serving at the front,  I think it should be allowed IF the women and pass THE SAME requirements that the men have to pass.   Of course not as many women would able to so as the men, but I think some would.  I could easily find pictures of musclebound women that would clearly pass strength requirements.  I am not for making any requirement any easier for women.  If that is happening, I oppose it.  After all, the enemy isn't going to take it any easier on them just because they are women.  I also would not want to send any unqualifed soldiers to the front that would endanger other soldiers due to being unqualifed.  

I am really disappointed your totally unsimpathetic reaction to people being oppressed throughtout the world.  I just don't get it.   

 

 Men on the front have to go for weeks without a shower, or even any working facilities. How can women, who have very stringent sanitary needs at least once a month, endure that?

Additionally, the very genetic desire to protect women could interfere with a male soldiers ability to perform his job correctly.

TV's Frink said:

I don't like water retention.

 It can make your clothes fit tighter.

Ryan McAvoy said:

ferris209 said:

He lists long wartime deployments as a leading retention negative.

 ^ That's the condensed version ;-)

 Long wartime deployments are caused by retention issues. I guess you failed to understand that part.

Less soldiers = longer deployments for the soldiers left

Social experimentation....

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/mar/25/sailors-leaving-navy-over-stress-on-social-issues-/

Sailors leaving Navy over stress on social issues, Top Gun instructor says

A Navy F-18 fighter pilot and former Top Gun instructor is publicly warning admirals that retention is beginning to suffer from the military’s relentless social conditioning programs.

Cmdr. Guy Snodgrass, until recently a Pentagon speech writer for the chief of naval operations, Adm. Jonathan Greenert, said sailors are becoming fed-up with the constant emphasis on social issues — an apparent reference to gays in the military, women in combat and ending sexual harassment.

“Sailors continue to cite the over-focus on social issues by senior leadership, above and beyond discussions on war fighting — a fact that demoralizes junior and mid-grade officers alike,” Cmdr. Snodgrass wrote this month on the U.S. Naval Institute website, an independent forum for active and retired sailors and Marines.

It is a remarkably frank assessment from an upwardly mobile fighter pilot who is due to become the executive officer of a F-18 unit in Japan.

He says one troubling sign already has emerged: a drop in applications to the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis last year.

“The U.S. Navy has a looming officer retention problem,” Cmdr. Snodgrass writes, adding there is an “erosion of trust in senior leadership.”

He says retention racked up its “worst year in history” for the special warfare community, including Navy SEALs, with a record number of lieutenants declining to stay.

The aviation side had a goal of 45 percent “take rate” on retention bonuses, but got only 36 percent.

“Unfortunately,” Cmdr. Snodgrass says in his 24-page study, “the fact that a growing number of quality officers have already left the service or are planning to head for the doors seems to be going undetected by senior leadership.”

He lists long wartime deployments as a leading retention negative.

He also tackles a touchier issue, what some sailors have referred to as “political correctness,” such as the banning of uniform patches that might offend someone.

Cmdr. Snodgrass writes of “a recent shift within the Navy to eradicate behavior that is, by its every nature, ineradicable.”

“Put simply, there is no dollar amount that can be spent, or amount of training that can be conducted, that will completely eradicate complex issues such as suicide, sexual assault, or commanding officer reliefs for cause — yet we continue to expend immense resources in this pursuit,” he says. “Sailors are bombarded with annual online training, general military training, and safety stand-downs — all in an effort to combat problems that will never be defeated.”

Some of the pressure comes from Congress.

“The perception is that these efforts are not undertaken because they are incredibly effective, but rather because of significant political and public oversight,” the commander says.

Vice Adm. William Moran, deputy chief of naval operations for manpower, personnel, training and education, told The Washington Times Tuesday that he applauds Cmdr.  Snodgrass for warning that retention problems may lie ahead.

“I share many of the concerns and have similar questions raised in the paper,” Adm. Moran said. “Many have heard me on the road talk about how the Bureau of Naval Personnel, historically ‘swings behind the pitch,’ unable to nimbly react to economic and early stage retention issues. It’s not neglect, good people here trying to do the best they can with limited tools, but the fact is it has cost us in both good people and money. We have to do better, and I must say that this discourse helps.”

He added: “Fostering an environment where our people feel empowered to share thoughts on important issues is a core responsibility of leadership — ideas, good and bad, have no rank.”

hairy_hen said:

Then a great number of people were raised to believe it, completely failing to see that they'd incorporated hate and fear into a philosophy that was meant to promote loving your neighbour above all.

 Uh, do you really not understand that you can hate a sin and not the sinner?

Ryan McAvoy said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Ferris did not blame gays in the military for Russia taking Crimea.

 My mistake, it was just that the following post made it sound like he did exactly that...

ferris209 said:

Mrebo said:

If we had oriented our foreign policy efforts differently, maybe we would have headed off the situation in the Ukraine.

 Exactly! If Obama had been strengthening the military the last five years instead of hollowing it out, demoralizing it, and using it as a social experiment then this would've never happened.

If you really don't see the difference between:

Social experimentation (which includes homosexuals, rampant political correctness to the point that they won't call a terrorist attack what it is, allowing people to skirt uniform guidelines, allowing women to serve on the front lines, attacking Christianity, & purging over 200 officers based on ideology), along with demoralizing our soldiers, defunding them, leaving them with ill-kept equipment, reducing their size, reducing soldiers benefits, etc etc helped to cause Russia to be bold; along with portraying himself as weak doesn't help.

and

BECAUSE GAYS!

then you need some help.

RicOlie_2 said:

TV's Frink said:

 This last round of discussion came up because ferris blamed gays in the military for Russia taking over Crimea.

However, Ferris did not blame gays in the military for Russia taking Crimea.

 Thanks!

SilverWook said:

Some of the families found out via a text message though. That's kind of impersonal in my book.

 From my understanding, that was a last choice. I'd heard that they had tried calling them, calling their rooms, sending a person, and when the scheduled press conference came close, they sent the text messages.

Bingowings said:

 Certainly not but Christians oppressing homosexuals is worse than pagans oppressing Christians because they claim to know better. It's the difference between a cat toying with it's prey and a parent drowning a child's cat.

 This is what bugs me, "oppression." Puh-leeeez.

Oppression is what goes on in Muslim countries & Russia.

Just because I believe that employers can dictate your behavior, doesn't mean your oppressed. You CHOOSE to work for who you work for, the United States Government perhaps, you then CHOOSE to obey or disobey the rules laid out to you. You can CHOOSE to not work for that employer and live however you want to live.

I guess I'm oppressed as well. I'm an alcoholic, I didn't choose to be, I was born with it. And yet, my work WILL NOT allow me to drink on duty or discuss my political or religious beliefs in in public. So, I'm oppressed as well I reckon. They even make me wear a certain uniform with certain symbols on it, I can't have a cross pin on it, I'm oppressed! They force me into all kinds of training and such that I feel I don't need, I'm oppressed! You know, they even insist that I record my every action on video and then write, in detail, why I did what I did even though it's on video, I'm oppressed!

Hobby Lobby is being oppressed! Christians are widely being oppressed more and more.

My state will not let me marry more than one woman, dammit I'm oppressed!

I mean, I could be thrown in jail fr my beliefs or actions in other countries or stoned to death for having a sexual desire, but dammit I'm oppressed here!!

Why even haves rules or a civil society, let's just go full on anarchy so that nobody is oppressed, perhaps except for the oppression that roving hordes of thieves, rapists, and murderers inflict  seeing as how they always take over in anarchy.

This oppressive society is just so oppressive to the oppressed. Pfft.

Bingowings said:

I don't try to convert people from heterosexuality, I don't rape or molest people.

I do express my position on discussion boards or in debate when the subject is raised. Why shouldn't I?

 I just breezed into the thread, so sorry for my tardiness in this debate.

As for "born with it" or "it's a choice," well from my perspective, there is not any one single answer. We are each individuals and what we do is determined by our backgrounds, our families, our culture, our genetics, our past experiences, the decisions we've made, etc. etc.

So, what may be true for one (he/she was born homosexual) is not necessarily true for the next, who could have been heterosexual but something may or may not have happened that may have rewired their sexual preference. This can easily happen in childhood. It could even be a combination of the the two, having been born with tendencies one way or the other, but an event or non-event pushes you toward homosexuality or heterosexuality.

Many girls who are molested turn toward homosexuality (and no I'm not saying all homosexual women have been molested or that molestation necessarily leads to homosexuality) because of the fear that the grown man placed on her and she now finds that sex acts with men are disgusting. I think it's certainly plausible that her fear, which often turns to hatred, can manifest a girl to prefer being with women over men wherein she would have most likely been heterosexual had her first sex acts with a man were of love and with consent instead of fear and lust. So while it's not necessarily "a choice", it is a decision based upon past experiences and events psychologically.

But, I am convinced there are many homosexuals just born with the desire and no explanation for why, but should there be? I don't really think so, it's just the way of the world.

As far as this "force" thing, I think it's a lack of communication between heterosexuals and homosexuals, and most of the blame can be put on heterosexuals. When a heterosexual says "don't force it on me," I don't think they really think a homosexual is going to try to molest them, but I think they mean "I don't mind your homosexuality, but I'd prefer not to hear about it whatsoever." Is it right? Probably not, but people cannot help but feel very uncomfortable about certain subjects and would prefer not to think about or remotely discuss it, homosexuality is one of those subjects. Furthermore, they may have a staunch disagreement with homosexuality, but they sincerely like the homosexual person, and they simply do not care for the homosexual to try and convince them that "it's okay to be gay."

I know some will roll your eyes, but many Christians sternly believe Homosexuality to be a sin, but they would happily be friends with homosexuals while adamantly disagreeing with their personal choices.

timdiggerm said:

ferris209 said:

Why did the phones belonging to passengers still ring hours after it was lost and why could they not answer?

 This part, at least, is not mysterious. The hijackers collected everyone's phones, but did not go through the tedious effort of turning them all off.

Although it does imply they were receiving cell service, no?

 Still, how did they manage to collect over 200 phones from people without one single text message or phone call being made? If I were in a hijacking situation, I'd try to text folks, even make a phone call wherein I do not speak, but let the other side hear. None of this happened. Where the passengers knocked out by some form of gas? Were their phones jammed by a device?

This is really catching my interest. I am extremely curious as to what happened with this plane. While I know it's not truly on Craigslist, I wonder where on earth it is why.

No wreckage found, no contact made by anyone either wanting a ransom or by any of the 227 passengers or 12 of the crew. Pings from the engines to a satellite and sent to Rolls-Royce continued for well over 6 hours after the transponder was intentionally turned off. Shortly after it was discovered the plane was missing, family members reported that when calling passengers phones, it would ring and go to voice mail. Had the phones been destroyed, it would simply go to voice mail. It's also been pointed out that at the point where the transponder was turned was the perfect spot to perform such as act as it was midway point where the crew was supposed to transfer communication from Malaysia to Vietnam. Additionally, it has been confirmed, through military radar, that the plane turned hard left and flew back over Malaysia toward the Malacca Strait, veered a couple of times and continued on. From there, who knows where it went.

It all simply puzzles me. If it was hijacked, or even simply overtaken by the flight crew themselves, how is there not one single call or communication by passengers to their families? Cell phones are very small, easy to conceal, and it takes only seconds to type a text. Where is the plane now? It's not like this thing can land anywhere unnoticed. If it were hijacked? Then why no communication by the masterminds of the operation with a demand for ransom or some other request. Why did the phones belonging to passengers still ring hours after it was lost and why could they not answer?

Anyone else as taken by this as me?

Not it.

I play guitar and prefer classic country music and bluegrass.

My biggest influences are Lefty Frizzell, Hank Williams, George Jones, Johnny Cash, Waylon Jennings, and Ernest Tubb. I am also heavily influenced by 50's & 60's rock and roll; Chuck Berry, Buddy Holly, and Johnny Rivers.

I own several guitars. 1997 Martin D-42 Custom, 1998 Martin D-28, 1999 Martin HD-28, 1979 Yamaha FG-350W, 1982 Yamaha FG-335II, 1984 Guild D-25, 1993 Epiphone PR-5E, 1993 Goya G-300 (First Guitar), 1978 Takemine F-340 "Martin Lawsuit Model", 1982 Sigma D-28. A couple electrics, which I hardly play, and an old Squire bass guitar in sunburst.

When I was younger, I used to play all over the central Texas area with friends and other musicians. However, a growing family life and an unforgiving career have really knocked me down to simply playing for my kids or family on special occasions.

RicOlie_2 said:

I'm helping him out over in the homosexuality thread. :)

 That's screaming to be a signature.