I apologize for the multiple posts. I am seemingly not able to edit or delete previous posts, to figure out why the quoting isn't working.

Your quote: OK, let me rephrase my response: I feel that the penalties for deaths caused by DUI should be the same as for premeditated murder.

I see. Phrased that way I understand your point. However, I still feel that manslaughter is [still only] manslaughter, regardless if drinking alcohol is an easily accessible way for most people to get into a terrible situation such as that. On this point we disagree.

Your quote: Her repeated DUI behavior and killing of innocent people, to me, justifies a much harsher punishment.

I am undecided on this topic. I am trying to extrapolate her running into a crowd and killing a dozen people. Whether it is 3 or 12 people dead, her actual act (and thus crime)is the same, so my initial opinion is she should be punished according to only killing one. Now, if she were to kill the 3 boys on 3 separate occasions, that is a far worse situation and pathology. I am not defending her actions, of course (you alluded to that in a previous post) but trying to form my own opinion on how justice is best meted out to people such as her.

Your quote: That is kinda the point - to protect the public from menaces like this woman as well as punishment - isn't it?

Very true. I was thinking the point of prison is 'rehabilitation' in the most idealistic sense, 'deterrance' with a more pragmatic view. Otherwise, why would you ever let anyone out? But in fact, your interpretation is often the actual outcome (especially in the case of this woman); that it had no effect on her and she was conducting exactly the same behaviour upon release.

I do not know how to best phrase the response to your question about how I characterize which laws I feel should be in place or not. I do wear my seatbelt; I do not agree that there should be a law requiring me to do so. I do agree with driver's ed classes. Do I feel there should be a law requiring car manufacturers to install airbags on all cars? That is a good question; I am undecided. One of my friends in college got a ticket from a cop for jogging while wearing headphones. I (and he) did not feel that such a law should be in place.


Your quote: I do not "gladly pay the extra in insurance and taxes"

I didn't say you did. I said I did. My example was that some laws are passed you agree with, while others you do not agree with. In many cases some of these laws cost you money ("taxpayer's dollars") you don't want to pay. But the way to change that is to change the representatives passing the laws for you.

Interesting, your comment about asking to pay extra for someone else's behaviors. Riding motorcycles in general is an order of magnitude more likely to result in serious injury or death, over cars -- whether you are wearing a helmet or not. Honestly, I would outlaw motorcycling altogether. But to me, infringing on people's freedoms is a bigger evil, so I would never pass that law--just because I don't agree with people's decision to ride them.

Injury is a learning experience. Touch the stove, burn your hand. Children who never experience it while growing up simply won't have learned as well that they can be hurt. They are more likely to assume they are invincible, which is a common belief amongst teenagers. I was not attempting to claim that it keeps all people from drinking and driving. But it undoubtedly would affect the behavior of some.

OK, let me rephrase my response: I feel that the penalties for deaths caused by DUI should be the same as for premeditated murder.

I see. Phrased that way I understand your point. However, I still feel that manslaughter is [still only] manslaughter, regardless if drinking alcohol is an easily accessible way for most people to get into a terrible situation such as that. On this point we disagree.

Her repeated DUI behavior and killing of innocent people, to me, justifies a much harsher punishment.] I am undecided on this topic. I am trying to extrapolate her running into a crowd and killing a dozen people. Whether it is 3 or 12 people dead, her actual act (and thus crime)is the same, so my initial opinion is she should be punished according to only killing one. Now, if she were to kill the 3 boys on 3 separate occasions, that is a far worse situation and pathology. I am not defending her actions, of course (you alluded to that in a previous post) but trying to form my own opinion on how justice is best meted out to people such as her.

q[That is kinda the point - to protect the public from menaces like this woman as well as punishment - isn't it? ]
Very true. I was thinking the point of prison is 'rehabilitation' in the most idealistic sense, 'deterrance' with a more pragmatic view. Otherwise, why would you ever let anyone out? But in fact, your interpretation is often the actual outcome (especially in the case of this woman); that it had no effect on her and she was conducting exactly the same behaviour upon release.

I do not know how to best phrase the response to your question about how I characterize which laws I feel should be in place or not. I do wear my seatbelt; I do not agree that there should be a law requiring me to do so. I do agree with driver's ed classes. Do I feel there should be a law requiring car manufacturers to install airbags on all cars? That is a good question; I am undecided. One of my friends in college got a ticket from a cop for jogging while wearing headphones. I (and he) did not feel that such a law should be in place.


I do not "gladly pay the extra in insurance and taxes" ]
I didn't say you did. I said I did. My example was that some laws are passed you agree with, while others you do not agree with. In many cases some of these laws cost you money ("taxpayer's dollars") you don't want to pay. But the way to change that is to change the representatives passing the laws for you.

Interesting, your comment about asking to pay extra for someone else's behaviors. Riding motorcycles in general is an order of magnitude more likely to result in serious injury or death, over cars -- whether you are wearing a helmet or not. Honestly, I would outlaw motorcycling altogether. But to me, infringing on people's freedoms is a bigger evil, so I would never pass that law--just because I don't agree with people's decision to ride them.

Injury is a learning experience. Touch the stove, burn your hand. Children who never experience it while growing up simply won't have learned as well that they can be hurt. They are more likely to assume they are invincible, which is a common belief amongst teenagers. I was not attempting to claim that it keeps all people from drinking and driving. But it undoubtedly would affect the behavior of some.

q[OK, let me rephrase my response: I feel that the penalties for deaths caused by DUI should be the same as for premeditated murder.]
I see. Phrased that way I understand your point. However, I still feel that manslaughter is [still only] manslaughter, regardless if drinking alcohol is an easily accessible way for most people to get into a terrible situation such as that. On this point we disagree.
q[Her repeated DUI behavior and killing of innocent people, to me, justifies a much harsher punishment.] I am undecided on this topic. I am trying to extrapolate her running into a crowd and killing a dozen people. Whether it is 3 or 12 people dead, her actual act (and thus crime)is the same, so my initial opinion is she should be punished according to only killing one. Now, if she were to kill the 3 boys on 3 separate occasions, that is a far worse situation and pathology. I am not defending her actions, of course (you alluded to that in a previous post) but trying to form my own opinion on how justice is best meted out to people such as her.
q[That is kinda the point - to protect the public from menaces like this woman as well as punishment - isn't it? ]
Very true. I was thinking the point of prison is 'rehabilitation' in the most idealistic sense, 'deterrance' with a more pragmatic view. Otherwise, why would you ever let anyone out? But in fact, your interpretation is often the actual outcome (especially in the case of this woman); that it had no effect on her and she was conducting exactly the same behaviour upon release.

I do not know how to best phrase the response to your question about how I characterize which laws I feel should be in place or not. I do wear my seatbelt; I do not agree that there should be a law requiring me to do so. I do agree with driver's ed classes. Do I feel there should be a law requiring car manufacturers to install airbags on all cars? That is a good question; I am undecided. One of my friends in college got a ticket from a cop for jogging while wearing headphones. I (and he) did not feel that such a law should be in place.

q[I do not "gladly pay the extra in insurance and taxes" ]
I didn't say you did. I said I did. My example was that some laws are passed you agree with, while others you do not agree with. In many cases some of these laws cost you money ("taxpayer's dollars") you don't want to pay. But the way to change that is to change the representatives passing the laws for you.

Interesting, your comment about asking to pay extra for someone else's behaviors. Riding motorcycles in general is an order of magnitude more likely to result in serious injury or death, over cars -- whether you are wearing a helmet or not. Honestly, I would outlaw motorcycling altogether. But to me, infringing on people's freedoms is a bigger evil, so I would never pass that law--just because I don't agree with people's decision to ride them.

Injury is a learning experience. Touch the stove, burn your hand. Children who never experience it while growing up simply won't have learned as well that they can be hurt. They are more likely to assume they are invincible, which is a common belief amongst teenagers. I was not attempting to claim that it keeps all people from drinking and driving. But it undoubtedly would affect the behavior of some.

Actually, sentencing the woman to requiring an interlock device on vehicles she owns and operates for the rest of her life is something that absolutely should be done. That would not restrict her ability to get to work, but would ensure that she is not intoxicated. Clearly she has a long term abusive relationship with alcohol.

I was not aware of the history of Halsy on this board, though clearly his arguments did not support the accusation.

In response to Warhawk's comments:
You are misinterpreting what I posted, and/or 'putting words in my mouth,' as they say. I was attacking the proposition that DUI related deaths be charged as premedited murder. People who get into cars and drive after drinking, are not intending to go out and kill someone else. That is what premeditated murder is. They obviously are guilty of premeditated drunk driving, but there is no prior planning or intent to kill another human being. If you feel the sentences for unpremeditated murders (i.e., manslaughter) are too lenient, that is a different issue. But they are not guilty of 1st or 2nd degree murder, as the laws are written. There are many other ways to manslaughter people than driving a car into them, and I'm sure many of the victim's families in those cases also would seek harsher punishments.

I do not see why you are equating 4 years in state prison (that the woman received in your example) to 'tongue lashings and 20 Hail Marys.' Clearly in this example the woman had alcohol abuse problems that were not 'cured' by locking her up, whether it was 4 years or 15. I do not believe that locking people up is an effective way of changing behavioral patterns. But it is an easy way to address breaches of societal protocol, and the idea is that it will deter people from committing future crimes. Alternative punishments in DUI related deaths, for example, could be permanent loss of license for life. But not life in prison.

With regard to the helmet law, you misrepresented what I said. I did not say I 'feel it is important for everyone else to pay for someone's medical bills because they were too f*****g "cool" to wear a helmet on a motorcycle.' My point was that the monetary cost to society due to cranial or similar injuries is not worth the loss of freedom associated with instituting forced behavior on people by passing laws to protect themselves from hazardous behaviour. I do put my money where my mouth is, by gladly paying the extra in insurance and taxes (a very small percentage, btw) which helps keep such freedoms available to me. Surely you know this is how our society works. You pay for something I believe in and you don't, and I do the same. The difference is in who we both decide to vote into office to pass the budget and laws for us. Not to start separate funds for small cases.

A few years ago they took all the playground equipment out of my elementary school playground, not because someone was hurt, but because a child might someday get hurt. Now the kids enjoy nothing more than a flat field to run around in. I do not call this progress. Broken bones and chipped teeth are not excessive prices to pay in childhood for learning the limits of your body, and are in fact important so that when you are older and driving around a car, intoxicated, you realize that you can in fact get hurt.

Pope:
I read Halsy's comments; again I'm not religious so I'm not defending from an emotional standpoint, but the arguments given in no way support the accusation of being a mass-murderer. Does the church show intolerance towards homosexuals (and women too)? Absolutely. Is it quite wealthy? Absolutely. Does it scorn contraceptive methods? Again, yes. But this is nothing to do with supporting Pope John Paul II as a 'mass-murderer.' And to bring up the Catholic religion's behavior from centuries ago (e.g., Crusades or Inquisition), is completely irrelevant.

DUI interlocks in all vehicles:
To hell with that! I don't drink, and damn well am not going to blow into my car to get it started every time I drive. I put on ~40,000-50,000 miles per year and have never been in a dangerous situation due to a drunk driver on the road. I agree that it would help prevent drunk driving, and feel for people with loved ones injured or killed by drunk drivers, but the loss of my liberty is a far greater threat to society.

The guy who posted about the drunk driver killing the two people and getting off scot-free - clearly if the prosecution could show the drunk driver was at fault, they would have. Apparently in this case the two others blew through a stop sign, didn't look, or whatever, and caused their own demise. Sad, but the blame was theirs.

Drunk driving related deaths premeditated murder? Look up the definition of premeditated. High risk and preventable, yes, which is why they are charged with manslaughter (3rd degree murder). If you are not drunk and kill someone while driving, you are not charged with manslaughter. Don't pretend that manslaughter is an insignificant crime to be charged with.

When I was in college Colorado passed a law requiring motorcycle riders to wear helmets. It has since been repealed. What about society paying for medical costs associated with helmetless motorcyclists braining themselves, you ask? The monetary cost is not worth the loss of freedom to make decisions, good or bad, and take responsibility thereof, of members of this society, I say. I do not ride motorcycles and would absolutely wear a helmet if I did, but do not want the gov't legislating into my life anymore than is necessary to protect the Earth.

It is always a tradeoff between freedom (and anarchy) and a totalitarian régime. Read George Orwell's 1984. In his novel the government uses the excuse of constant war to permit police and security cameras to keep constant watch on the entire population. Now how many people here are in support of the Patriot Act, and think it's really in our best interests?

"Really? I'd say he was a real life mass-murderer, but hey, you say tah-may-toe and I say to-mah-toe. "

??? I'm not religious, but where does that comment come from?

Huh, I barely notice when the game loads between levels -- it's usually only a second or two. Of course, I am running the game off a 4GB RAM drive, so that probably helps

I had zero problems with stuttering until I got past Nova Prospekt. I've played a few hours beyond and it is terrible. I can't believe this wasn't picked up in beta testing.

Problems on the gunships? They're pretty easy to shoot down if you know the trick...

s{If you're having problems with the gunships shooting down your rockets, realize that the rockets get shot down when you fire them straight at the gunship. Simply fire off to the side a bit, wait for the rocket to pass the gunship, and THEN train your laser guide on the gunship. The rocket will turn around and hit the gunship from the rear. You shouldn't have any misses with this technique!}

Having not read the EULA, I'll take your word for it that running a different .exe violates it. When I wrote the previous post I was simplistically thinking that playing a game without paying for it was illegal, but paying for a game, modifying the .exe, and playing with the modified .exe was acceptable (i.e., doing what you will with a product after you've purchased it is okay). But as you wrote, that's probably covered in the EULA and unauthorized.

I wouldn't worry about the "wrong files" issue; I'm pretty sure the hacked .exe does not connect to Steam (that's the whole point of it and thus would not report its CRC. You could keep both .exe's in your directory so the official one would still be present. Better yet, make a new HL2 directory altogether.

Best solution is for ValvE to release a patch, 'cause that CD issue is irritating. I hate having to insert the CD to start up a game.

Well, you've obviously bought and paid for the game. If you don't want to have to put the CD in every time (I agree, that's very dumb if you're in online mode) you could download just the cracked .exe that bypasses it. I don't think there's anything unethical about doing that. I don't know if there are any other restrictions (I have the Steam purchased version).

Ahhh, okay

What are you talking about? On Saturday I signed up with Steam, pre-downloaded the HL2 package (took ~15 hours), and then on Monday entered the registration code. On Tuesday started the unlock, took a shower, and it was done unlocking when I got out.

???
This comment was edited on Nov 18, 14:20.

If they'd cracked it with the Steam preloads, a playable version would've been out weeks ago. Since it wasn't cracked until release day, they must have figured out a way to bypass the handshaking the client does with Steam. I would have thought that heavier encryption would be in order for this unlocking to occur. The crack must center around the "offline" mode that Steam allows...

It's cracked the same day as release?!? You would think that with a multimillion dollar budget, 6 years of development, and a code theft last year that they could come up with a better encryption method!

Also, you could pull your network cable and see what happens when you run the game