reddred wrote:

Let me just chime in to say, however, that I've been mugged several times
at gunpoint. These young men who robbed me would have been much less capable
of taking my money if they were armed with a knife, and if I were wounded
in a fight with the muggers, I'd certainly rather get stuck with a knife
than shot at point blank range.

I really wish the ****ing crackheads didn't have guns. I don't want to wait
for thier children or grandchildren to get a leg up into the middle class
and decide that they don't need guns to make it in the world.

I hear you, and I'll say right out that we get people up here doing some
stupid **** with guns, too. But if we can't keep 'em from getting crack
(even in the country, nevermind the city) how the hell can we keep them
from getting guns? And the way we've been headed for a while now we
won't have to worry about folks moving up into the middle class, because
there won't be a middle class, just the rich folks and the poor folks.

This sucks, in the negative sense of the term, which... uhh...sucks.

--
ha

in article , Scott Dorsey at
wrote on 2/21/05 6:14 AM:

Chris Hornbeck wrote:
Well, I've just gotta say that all y'all have *no idea* how
to conduct an OT thread on Usenet. Where's the irrational
hyperbole? Where's the childish namecalling?

Okay, how about this.

The second amendment basically is the result of a constitution that was
prepared by a bunch of revolutionaries, who wanted to preserve the right
of the people to revolt. As such, they wanted to make sure that the people
had available at all times the tools of revolution.

Now, given modern standards, that goes not preserve your right to have a
handgun, because the handgun is basically not a very useful tool of war.
It _does_ by my reading, preserve your rights to own tanks, bombers, and
nuclear weapons, all of which are parts of the current technology for
overthrowing the state.

Is that sufficiently hyperbolic? The sad part is that to a great extent
it's kind of true.
--scott

Yeah, it is. In fact, in reality the modern assault rifle is exactly the
weapon that SHOULD be legal everywhere, constitutionally speaking...

I disagree with you, though, Scott. In a modern mechanized war between two
armies, sure, a handgun is pretty useless. In an insurgency or dirty little
revolution it is a very useful thing to have. It would sure beat NOT having
one.

Hey, I carried a handgun today. I was taking my wife and kids to do an
old-growth hike in this cool box canyon in the Cascade range. I have
literally run into a bear in this canyon before. It's a heck of a long ways
from anywhere. I would have been remiss in my duties as dad and husband to
be unarmed, and it's perfectly legal. Why not carry it? It's a tool that I
know how to use.

Let's face it, sometimes something just plain needs killing. We lived for 6
or 7 years, on our 16 acres at the end of the road I have mentioned, with no
guns. I was fresh out of college, long-haired and a peaceful vegetarian
sort. One of the turning points for me was when my wife sent me out to
kill a big rat that was acting strangely and was obviously sick. Guys and
gals, I beat that rat to death with a big stick. That SUCKED. I will never
forget that. At that moment I thougt, this is absurd; I know how to use I
gun, I'm buying a .22. I can stand 20 feet away and save myself and the rat
a lot of agony next time. I was anti-gun at the time, or very close to it.
Sort of started a slippery slope effect g.

-jeff

in article ,
at wrote on 2/21/05 6:24 AM:


Jeff Olsen wrote:
Further, EVERY instance of "the people" in that document relates to
an
individual right. The 2nd is no different.

Regardless of the original intent, it doesn't seem sensible to me to
allow a modern country to be ruled by what somebody thought 230 years
ago, if what they say is inappropriate.


Do you feel this way about every right you have, that it is subject to the
whims of the majority? Or are some rights inalienable, a basic human right
that you and I and everyone else has?

The Bill of Rights did not GRANT anything; it codified the obvious.
Precisely as a DEFENCE against the will of a simple majority. It is quite a
process to repeal an amendment to the Constition, or create one, as it
SHOULD be. It takes sustained will and a supermajority over a long period
of time. That was on purpose.

If the Christian Right voted tomorrow, say they got 50.1% of the vote, to
say that everyone needs to be baptized and accept Jesus Christ the savior as
their own personal God, would you go along with it? Would they be correct
simply because they are a majority? Or are some basic human rights seperate
from the whims of a majority? I know what I think; what do you think?


No they aren't. Not unless you are saying we are somehow now SO
civilized
and it is SO permanent that our present governments are just plain
never
gonna change, nothing unexpected is ever gonna happen...

I'm sorry to say this, because you seem like a polite and reasonable
person, but this bit sounds nuts. Like you are "Dale" from "King of the
Hill".

I can see how you could see it that way. Whatever. My point is not that
I'm building a bunker (I'm not, BTW g!), it's that it's not correct to
remove a basic, fundamental safeguard like the right to bear arms based on
the politics of the moment.

Put it another way. I am a fairly liberal guy and a fairly rabid
enviromentalist. I'm guessing you are too. So... you don't believe in the
serious enviromental degradation you see? Global warming? The possibility
that genetic engineering in our food supply could cause some serious bad
**** to happen? The huge looming water supply crises? Come on, admit it,
you do believe the possibility of these things; they are a tenant of your
reality. Any of those things could stand our society on it's ear. So no, I
am not irrational to at least use as a tenant of my argument that a human
has a right to be armed because it's a dangerous and unpredictable world.
It IS; and demonstratively always has been!



Unfortunately, society is so intertwined that having a gun is not going
to help you if western civilization collapses. You couldn't feed
yourself after the tinned food ran out because society is predicated on
having complex movements of food between states and between countries.
There isn't anywhere in the US that could support 1/100th of the
population density we have right now without the road/rail/air/power
distribution systems in place. And more than 1 in 100 have guns.


Bull**** on the not beeing able to feed myself. You should see the food my
wife grows and puts away. Literally hundeds and hundreds of pounds of
potatoes, onions, tomatoes, garlic, on and on. We are eating fresh broccoli
and kale and lettuce from the winter garden right now, and there are still a
bunch of potatoes in the garden she has not even dug up from last year.

I'm a pretty darn good hunter. Leave it at that.

Again, you show the limits of your knowledge, experience, and abilities.
Because YOU can't do something, you extrapolate (and legislate) at ME. You
want to make everyone live like you do and frankly, the way you (generic
you, city-dweller you) live SUCKS ASS from my perspective. You should see
it outside of my place right now. It is silent because the spring peepers
(frogs) down at the wetlands on my land finally got cold and shut up for the
night. The stars are BURNING up the sky. There's a frost everywhere. Huge
fir and Cedar trees tower over everything. The barn I built with my own
hands is over there lookin' dang good if I say so myself. I still have
about 2 cords of firewood left (we heat our house with wood) from last year;
we'll carry a cord or so of good ash and oak to next winter, which is what I
shoot for. Surplus. Buffer. Savings. It's time to start cutting next
winter's firewood now and I've got about a cord of split fir put away.


Do you really want to be part of a Resistance? Isn't that a different
thing? I don't think that I would take up arms for political purposes,
because my first loyalty is to my child, not some system of government.

I agree with that. I was responding to your (or someone else's, I'm losing
track here) comment that small arms are not effective against an army. No,
or make that HELL NO, I do not want to be a part of any such thing. I got
kids to take care of.

I could
literally
call 911 and not get anyone here for an hour; in fact that would be
about
the average response time. I have to be able to take care of my own
business. Your reality is not the reality of many others out there.

And your reality is not the same for all others either. We have to pick
one that works best for everyone. To be honest, when I see that someone
else's child has been killed, then I am less concerned about coyotes
being after your goats. Just because you'd be worse off doesn't mean
that it shouldn't go ahead if lots of other people would be better off.

That is just chilling, and it shows why gun owners get so knee-jerk
reactionary in the first place. You think making a stupid LAW is gonna
change all that anyway? Why not just make it illegal to kill someone with a
gun in the first place? Oh wait, we did.


Things are a mess in the cities. That's my fault HOW? You want to take a
basic human right from me because you guys are making a mess of it in the
cities? No way.


And clearly, gun control people believe that it is less likely that the
"armed meth-head" would be armed if arms were better controlled.


The cat is out of the bag. You could legislate to take my guns away, and
I'd do it to stay out of prison, but there are far too many out there to
somehow create a gun-free America, if that is your dream. Any crook who
wanted one would have or could even make one. I could make a functional
gun in an afternoon in my shop. Easily.

As an aside, if country folk were even able to support themselves then
city folk might feel more charitable towards their points of view. As
it is, there is a massive redistribution of wealth from urban areas to
the country folk, who are constantly talking about their "taking care
of their own business" and self-sufficiency.

Jay-sus. You grow more and more annoying to read. Not even sure what to
say to that one. I can only think of some rude things. Yeah, you city
folks are just SO smart and got it SO together, don't you. It's just so
obvious to see. How could I miss it?


Washington
DC
banned firearms. Highest per-capita murder rate in the US.

But we have to take away your right to bear arms in order to take it
away from the bad guys.

Not gonna happen... better start addressing the REAL problem, not the
scapegoat. Hint: you want an amendment to tilt windmills at, start with the
1st! Let's talk about the REAL reasons our society is going to ****!


Also, DC is a chicken-and-egg story. The reason they banned handguns
was *because* of the murder rate.

I know that. How's that murder rate by handgun doin' anyway? Gosh, it
didn't seem to change much did it. Turns out criminals don't exactly follow
laws... maybe because they are criminals! 'Course you took away the right
of a law-abiding citizen to protect themselves in their own home, but hey..
gotta break some eggs to make that piece-o-**** omelette, eh...

-jeff

"hank alrich" wrote in message


Arny Krueger wrote:

That's why Canadians are lined up out the door at US hospitals in
border towns like Buffalo and Detroit.

You can repeat that all you want, but you might like to catch up with
what the majority of tax paying Canucks actually feel about their
system,

Been there, done that.

because it isn't well supported by your projections based
upon a small sampling of medical service seekers

There's no doubt that it would be politically suicidal for the Canadians to
have a health system that doesn't meet the needs of the majority. Yes, the
people who come to the US are exceptions, but this only points out the
problems involved with putting a government bureaucracy in charge of a
critical industry. Ironically, about as close as we get in the US to the
Canadian Health system is probably the HMOs, and even the private
bureaucracies have problems like this.

There are a lot of fundamental problems with health care, and nobody has
what you would really call an optimal system. Health care is ultimately
about pain and mortality, which makes it a very emotional discussion. There
is a even a profound grotesque lexical problem where we call a payment plan
"insurance". The inherent ethical and moral problems end up divorcing the
business of paying for services from the highly emotional act of demanding
and providing services.

whose number could
be offset by the number of US citizens seeking to acquire medications
at sensible prices, from Canada.

This turns out to be a matter of cause and effect. Since the Canadians
legislated themselves a heavy discount, the US consumers end up paying for
it.

Jeff Olsen wrote:
in article ,
at wrote on 2/21/05 6:24
AM:


Jeff Olsen wrote:
Further, EVERY instance of "the people" in that document relates
to
an
individual right. The 2nd is no different.

Regardless of the original intent, it doesn't seem sensible to me
to
allow a modern country to be ruled by what somebody thought 230
years
ago, if what they say is inappropriate.


Do you feel this way about every right you have, that it is subject
to the
whims of the majority? Or are some rights inalienable, a basic human
right
that you and I and everyone else has?

I believe the former. I believe that rights are a human construct, not
some external tangible thing that would exist in the absence of
humanity. Some philosophers agree with this point of view, and some
disagree.



The Bill of Rights did not GRANT anything; it codified the obvious.
Precisely as a DEFENCE against the will of a simple majority. It is
quite a
process to repeal an amendment to the Constition, or create one, as
it
SHOULD be. It takes sustained will and a supermajority over a long
period
of time. That was on purpose.

If the Christian Right voted tomorrow, say they got 50.1% of the
vote, to
say that everyone needs to be baptized and accept Jesus Christ the
savior as
their own personal God, would you go along with it? Would they be
correct
simply because they are a majority? Or are some basic human rights
seperate
from the whims of a majority? I know what I think; what do you
think?

See above, but delete the phrase "correct simply because they are a
majority". "correct" is irrelevant to this discussion.



No they aren't. Not unless you are saying we are somehow now SO
civilized
and it is SO permanent that our present governments are just plain
never
gonna change, nothing unexpected is ever gonna happen...

I'm sorry to say this, because you seem like a polite and
reasonable
person, but this bit sounds nuts. Like you are "Dale" from "King of
the
Hill".

I can see how you could see it that way. Whatever. My point is not
that
I'm building a bunker (I'm not, BTW g!), it's that it's not correct
to
remove a basic, fundamental safeguard like the right to bear arms
based on
the politics of the moment.

Put it another way. I am a fairly liberal guy and a fairly rabid
enviromentalist. I'm guessing you are too. So... you don't believe
in the
serious enviromental degradation you see? Global warming? The
possibility
that genetic engineering in our food supply could cause some serious
bad
**** to happen? The huge looming water supply crises? Come on,
admit it,
you do believe the possibility of these things; they are a tenant of
your
reality. Any of those things could stand our society on it's ear.
So no, I
am not irrational to at least use as a tenant of my argument that a
human
has a right to be armed because it's a dangerous and unpredictable
world.
It IS; and demonstratively always has been!

Oh, I could see society collapsing in our lifetimes. However, I don't
think that a handgun will help you much.




Unfortunately, society is so intertwined that having a gun is not
going
to help you if western civilization collapses. You couldn't feed
yourself after the tinned food ran out because society is
predicated on
having complex movements of food between states and between
countries.
There isn't anywhere in the US that could support 1/100th of the
population density we have right now without the
road/rail/air/power
distribution systems in place. And more than 1 in 100 have guns.


Bull**** on the not beeing able to feed myself. You should see the
food my
wife grows and puts away. Literally hundeds and hundreds of pounds
of
potatoes, onions, tomatoes, garlic, on and on. We are eating fresh
broccoli
and kale and lettuce from the winter garden right now, and there are
still a
bunch of potatoes in the garden she has not even dug up from last
year.

I'm a pretty darn good hunter. Leave it at that.

Again, you show the limits of your knowledge, experience, and
abilities.
Because YOU can't do something, you extrapolate (and legislate) at
ME.

I grew up in the countryside, I grew vegetables, I own guns, and I'm a
pretty good shot. I still don't think that you could feed yourself,
because I think that someone else would take your stuff before you
could eat it. Pretty much everyone has guns - if they're hungry, all
they have to do is shoot you in the back while you're digging potatoes
and steal your stuff.

You
want to make everyone live like you do and frankly, the way you
(generic
you, city-dweller you) live SUCKS ASS from my perspective. You
should see
it outside of my place right now. It is silent because the spring
peepers
(frogs) down at the wetlands on my land finally got cold and shut up
for the
night. The stars are BURNING up the sky. There's a frost
everywhere. Huge
fir and Cedar trees tower over everything. The barn I built with my
own
hands is over there lookin' dang good if I say so myself. I still
have
about 2 cords of firewood left (we heat our house with wood) from
last year;
we'll carry a cord or so of good ash and oak to next winter, which is
what I
shoot for. Surplus. Buffer. Savings. It's time to start cutting
next
winter's firewood now and I've got about a cord of split fir put
away.

It's a better way to live when you have kids - I intend going back to
living that way myself in a couple of years. Unfortunately, it causes
environmental devastation. The few patches of wilderness left in the US
are being destroyed because too many people want to live exactly as you
do. Jared Diamond's latest book has some excellent description of
exactly this effect.



Do you really want to be part of a Resistance? Isn't that a
different
thing? I don't think that I would take up arms for political
purposes,
because my first loyalty is to my child, not some system of
government.

I agree with that. I was responding to your (or someone else's, I'm
losing
track here) comment that small arms are not effective against an
army. No,
or make that HELL NO, I do not want to be a part of any such thing.
I got
kids to take care of.

I could
literally
call 911 and not get anyone here for an hour; in fact that would
be
about
the average response time. I have to be able to take care of my
own
business. Your reality is not the reality of many others out
there.

And your reality is not the same for all others either. We have to
pick
one that works best for everyone. To be honest, when I see that
someone
else's child has been killed, then I am less concerned about
coyotes
being after your goats. Just because you'd be worse off doesn't
mean
that it shouldn't go ahead if lots of other people would be better
off.

That is just chilling, and it shows why gun owners get so knee-jerk
reactionary in the first place. You think making a stupid LAW is
gonna
change all that anyway? Why not just make it illegal to kill someone
with a
gun in the first place? Oh wait, we did.

I can only repeat: Lots of people who have devoted their lives to
studying this issue believe that banning handguns would reduce the
murder rate. Lots of people, equally learned, disagree. How come the
answer is so obvious to you? I'm betting you haven't followed the
statistical studies.



Things are a mess in the cities. That's my fault HOW? You want to
take a
basic human right from me because you guys are making a mess of it in
the
cities? No way.

That's the way civilization works. You take the actions that are
better, on balance, for the whole of society.



And clearly, gun control people believe that it is less likely
that the
"armed meth-head" would be armed if arms were better controlled.


The cat is out of the bag. You could legislate to take my guns away,
and
I'd do it to stay out of prison, but there are far too many out
there to
somehow create a gun-free America, if that is your dream. Any crook
who
wanted one would have or could even make one. I could make a
functional
gun in an afternoon in my shop. Easily.

I can only repeat: Lots of people who have devoted their lives to
studying this issue believe that banning handguns would reduce the
murder rate. Lots of people, equally learned, disagree. How come the
answer is so obvious to you?

As an aside, if country folk were even able to support themselves
then
city folk might feel more charitable towards their points of view.
As
it is, there is a massive redistribution of wealth from urban areas
to
the country folk, who are constantly talking about their "taking
care
of their own business" and self-sufficiency.

Jay-sus. You grow more and more annoying to read. Not even sure
what to
say to that one. I can only think of some rude things. Yeah, you
city
folks are just SO smart and got it SO together, don't you. It's just
so
obvious to see. How could I miss it?

Well, we're subsidizing you and we don't cause as much environmental
damage as you. And then you (generic country folk) turn round and get
all sanctimonious about it, and vote Republican.



Washington
DC
banned firearms. Highest per-capita murder rate in the US.

But we have to take away your right to bear arms in order to take
it
away from the bad guys.

Not gonna happen... better start addressing the REAL problem, not the
scapegoat. Hint: you want an amendment to tilt windmills at, start
with the
1st! Let's talk about the REAL reasons our society is going to ****!


Also, DC is a chicken-and-egg story. The reason they banned
handguns
was *because* of the murder rate.

I know that. How's that murder rate by handgun doin' anyway? Gosh,
it
didn't seem to change much did it. Turns out criminals don't exactly
follow
laws... maybe because they are criminals! 'Course you took away
the right
of a law-abiding citizen to protect themselves in their own home, but
hey..
gotta break some eggs to make that piece-o-**** omelette, eh...

I can only repeat: Lots of people who have devoted their lives to
studying this issue believe that banning handguns would reduce the
murder rate. Lots of people, equally learned, disagree. How come the
answer is so obvious to you?




-jeff

Recently, posted:

Here is my understanding as explained by to me by an PC user of all
things. Since Apple is the only producer of MAC computers the
software developers dont have to worry so much about making their
software compatible with so many different manufactures peripherals
and computers. Therefore MAC software is "better" for that reason.
Sounds logical.

Yes, it does *sound* logical. And, if the Mac software *was* actually
"better", then there might be something to talk about. However, it's
really not any better. In some cases, it's not as good, and in many cases,
it's pretty much the same.

For audio recording and editing on a professional level, the advantage of
one system over the other depends on the requirements of the overall
system. As in most things, there is no "one size fits all" solution. The
bottom line is that the classic rule of purchasing a computer is still
valid after all these decades: pick your applications, then pick the
platform that supports them best. If you are unqualified to do this, hire
a consultant. If you're unqualified to configure a stable system, hire
someone who is.

Regards,

Neil

Mike Rivers wrote:

In article writes:


One shouldn't have to "know a lot about Windows." Isn't that defeating
the purpose of the concept of a computer? Sheez.


Well, no, but it does defeat the purpose of a kitchen appliance.
People who use cassette recorders don't know how to align an analog
tape deck (but it would help if they knew how to clean the heads and
set the record level properly).

No, not really. There are those who are happy with a Sony walkman. And
then there are others who can't do with anything less than the Sony
walkman professional with built in LED meters, Dolby C etc. The 1st
group usually cares less about head alignment, demagnetization, and
cleaning the heads.

PCs cater to the whole market,and unfortunatley the majority of that
market is that 1st group who just want a Sony Walkman. The Windows GUI
is still too complicated for simple users. There is Microsoft's attempt
with Windows XP HOME, but windows is still a complicated beast, hence
all the support and maintenance plans available from every PC vendor.

Apple has taken a fantastically complicated OS and simpllified it. It's
not as simple as Mac OS 9 and below, and probably will never get there,
but Apple's made commendable strides. It's quite an achivement that
under that friendly finder is unix.

A person should not have to know what a registry is to use their
computer. The ciomputer is supposed to help them do their work. Knowing
the regisrty is just another way of the user helping the computer to
help him.



The purpose of of Windows and PC's is to sell the hapless
public tech support, service plans, training, maintenance.


I disagree strongly. But I'd suggest that the purpose of Windows and
PCs is to sell the hapless public a way to send e-mail, buy and sell
stuff on eBay, download music and videos, and not spend very much
money in order to do it. Apple has finally caught on to serving that
market with the $500 computer. Other than in a business environment
(where there ARE people who "know windows") few Windows people use
their PCs as a working tool. Remember, you're posting in a technical
newsgroup here, so you're speaking to a small subset of computer
users.


The $500 Mac Mini is simply Apple venture into the lower price tier,
and, more significantly, to enter the new(ish) market where the computer
is fast becoming a media appliance, MP3, DVD entertainment system all in
one.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo



CD

Recently, Codifus posted:

Mike Rivers wrote:

In article
writes:

One shouldn't have to "know a lot about Windows." Isn't that
defeating the purpose of the concept of a computer? Sheez.

Well, no, but it does defeat the purpose of a kitchen appliance.
(big snip)

A person should not have to know what a registry is to use their
computer. The ciomputer is supposed to help them do their work.

So, you fall squarely into the "computer as appliance" crowd. No problem.
However, those of us in the "computer as a customizable tool" crowd can be
frustrated by the limitations imposed by appliances. To be sure, we have
to know the details of our hardware and OS in order to configure and
manage the tool, but it really isn't all that big a deal.

In either case, the computer is a big help in performaing the tasks at
hand. Pro audio folks tend to be in the "customizable tool" crowd, as that
is the basic nature of a pro studio. And, knowing how to use that "tool"
is *far* more complicated than any personal computer. So, perhaps the
tricky part is to know oneself in so far as which crowd they belong to?

Regards,

Neil

"hank alrich" wrote:

Damn, you, Lorin, here we almost had a flame war goin' and you gotta
come along and say that kinda stuff. g


I haven't checked the group in months. I pop in for five minutes, and
what do I find? The same, tired old arguments about platform
superiority. Amazing. Yet in the intervening months I've managed to do
a whole pile of work on both XP and OSX machines. Both have worked
perfectly most of the time. Both have also on occasion ****ed up in
spectacular fashion for no apparent reason whatsoever. If there's a
genuine advantage to one over the other, it's managed to escape me, and
I use both every single day.

Glad to see you're still around. That gives me hope that there's more
to see here than computer dick measuring and political debates! g

--
"It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!"
- Lorin David Schultz
in the control room
making even bad news sound good

(Remove spamblock to reply)

"Codifus" wrote:

A person should not have to know what a registry is to use their
computer.


I agree. I don't believe one has to, though.

You may need to understand the registry to fix things you've ****ed up,
but I'm living proof that you can work quite effectively WITHOUT knowing
anything about it.

I have no idea how to manage the windows registry. I've just never had
to. I don't install questionable software. I load only what I need to
do my job. I buy hardware from reputable, "name" vendors rather than
buying a "good deal" component that's "just as good." I observe
suppliers' warnings about hardware and software conflicts. I work with
Pro Tools, Photoshop/Illustrator, MSOffice and a few utilities all on
one XP machine with no trouble whatsoever. I even have it connected to
the internet via a wireless network. It works fine.

So I'd say it *IS* possible to work effectively with XP without knowing
how the registry works.

--
"It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!"
- Lorin David Schultz
in the control room
making even bad news sound good

(Remove spamblock to reply)

"Arny Krueger" wrote:

BTW, I love Canada I truely do - like Mexico it's a great place to
visit but I just wouldn't want to live there.




We will do our best to get by without you.

--
"It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!"
- Lorin David Schultz
in the control room
making even bad news sound good

(Remove spamblock to reply)

--

Somewhere in Texas, a village is missing its idiot.
"Lorin David Schultz" wrote in message
news:dL_Td.12988$ab2.9363@edtnps89...
"Codifus" wrote:

A person should not have to know what a registry is to use their
computer.


I agree. I don't believe one has to, though.

You may need to understand the registry to fix things you've ****ed up,
but I'm living proof that you can work quite effectively WITHOUT knowing
anything about it.

I have no idea how to manage the windows registry. I've just never had
to. I don't install questionable software. I load only what I need to
do my job. I buy hardware from reputable, "name" vendors rather than
buying a "good deal" component that's "just as good." I observe
suppliers' warnings about hardware and software conflicts. I work with
Pro Tools, Photoshop/Illustrator, MSOffice and a few utilities all on
one XP machine with no trouble whatsoever. I even have it connected to
the internet via a wireless network. It works fine.

So I'd say it *IS* possible to work effectively with XP without knowing
how the registry works.

--
"It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!"
- Lorin David Schultz
in the control room
making even bad news sound good

(Remove spamblock to reply)



None of which changes the fact that the registry is highly prone to getting
screwed up, and it DOES require knowing what you're doing to fix it if it
does. That you've had no problems running a fairly limited (it sounds like)
set of professional apps does nothing to change that.

I don't think they are. I think at the beginning, they probably were, but
now I think is just all that Mac "Hype" going around like their ipod &
itunes hype. I use PCs with Intel chipsets because it makes more sence to
me.

Marc


"Lorin David Schultz" wrote in message
news:%B%Td.12992$ab2.11805@edtnps89...
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

BTW, I love Canada I truely do - like Mexico it's a great place to visit
but I just wouldn't want to live there.




We will do our best to get by without you.

--
"It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!"
- Lorin David Schultz
in the control room
making even bad news sound good

(Remove spamblock to reply)