das1330

Locked. As Pat stated, horse riding is on the do not suggest list.

Locked on users request.

When I have had that happen usually its because the music file is corrupted. The Ipod will try to play it, but if there is errors in the file it will skip it. Instead of resyncing, try using the recovery option on Itunes where all of the songs and software is deleted off the Ipod and reload all of your music.

The thing Uberbestfriend posted is your best bet. I have used it to extract thousands of songs off of my Ipod several times.

zero......

Locked - there is no discussion value here. If you want to make a thread about pop rather then just a poll, feel free to.

So somehow the fact that they make nice collector pieces makes it ok to own? I'm missing a step or two in logic here. You are. Why try to limit people from collecting harmless objects? If crime with one is nonexistent, then the only plausible reason you would want to ban it is because you don't like it. Preventing the goverment from banning something harmless just because it scares people or is not liked by some was one of the reasons the bill of rights was written. You're right, someone only needs one gun to create a tragedy. Why give them that chance? Here's a better idea - why don't you find a reasonable way that you can eliminate that chance? Since statistics show banning guns is pointless and past events have shown that you can commit mass murder with a pointy piece of metal, there is no reasonable way you can eliminate all of the effective weapons in a society. Even if you do, making a weapon is so laughably easy that your efforts to get rid of them is a waste of time. Suppose you get hit by a bus going to work in the morning. Suppose you trip on the sidewalk and break your neck. There is what if's in everything; but it is undeniable that in a house invasion situation having a handgun or shotgun is easily the most effective way of protecting yourself and your family and not getting killed. Like I have said, programs instituting tougher minimum sentences on illegal weapons have been effective in reducing weapon carry rates among criminals. Now it has not reduced violent crime, but since the best reason for banning weapons is that you don't like them, I suppose that helps. I can't tell you, I have never been in prison. But just the fact that it is possible to make a gun in a maximum security prison tells you just how easy it is to make a gun. The nice thing about weapons in general is that they equalize people, and force people to engage each other nonviolently. With no weapons, the physically strong will rule the weak, as they did in ancient times. If there is no capable means of self defense available, then we return to barbarism. If a 200 pound man attacks a small woman on the street with the intent of killing her, assuming there are no weapons on either side, that woman will die nine times out of ten. Now give both the criminal and the citizen a handgun - the odds are at 50/50. They did not nickname the revolvers of old "the equalizer" as a joke. No sane criminal attacks someone that just might be able to kill them. Killed by a crazy person armed with an illegal gun, which is entirely likley based on the experiences of Australia, Japan and the UK, killed by a home made gun by your attacker in his spare time, killed by a kitchen knife, or killed by a sharpened toothbrush. Here's where you contradict yourself. Remember this?: and then... Erm. I guess that really didn't register. Banning guns would undoubtibly crack down on illegal guns as well. Gun in sight? Gun goes bye-bye. Reducing the number of illegal guns being used would be simple. Impose a larger sentence. I'd say 10 years in prison for carrying a firearm would slow it down pretty quickly, don't you? How is any part of that contradictory? I acknowledged that imposing tougher sentences on illegal weapons was effective in reducing criminal's carrying of guns, but just because criminals don't have guns does not mean they are not killing people. Even when you get rid of them, crime rates do not change. "Incidents involving a firearm represented 9% of the 4.7 million violent crimes of rape and sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated and simple assault in 2005. " "The FBI's Crime in the United States estimated that 66% of the 16,137 murders in 2004 were committed with firearms" "According to the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) in 2005, 477,040 victims of violent crimes stated that they faced an offender with a firearm." (Source: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm) Well, there goes a hell of a lot of crime. Why do you somehow think that a gun is a magical object that kills people on it's own? People kill people, not guns. Had guns been unavailable, just about every one of those murderers would have used a different weapon. As it stands, since more then 90% of those guns used in crime are illegal anyway, further bans would do nothing but infringe on the constitution. You have a very small, older study there based on a four month period with only 200 crimes total, and posted on an anti - gun website. I cited a m broader study done that covered all of the crime in the entire United States. Do you see a problem here? You mean the quote from the anti gun group you cited and called a study? You know what else would help reduce that statistic? Outlawing guns period. That would make the percentage of death's caused by accidents 0%. By that logic, outlawing drugs would get rid of deaths due to accidents with them, yet despite the fact that they are illegal we are still seeing twelve thousand deaths per year due to them. The second amendment was passed in a time when people needed an effective means of defending themselves. At the time, guns were the most effective means of self defense. Today, people still need to defend themselves, and guns are still the most effective means of self defense. The amendment was passed to ensure people's ability to defend themselves would never be taken away. It is still applicable, and I can guarantee you that it will not be repealed in either of our lifetimes.

Locked on request.

They are annoying, and I too once received 1/10 of an undeserved black mark because of someone that was a bit too happy with the report button. As 3_hit_U mentioned, however if it makes you feel any better those reports do nothing to increase their chances of becoming a Pmod.

Sometimes there is a problem with the date code used to display dates on the site/forums. If there is something wrong with it the system goes back to its default date, which in this case is 1969. Its just a small error with the code.

What is the point in limiting how many guns one can legally buy per month when they can go to their friendly neighborhood drug dealer and buy 20 guns illegally for the same price?

So? They make nice collectors pieces. Besides, fully automatic weapons cost no less then 20,000$ and not one has been used in a crime since the 70's. I am trying to decide here if you are joking or not - I mean a Tyrannical goverment. Looking back in history, even the most well laid out governments tend to get corrupt after a time, and fall into some form of dictatorship. An armed population tilts the odds of a successful revolt against such a goverment solidly in the people's favor. Why? Someone does not need 30 guns to commit mass murder - It only takes one, possibly two. The only people who bother amassing a large collection of weapons are people that like collecting guns for their historical value, are target shooters or are into other things related to guns. Illegal activity by those people is negligible; not many people with several hundred thousand dollars to blow on their hobby go out robbing banks at night. If you can figure out a reasonable way to take guns out of criminals hands while not infringing on the general population's basic rights, then I (and indeed just about all gun lobby groups) are all for it. Banning guns that are used for totally legal purposes however is a huge waste of time and money, seeing as there is over 300 million legal guns in the US at the moment. The police DO do their best to protect you - the problem is that their best is not always good enough. People can not always depend on others for their protection - they must take responsibility for their own safety. Owning a gun is an effective deterrent when someone attacking you does not respond well to "appropriate non-violent measures". When it truly is a "me or him" situation, where there is no way out, I would much rather not be defenseless. *yawn* again, read the other posts in this thread before you bother posting. There has been studies showing about 2 million defensive gun uses per year in the US - no small number. As NoMoreDead said, most of those occurrences will happen when the attacker has a gun. I know you'll respond with "Those guns are illegal anyway, so it doesn't matter" but I disagree. If people know guns are basically always illegal in the public population, police can crack down on guns as soon as the problem starts. Police DO crack down on illegal guns, and it is already well documented that banning legal guns does nothing to help police get rid of illegal ones.. In fact in the few cities where there has been an effective minimum sentence imposed on possession of an illegal weapon (Boston) criminal ownership of illegal guns was cut in half. Measures like that are actually effective on cutting criminal gun ownership rates, and they do not require that people's rights be taken away. Do you actually believe it is possible to ban guns or knives to the point where criminals cannot get ahold of them? As many prisons show, even when a person's environment is completely controlled, people still find ways of getting weapons and killing each other. In prison, people have made knives out of steel files, tooth brushes, and even news paper and killed people with them. Making a gun is not much more difficult - with several hours, some pipe found at a hardware store and a manual downloadable off the internet you can make a gun. Hell, I have heard of people in prison making guns out of things like typewriters. A gun used in self defence is a man defending himself, not murder. So you would rather sit there and get killed by some crazy person rather then arming yourself and protecting yourself? It makes confiscating LEGAL guns easier. If a gun has not, and never will be used in a crime (as more then 99.9% of legally owned guns are) then confiscating it is a waste of time and money and an infringement on the owner's rights. Figuring out if a gun is legal or not can be done in a matter of seconds just by looking at it, so there is no "cheating their way out of it". Banning guns is reducing the population of legal gun owners - it does nothing to get rid of illegal guns. Cracking down on illegal guns, however has been proven to be effective and is not opposed by anyone. Mostly burglars and murders, yes. While there are accidental deaths from guns, there is accidental deaths from everything - falling in the bathtub, firecrackers, hell about 20 people a year are killed by falling coconuts. The most effective way in preventing gun deaths related to accidents would be to educate kids about them, so that they are aware of the possible danger that they pose and know how to safely handle a gun. There has already been numerous other reasons for gun ownership cited all over this thread. It's at least three times higher in the UK. (source) Correct me if I'm wrong, but from looking at the link you posted you seem to be implying that Britain and Wales should make guns legal to counteract the sudden uprise in violent crime? If a majority of law abiding citizens owned and carried guns, then you would probably see a decline in crime. Why? Your average chav is not going to try mugging someone that might just shoot them for it. The point is that you still have a gun crime problem even after you outlawed them. While the British goverment did effectively eliminate legal guns from the general population and saw the corresponding reduction in crime committed by legal guns, there is no significant crime commited by people using legal guns. There is however no reduction in illegal guns, so the vast majority of criminal's weapon supply remains untouched. So make it so that people with criminal records cannot legally buy weapons. Gang members will be unable to buy guns anyway, and will continue purchasing them illegally while people that live in bad neighborhoods and feel that they need protection are able to get them. Like I said in other posts, in most cases guns are not used to actually shoot someone, but are brandished to scare a potential attacker off. Anybody that carries a gun will tell you that actually shooting someone is a last resort, but carrying one to scare someone is pretty effective in keeping crime from occurring. It actually takes very little restriction to keep criminals from buying guns legally to be used in crimes. Even in the US, where to buy just about anything short of a tank all you need is an instant background check, almost all guns used in crime are illegal. Criminals just don't bother with buying legal guns, which means that targeting illegal ones would be quite effective in reducing crime while leaving people's rights intact. Again, teaching gun safety to kids in the same way that kids are tought not to eat medicine that is not for them would go a long way in preventing accidental deaths.

With 1000$ I would buy myself a nice, good quality M-16.

Sorry, but with flash memory it is just about impossible to recover lost data. With a hard drive, sometimes it is possible to recover deleted things by looking in unused sectors of the disk, but with flash memory that is impossible.

If you were sure you didn't subscribe to anything (for instance using runescape's pay by SMS feature can do that) then complain to the phone company. They can take it off your bill and refuse to pay whoever is charging your phone.

The bill of rights has never been altered. (source) Obviously you didn't bother actually reading the thread, since in earlier posts I have shown numerous occasions where other countries (particularly Austrailia and the UK) have had massive increases in violent crime after they banned guns. The same goes with areas in the US. Washington DC's recently struck down handgun ban has done nothing whatsoever to curb crime in the area. Self defence, target shooting, hunting, collecting, as an investment - there is plenty of reasons. *yawn* again, read the other posts in this thread before you bother posting. There has been studies showing about 2 million defensive gun uses per year in the US - no small number. Your point is? If we completely eliminated guns from the entire country (as in impossibly get rid of all firearms in the entire country) we would just have 30,000 more knife deaths. Humans are quite resourceful in killing each other and banning people from legally owning weapons is not going to stop them. So? How does banning weapons change that? Do you expect criminals to turn in their (already illegal) guns to the police with all the law abiding citizens? The current laws that "take away privacy" are totally useless against law abiding citizens - you have to be living in the Middle East for your phone to be tapped. Banning guns only effects people that abide by the law - criminals have not been allowed to own guns for over 200 years, what is going to make them give up their weapons now? And banning all "objects capable of killing people" is one of the stupidest ideas I have ever heard. First we will need all the rocks in the country (you could hit someone with it!), then your computer (you could throw it at someone!), then your clothes (they could strangle people!), then your car (you could run people down!), then any land you may own (you could use it to hide dead bodies!) etc. And there you have just hit on a basic reason why banning weapons is NOT acceptable. If people do not have the ability to defend themselves, then if anything from a tyrannical goverment to an invasion by a foreign power occurs, then people have no means of resisting that. It's at least three times higher in the UK. (source) A constitutional right's existence is justified by its use in protecting a basic human right - the right to self defense. Having a gun used in self defense is defined as preventing a crime from occurring. Pointing a handgun at someone intending to kill you is surprisingly effective in getting them to GTFO. If it has prevented a crime (be it an assault, murder, rape, burglary etc) it has done its job - protected its user. Actually shooting someone is a last resort. As for giving people toy guns, it has been effective. In England, so much crime has been committed with airsoft guns (used because they look like real guns in some cases) that their goverment is actually considering banning them (Source). Don't you think something is wrong when people are banning harmless toys or pointy kitchen knives (Source) in the name of "reducing crime"?

Searching for the author is your best bet. Failing that, search through the archives. Tipit however does not keep any hidden archives, so if it is bumped off page 50 then it is gone forever.

From what it looks like there, you actually only have one hard drive in the computer. Lenovo partitioned the hard drive so that your operating system is on a separate drive. To answer your question, yes, by formatting the hard drive you can set it up as one large one, but it is not recommended.

Locked. Please use the sticky mentioned above.

Locked. As you evidently already know, it is against Jagex's terms of service and thus the rules to decrypt the running files for Runescape. Tipit follows Jagex's rules. If you want to discuss this further, PM me. I respond to them daily.

What have I forgot to source? Except for a few hypothetical scenarios, where is the evidence for this? Where is there not evidence for it? Studies done have put the number of times a gun is used in self defence in the US at 2 million. (source) Not according to the BBC. Again, I ask you to source that. since everything I have ever read says otherwise. Once again, involving guns, not overall. The source is above. It makes no difference if you were killed with a gun, or knife, or a rock. You are still dead. Amending the bill of rights is unacceptable. Like the other rights listed there, the right to bear arms is a basic human right, on the same level as the right to free speech or religion. Getting rid of any of those rights for the general populace is a movement from a fair democracy to a police state.

hmm, I like the idea of a mature off topic, but what would it be called? limitless off topic?

Explain to me how putting a half inch of hot lead into the brain of someone trying to kill you is counter productive and stupid? With pleasure. Who says you would be able to pull the trigger first? If, as in the case I was responding to, the person threatening you in so unable to make a rational decision, and (s)he sees you reaching for a weapon of your own, there's every chance that person will shoot you long before you even have a chance to shoot them. Again, you assume that the person breaking into your house is only there to take things from you. There is many criminals that intend on harming you. A weapon keeps them from doing that. On the contrary, a burglar is much more likely to listen to you if you have a gun pointed at him. Its quite hard to harm someone when they could kill you in under a second. There seems to be a disconnect here - you are referring to protecting yourself from burglars. I am referring to a rapist/murderer intent on killing you. If someone breaks into your house with the intention of killing you, the best thing possible is to remove the threat. Calling the police is one possible way, but if they are already in your house your best hope for survival lays with defending yourself. While the police are good, people must take responsibility for their own safety. I live in a country that has laws that has laws specifically giving people the right to defend themselves from someone intending to hurt them. If where you live defending yourself is illegal, I truly feel sorry for you. Besides, it is better to be judged by 11 then buried by 6. SOURCE? An attacker pulls out a gun illegally acquired from the local drug dealer and kills you. guns are popular because they are an effective deterrent. As a tool of self defense, they are good because, beside the fact that they can kill people, s gun scares the crap out of just about anyone its pointed at and stops what they are doing immediately. A gun can be a tool to hurt people, a knife can be a tool to hurt people, hell a rock can be a tool to hurt people. All can also be an effective means of self defense. In the absence of a perfect society where no criminals exist whatsoever, getting the best tool to do the job of defending yourself is just as rational as getting the best coat to protect you from the cold. We have airbags and seat belts to protect us from car crashes, antibiotics to protect us from infections and hard hats to protect us from falling objects. None of these objects, like a gun, is infallible in protecting us from danger. However, like guns, they are statistically proven to work in reducing the risk for which they are designed. Between futility attempting to remove all the weapons in a society with the hope that that will reduce crime and getting a tool to protect myself from that risk, I choose getting the tool to protect myself. It may be different for you, but I prefer to take responsibility for my own protection against crime rather then hoping that the police get there fast enough.

Think of carrying a concealed gun as a life insurance policy: its unlikely you will ever need it, but if you do you it would be a very, very good thing to have it. Explain to me how putting a half inch of hot lead into the brain of someone trying to kill you is counter productive and stupid? The idea of banning "assault weapons" is one of the dumbest I have ever heard. Looking through the list of features which define an "assault weapon" on just about any bill banning them shows this. For instance, looking through the (struck down) US assault weapons ban, one of the features banned was a barrel shroud - a piece of metal fitted around the weapon's barrel to keep the operator from accidentally touching the hot barrel and burning his/her hand. A more accurate title for an assault weapons ban would be "scary looking gun ban". As the Virginia tech shooter showed, handguns can be just as dangerous as any other weapon. The same goes with the DC sniper - he shot several people with a hunting rifle. You made a great point there. If you completely ban ALL guns of any type, then GUN deaths will decrease. People will move to different methods of killing each other (knives for instance). As several countries that have tried to ban guns have found out (chief among them the UK) humans are far too crafty when it comes to devising ways of killing each other. Guns do not cause crime, just as alcohol did not cause a drunk driving death. Peoples choices did. Both are inanimate objects. Alcohol is, in most cases, completely safe. When a person decides to use it then drive, then you have a problem - a problem with the PERSON using it, not the object itself. Prohibition showed banning alcohol is totally useless, which means that teaching people to consume alcohol safely is the only really effective way of reducing deaths. The same goes for guns. As various attempts at banning guns have shown, both in the US and in other countries, banning the object is useless for reducing crime. Reducing criminals that use the object in an unsafe manner is however an effective way of combating the problem. Did you even read what he posted? DC had the highest murder rate in the US for more then 15 of the 30 years relevant to the enactment of the handgun ban there. In fact, the city experienced a HUGE increase in gun related deaths AFTER the ban was put into effect. What kind of person would let a rapist/murder break into their house and rape/murder them? Every person on earth has the fundamental right to life. A gun is a tool. Its purpose is to protect life. Banning guns would be essentially banning people's right to defend themselves, which is fundamentally wrong.

Locked. If you are leaving runescape or tipit, please use the leaving/taking a break sticky. If you wish to post a rant about runescape/its punishment system, please post that in the rants forum.