Tamper

I am a hardware enthusiast; my pride in my accomplishments in building my own hardware detracts in absolutely no way from whatever argument there might be about Steam. The two simply have nothing to do with one another, except as you attempt to imply. I build my PC for top-notch performance, I get what I worked for, and I'm proud of it. Jealous? It happens that I know a great deal about the history of personal computing. It happens my family's personal physician (now passed) and long-time friend was Dr Ed Roberts (look it up). Until his death, he resided where I grew up; this was long after he pretty much invented the PC; back before Bill Gates, etc. But I wouldn't expect you to comprehend or respect any of that, no not at all. I started this thread as a reflection of what's being discussed on the "official" board; I titled it as such, and even indicated it might be OT. *YOU* chose to come in and comment on the thread, but do so out of it's context. If you don't give a fig about the other board, then why would you need to comment on my expression of how regretful *I* see the other discussion is? I also note you completely evade the matter of these 'systems' each having different clients, and where it will end. What will finally be considered too much? Perfectly legitimate question; again, no answer. And again, with the name calling. Folks can't support their perspective with sound factual reasoning, so they invariably resort to the attacks, insults, and name-calling.

Well, you've misrepresented just about everything I said....which is fairly typical. Just a few quick notes: I didn't say, suggest or imply (to use your analogy) the baker wouldn't exist without bread to sell. Oddly enough, you alone don't seem to understand what I said - but there are certainly others here who do. And I definitely didn't start the "generational contempt". If you actually read my post, I indicated this was started by a person over on SimHQ, who insists that someone doesn't like Steam simply because they are [sic] "an old guy who refuses to accept changing technology". (Go on, read it...I did say that...) I most assuredly do not think my view is the only view. As I've clearly stated a number of times, there are others here who made up their own minds, but just so happen to agree with my perspective. (But thanks for the extensive effort to assault and insult...) You'd just as easily dismiss us all as "idiots", as you say. Remarkable how we can all have it so wrong, but you have it right. You continually argue all the same points you claim are positive about Steam, without ever really addressing the negatives. For instance, the capability for easy automatic updates. How many of us have been totally screwed by some friendly, automatic update that caused problems on our setup? You say automatic updates are good, which might be true for you. But I would reserve the liberty to decide for myself whether I want an update or not. (Oddly enough, even Microsoft understands this, and lets the user decide about WIndows updates). You do bring up another interesting point, though - one more thing about these so-called "distribution systems" that I hate and will be a huge problem, but hasn't been mentioned yet: That is, Steam has their client...then Origin has theirs, of course...then what? Are we actually supposed to run a different client app on our PC's, for every game we own, just because a lot of other companies decided to jump on Steam's bandwagon and create an entire client that would, by default, be running all the time? And you actually cannot see what's wrong with this (nevermind all the other problems)? You actually have to ask me what liberty I am giving up, for God's sake? How about the liberty of using my computer for what I want, without stupid, uneccesary encumberances? If you still cannot understand this, let me try another way: How many games will it take, each loading their own respective client on your machine, before you decide you've had enough? Well, when that day comes (and it will, either that or you'll forego a game due to it, or maybe quit gaming altogether)....but when that day comes, remember: YOU were among those defending the whole thing. Do you actually already have Steam and Origin (and whatever else) running on your machine? Are you among those people I see all the time, with a system tray full of junk and a computer that runs like junk to match?

So. lemme see if I "get it yet"... You're saying that everything that Steam does is absolutely necessary to prevent piracy, and that there is positively no way to prevent piracy, except for crap the likes of Steam? Is that it? Do I "get it"? (Hint: Careful...you might not know everything you think you do). That article you cite is simply one other person's opinion. And there are *tons* of people who disagree, and still think Steam is a load of crap. That one author's opinion isn't necessarily any more accurate or "right" than anyone else's. We all know piracy is a problem but, dude, you're not dealing with The Scene here, mmm-kay? You're dealing with a reasonably large number of typical PC gaming people, all entitled to make up their own minds, and all saying "Steam is BS" (and not because any of them are pirates, either). And, while we're on the subject, can you state factually that Steam is 100% successful at preventing piracy? Now it may work better than anything else...but even if it does, it does so by seriously overstepping reasonable boundaries. And let's face it, a lot of what they do is not directed at piracy. In fact, they don't even like to be referred to strictly as DRM....no, they want to be called a "Distribution System". Why do you suppose that is? I'll tell you: A. Much of what they do is not directly related to, nor necessary for, digital rights management; B. They don't want to be associated with the negative connotations that are typically associated with DRM. Or, are you just the kind to sit back, look at all these people who say it's BS, and say "You're all wrong, and I'm right?" The fact is, it's not the only way (or even the best way) to stop piracy. The fact is, they (Steam) overstep in the name of preventing piracy (yes, I also know damn well that I have to agree to it if I want to play the game...and what better way to foist something off on those short on judgment, looking only for [whatever it is they want at the moment]) Like my kids, installing every piece of shovelware bullcrap they run across on the internet, just so they can see the "free" video, or get the "free" game. Again, see Ben Franklin. All the convenience, functionality and so on you see in Steam...there's a price paid. If nothing else, it's down there, running in the system tray all the time. I don't even care for AV programs that run all the time, but finally submitted that they are practically necessary. Is Steam necessary? Nope. But - mark my words - if they get their way, it will be. Rue the day.

Well, good to see the majority still have their senses, anyway... BTW, Gunrunner...eh, "Buster", (Among the reasons I refuse to tolerate SimHQ is this sort of name-calling and automatic ridicule; "This is why you should stay off drugs...) But thanks, though, for proving my point. Moving on: I never once said I *did* own the older software you mention. I know full well how the licensing works, thank you. But you omitted an important distinction: "...nor do you possess media for...". It's OK, the others here get what I'm talking about. I wouldn't really expect someone as obviously blinded as you are to admit they get it. It's really foolish to think there's no harm in this Steam nonsense, and it's not because I'm clinging to outdated notions that I say that. I suppose your theory is that everyone who opposes it like I do is also a lunatic, on drugs, or "off their meds"? Balderdash. Just a group of perfectly sensible people who are tired of the invasive lengths some of these outfits will go to, for their own interests. It's over the line; they've exceeded reasonable limits. And all you who go along for the sake of convenience...well, you're just helping them along. I believe it was Ben Franklin who said "Those would give up their liberties for security shall have neither". This, albeit in different clothing, is essentially the same argument. You see, back in Ben's day, they stated things more indirectly than we do today. Ole' Ben was referring to giving up something you rightfully have (and shouldn't readily trade off) for the promise of something that isn't really what it's being sold to be. You've traded off the precious good you had, and it's long gone before you realize that what you got in return wasn't really what it was made to appear as. By golly, I'm given to wonder if Ben didn't already know about Steam back then! Now, you obviously didn't read what I wrote: If you don't believe this is all about marketing, answer a simple question: How much of this would exist if the respective advertisers/marketers didn't put their money into it? How much of it would exist if there was nothing to sell you? Assume, just for debate, that everyone stops buying anything based on this 'targeted' advertising. That there is no money paid, and none to be made, by watching and tracking everything you do online. Exactly where do you think all these online "services" and "features" would be then? Yes, I realize Steam isn't just about marketing...it (claims to be) a "distribution system" (whatever the hell that means). Here's a question: How'd we all manage to get by just fine, all those great years we've enjoyed PC gaming, without it? Because, it's not necessary in the first place, that's how. You wrote a lot, bud - the usual pro-Steam drivel, Im afraid. Losing my games? I've never lost one. (And, BTW, those archaic licensing agreements you refer to allowed the right to make an archival copy, which cannot be denied, regardless. Ever hear of 'off-site backups'?) But I don't find an answer to the questions I asked. Typical of the types who act as if Steam is the greatest thing since sliced bread. And all those things you say I'm wrong about? By your own admition, I'm not wrong ("partially wrong" means [at least] "partially right"), and while you're busy assuming it won't become any more agressive, I can assure you it will. How do I know that? Because history is a great teacher, that's why. But you go right ahead...you and my teenage sons (and all their friends, who don't see anything wrong with Steam, either...), well...what the hell can we old people tell you, anyway?

Well, it definitely sounds as if you have plenty of experience with stuff (including poison ivy) and have gone through all the right moves. Not much I could offer to help further, I'm sorry to say. But maybe something will come up, who knows. Might well be worth it, if it means more opportunity to work from home. Before I took time to look into it, I really had little idea about poison ivy - I mean, I *thought* I knew, like most folks...but, man, was I ignorant. Stuff is incredible, and *very* hard to get rid of. Well, you take care with that. And good luck with the cam. Let us know how it goes, if you decide to kick that 2600 in the pants a bit :)

Hello again...just be safe (sounds like you know the drill). I honestly had no idea the stuff could be so dangerous, but I did some studying after moving into a place that had a lot in the back yard. Growing 15' up tree trunks...*uggh* Unfortunately, I cannot find the webcam P/N you list on the Logitech website. They have a fairly extensive table: http://logitech-en-a...etail/a_id/3428 The model number/part number should be something that starts with 860 or 861 as far as I can tell, Here's a pic of the tag on the cable; is this what yours looks like?

Hiya Tom. *Ouch* sounds as if you do have your hands full. I'm sure one day it will be worth all the effort The problem with 'QuickCam' is there's about a million of their models called QuickCam; some work in W7, and some (like mine) don't. There are quite a few QuickCam models that are 1.3MP. If/when you get a chance, check the USB plug end of the cable; if it's still there, the tiny tag will have a model number on it. Also, if you haven't yet, The clean install could actually help resolve a driver conflict, so it might be worth a try. One other idea - do you have access to another computer, particularly one w/ XP on it? If so, is it possible to temporarily install the webcam there, just to make sure it works? Of course, I'm basing all this on your comment about working from home. Given what gas prices are these days, it would probably be worth whatever you have to do, even if you had to *buy* a webcam (try eBay!). My boss agreed to let some of us work from home one day a week; smartest thing he ever did, and I save 20% of my fuel costs right off the bat. For me, that amounts to $25-30 a month (and that doesn't count 20% less wear on my vehicle, lower costs due to less frequent maintenance...). So an inexpensive webcam could pay for itself in a month. Still, I hope you can get the one you already have working. Good luck...stay outta that poison ivy *ugggh* (If you're not opposed to 'chemical warfare', that Ortho Brush-B-Gon works wonders...whatever you do, don't burn poison ivy!!) (EDIT: Just installed my C200, a few notes: The Logitech setup asks to plug the cam in first, and then recognizes my cam - but as the wrong unit, a C160 (???). I can actually run TrackIR and watch my head movements in it's "grid screen", while I can also see live video from the webcam. So, at least in my case, it does appear to work OK. I downloaded the Logitech driver for the install, it reports as 13.31.1044.0 in device manager, and I use TrackIR 5 w/TrackClip Pro, driver v. 5.1.300 build 9945 - hope this helps)

Unfortunately, I haven't been able to locate the older webcam - a "QuickCam Express". The wife says it's possible I gave it to a friend of hers some time ago. But I'm not sure it would matter anyway: If I understand the Logitech website correctly, that cam was only supported through XP anyway ( I did say it was old *lol*). Not sure what model you're using but there is a lot of info on their website about which SW to use, plus driver installs (including a "clean" install)...seems to me there are quite a few ways it might go wrong. I confirmed my newer cam's model number (C200) as having W7-64 support, and I will try to get it set up on my PC again this weekend (if that helps).

Like you, I would've thought the driver would be sound - and it may be, I don't guess we really know yet. Soon as I get a chance, I hope to find that old cam I have and see what happens. One thing I would say in fairness to Logitech (and manufacturers in general) is that it's maybe a lot to expect they write drivers for an OS that's three generations newer than the hardware This stuff is often so inexpensive to begin with, it would be fiscal suicide for a company to support things, every time M$ decides to make more money by releasing a new OS. (Of course, the other side of the argument is my perfectly-working, *expensive*, 11x17 color inkjet printer which Canon refused to write XP drivers for...there is actually an online petition over that one). So I guess it goes both ways. Of course, in your siutation, it may be the HW itself - maybe I can help figure that out As for the overclocking...I'll tell you, I wasn't real into it for the longest time - I just always leaned toward the 'long-term reliability, maximize service life' half of the house. Up until say the Core2 family of CPUs came out, that is - and man, those things were just natural born overclockers. Stable, and safe if you keep 'em cool. Still like that, IMHO, from those, the C2Q's, the i5's and i7's...the three motherboard/chipset combo's I mentioned above represent all three "generations" of the Core i7 CPUs (a 920, a 2600K and now the 3820). They just seem to be built for it. I tell people now it's a shame to have one and not "overclock the snot out of it", so long as you can afford some decent type of cooling solution. And, after all this time in the industry, it finally seems like Intel 'gets it'. They actually sell CPU's designated 'unlocked' for enthusiasts, and the new CPUs don't even come with a heatsink/fan any more; they often wind up gathering dust, and it's cheaper to sell just the CPU anyway. I'm am very sure you can get that 2600K up to 4.6 w/ no sweat, and 4.8 won't be much more difficult. The only thing is, if you overclock at all; just watch the cooling. You NEED a good after-market solution; air is good up to 4.6-4.8G after that you'll likely need liquid. I am fairly certain all 3 of the 2600K's I've done so far would have reached 5G maybe more, but they were all air cooled and were just getting HOT, so I backed them off and stayed on the safe side. But these things are incredible overclockers...and, if you're not bothered by it, I'd say go for it. You've already had a look at it, and there's really not a lot to it these days. The boards/BIOS, and especially the CPU you have, are made for it. I think you'll be very happy, and that 2600 is a workhorse. I honestly would never have moved from that setup if it weren't for my unusual arrangement (and endless curiousity). Yup...only two weeks

TBH, I would think JimAttrill has a point as well. I don't use Skype, so I wouldn't have thought of it like he presents it - I infer that your *webcam* wasn't working, regardless of whether Skype was involved. If it is as he says - and it sounds like he has first-hand experience - then I'd be curious about his point. All the webcams I've ever used have little stand-alone app you can run just to see the webcam work. If you're not actively using TrackIR, shut it down and confirm the webcam works. Then, the inverse: Shut down *everything* the webcam uses, and see if TrackIR works. I detest things that run when I'm not even using them, so Skype would never have been allowed to run while I was using TrackIR (after all, I don't fly and cam at the same time, and I imagine no one else does, either...) Seems like every-damn-thing you install on a PC nowadays wants to run some stupid "helper" app or a loader, updater, etc, etc...all combined to make ridiculous, unnecessary drains on performance. There are a ton of utilities for stopping/unloading/preventing all this crap from loading at bootup, and it will make a PC run a lot better if you only run things when you need them. My general rule of thumb is if you have more than 3-4 little icons in the lower right-hand corner of the system tray, you should seriously consider examining your setup to make sure you're not running things you don't need to be. In XP and Win7, it's as easy as clicking (Start) then Run, then typing MSCONFIG. Go to the STARTUP tab, and see (the majority of) what's running on your machine from boot up. Knowing what to disable takes a little more effort - but that's only because Windows includes this app for free. There are lots of other ways to check this, and many of them will actually provide some indication of what each of these things is loading for, plus whether it's really necessary or not. I'll try to find that old cam, and test out some stuff over the weekend. In any event, best of luck :)

Not 100% sure I understand the question - but if you are asking whether one can have both TrackIR and a webcam peacefully coexist on a PC, my answer would be "Yes." Although it's not set up at the moment, I had a (albeit new-ish) Logitech webcam (C400 or some such maybe; I'm not at home where I could check right now). I don't recall any conflict or problem using it or the TrackIR 5 during the time both were connected to my machine. To me it sounds like the W7 drivers for the webcam might be having an issue. Another distinct possibility is this: I noticed you have most of your system spec listed, but I don't see an actual motherboard model/type. However, I have now owned 3 different Core i7 rigs, each from different manufacturers/chipsets/peripheral implementation (Gigabyte-X58 / AsRock-X68 / Asus-X79), all 3 built by myself during the past year or so, and all run for a little while before moving on to the next one. (Why anyone would do all this is a long story; basically, I was trying to make something very specific and fairly uncommon work). Anyway, during all this, I noticed one thing for sure and certain: USB has gotten downright goofy since USB3 came along. I believe most USB 2.0 devices do just fine when connected to USB 2 ports on these newer boards, and *some* USB 3.0 devices definitely are much faster - provided they work at all with the USB3 chipset on a particular motherboard, but I had a lot of hit or miss results when trying various USB 3.0 devices/ports and USB 2.0 devices/ports. I wonder if this isn't (at least part of) your problem. If you think it can keep 'til sometime over the weekend, I believe I still have an older (really older) Logtech webcam at home somewhere, I could try hooking it up and see if there's any problem. Would this help?

I'm probably going to regret posting a 'partial response', but it needs to be said: It's remarkable how the "official" records can be dismissed at one moment, but then bring up something that hasn't "officially" been recognized...and suddenly it's only what withstands scrutiny that counts. Snake sizes without any official proof? No problem. Bigfoot? Get real... I have to ask: What's worse? Only acknowledging what is officially recognized (but being consistent in what you require as "proof"), or believing what you want to, regardless of proof - and picking and choosing when to acknowledge official sources? This is why my stance is what it is: Without some kind of certified records or documentation, it doesn't officially exist. Maybe it will be proven one day, but not as of right now. The record for the biggest canebrake/timber rattler is well-known and documented; anything else without proof might as well be a product of (forgive me, this would not be my choice of words) "juiced-up rednecks". (I was born, raised and still live in the extreme south, and I'm *more* than qualified in using the term). I come from a long line of these creatures (juiced-up rednecks, that is *lol*) and I've heard countless stories of huge snakes. Funny, no official records exist, and it's always "Well, it got away", "We threw it out", etc...pretty much the very reason we have the phrase [sic] "No official records exist." You can't decide everything you don't personally believe is just a hallucination; if one requires some kind of evidence before acknowledging something, one should at least consider applying the same standards universally. I could be wrong, sure - but at least I'm consistent in the standards. (PS, One problem I have with the pic is there's no frame of reference...we have no idea how tall you are, and even if we did there is no absolute rule concerning height v. arm reach, and as far as I can see, that's the only real 'evidence' you have. Plus, there is the whole "Skin isn't proof of length" issue. Again, nice pic - obviously a fair-sized snake no doubt. It's just not proof of anything, in any sense of the word).

Nice pic. The problem, ya see, is that it isn't my "claim" at all. The records I've cited are claims by others - all but me - in places from Missouri to Alabama to New York state. (I provided references for your benefit). So, it's not me you'd need to convince. Like I said, if I have to choose, I'd prefer a reference for that LA state record. Then I'd be your biggest advocate. Incidentally, while I'm not sure where the reference for an inch per year in shrinkage is, I do know that almost everything I saw indicated that a. you cannot use a skin to determine the length of a live snake, and b. skinning the snake results in quite a lot of stretching of the skin - between 15 and 25% as I recall. Even where considerable caution was used explicitly to avoid the strecthing. This is explained by the simple fact that snake skin stretches in order to accommodate their eating habits. Commonly, this involves swallowing whole another animal which is often many times larger than the snake itself. If the snakes' skin didn't stretch, they'd burst. As I understood it, skins are generally refused as proof of the length of a living snake. Of course I will gladly provide references once I return home if you'd like (I am indisposed of my desktop ATM).

If you have any pics to share, they're always appreciated. But me, I'm an empirical data kind of guy. State record 7'2"...now there's something exceptional to see. If I have to choose, I'd prefer the reference for that state record. Then maybe we can set out about figuring why the folks who write some of the articles over at Wikipedia are so tragically misinformed. The good news - as I'm sure you know - is that anyone can update Wikipedia...so, with documentation of your state record-setting specimen firmly in hand, we can go educate those lying rascals... Of course, you're absolutely right though...Wikipedia isn't by far the only source for this sort of info. A nice lady named Shelly Cox - she works for the Missouri Dept. of Conservation, and is a self-described "amateur herpetologist" posted the following tidbits at a website called Explore Missouri (http://naturalmissouri.blogspot.com/2010/07/timber-rattlesnakes.html): "The timber rattlesnake is the largest of all the venomous snakes in Missouri, reaching lengths up to 5 feet. The largest recorded specimen in Missouri was 47 inches long. The all time record for this species is one recorded in Alabama, at a length of 6 feet 2 1/2 inches and weighing in at 5.5 pounds. That would be one seriously large timber rattler." I am impressed, again...man, you really need to get these folks updated. Apparently Missouri - the one and only "Show Me State", mind you - is also woefully unaware of how big these things grow where you are. Not only has she published the rather embarrasing fact that Missouri could only muster a record of less than 4 feet...but she has the audacity to hand the 'all-time record' crown to Alabama...and she clearly doesn't know 'seriously large' timber rattlers the likes of those in Louisiana. The nerve! (edit: Further research indicates that they may have heard of the 6'2.5" record as far away as New York http://www.dec.ny.gov/animals/7147.html) Apparently the lying mongrels at Wikipedia have gotten to a whole lot of people out there.)

Perhaps you, and others around you, should consider indulging the rest of society. You know - just for our edification. After all, someone must have thought of putting these things in record books at some point; otherwise, the official records would be...well, blank. But, being as they're not all that uncommon, one does have to wonder why those who do this sort of thing - you know, herpetologists and folks like that - why they wouldn't just go on down there, where there live such fine exceptions to what they've managed to find all this time. I can see it now (Scene in lab, several snake experts standing around): [snake Guy 1] Darn shame the biggest canebrake rattler we've found so far only went just over 6 feet. [snake Guy 2] Yep.<Pauses, scratching head> Hey, wait a sec...my third cousin's neighbor told my uncle that the canebrake rattlers down in Loo-zanna grow way bigger than anywhere else. 15, mebbe 25 per cent bigger, he sez. You don't reckon... [sG1] What the heck are we waiting for? Let's go find us a record-setter! I guess we'll have to wait and see. In the interim, I'll stick with the documented findings. I also need to go check some more sources to make sure none of them say (for example) "Longest on record (not counting Louisiana)."

Not at all to differ just for the sake of differing, but I doubt any canebrake rattler will reach 7 feet (and certainly not 8). The distinction of "biggest" (longest and heaviest) rattler belongs to the eastern diamondback, and those rarely go beyond 7 feet, the heaviest known specimen being just over 7-foot-9. (There are frequent claims of 8-foot specimens, but no confirmed documented specimens have been produced). By comparison, Canebrake rattlers go around 5 feet, the longest reported specimen being just over 6-foot-2. Folks commonly overestimate the length of snakes. Not that it's any wonder, because they are almost universally feared or reviled. Of course, the official records aren't to say that nothing bigger ever existed, but no recorded proof exists in modern history. On the whole, there just aren't going to be that many exceptions to the rule. Snakes of either type much beyond high averages are exceptionally rare. The length of skins found after shedding can mislead size estimates, and also species are sometimes confused, which might lead to over-estimating the size of a certain type. I am no expert on snakes, I just recognized upon reading that something didn't look right. The data/figures above came from Wikipedia (it's not as if I knew all that).

My money is - and has been - on June 28th.

Without necessarily having statistics at hand, the way I understood it was that Camel pilots would either get a "Victoria Cross, a red cross...or a white cross". It also comes to mind that manueverability right on the very edge of instability is historically what makes some of the best (turn-)fighters of all.

Interesting question. As a disclaimer. let me say first that I completely understand and support the OBD team in their decison to move. However, I am one of the move's 'casualties' in a manner of speaking. I am not currently a member at SimHQ, though I have been in the past on more than one occasion. I have been banned over there for refusing to follow the 'lemming masses with rose-colored glasses' of fans of the "other sim", and - without going into any further detail about it - they can keep SimHQ. So for me, the only forum I'm a member of that also has a large contingent of (W)OFF followers is, was, and shall be CA alone. I bet money that there will be nothing I can't do/see/hear about in other place besides SimHQ.

I think there's some confusion over the usage of the word 'spawn'. Most everyone - particularly the OBD team - will adamantly insist there is no trigger-based "spawning" in OFF (and I believe their perspective to be accurate). At the same time, VP makes a point above: If we assume the 'living world' around you that OFF prides itself on being, then it must also be true that, at any given moment, many aircraft are already airborne; naturally, this would include the moment at which your flight goes 'wheels up'. I could only assume that there are already some planes up at that moment. Therefore, one might be inclined to consider this as 'spawning' - but therein lies the issue: I think the term would more properly be that these planes start in the air. Spawning (for me, at least) indicates something that happens as the sim is underway, as opposed to a 'start' event, which occurs once at the beginning of sim play. I can't speak to the question about the mods you asked, but I thought I'd offer a clarification in the matter which seems to have driven some confusion in this discussion.

Awww, man...that does suck - try not to go to hard on yourself; it happens At any rate, the advice you were kind enough to offer is still perfectly valid, and most helpful. So, now you've emphasized the point by illustrating what happens when you don't use some kind of backup scheme. Here's hoping your new pilot enjoys twice the success as before!

Update: I went to Criteo's website, Criteo being one of the more obvious offenders in my recent experience (though there are many, many others). Anyway, on Criteo's page, under their "Privacy Policy" link, is a tool for disabling their tracking cookies. (It's a cookie itself, which I think is even more BS, to need another cookie to disable one I didn't want to begin with, but...well, welcome to corporate greed...) Now, I had previously been to a site run by the Network Advertising Initiative (http://www.networkadvertising.org/managing/opt_out.asp) but - even though there is a 'test' to determine if the cookies are present on your machine, and I passed the test - I was still having trouble with the damn Criteo crap. It seems to be working since I opted out directly on their site (though I couldn't explain why). All (or most) of these companies are supposed to be members of this NAI, and supposed to support your right to "opt-out"...but (if we think about it) they don't support it too vigorously, because if they did, their businesses would fail. Google has a tool (get this, you have to use a tool to undo what they did to you automatically *geez*) at http://www.google.co...erences/plugin/ Of course, the problem with this is it'll only work on Google (so what, I have to do this with a custom tool, for every site I go to? Again, B @ S T A R D S...) Depending on which browser you use, there are special tools ('plug-ins') you can use. One such tool is called TACO, but it appears to only support the Firefox browser. I am hoping OlPaint will elaborate on his method in a form more usable, or any others who might have helpful info will speak up here...I myself don't have "the" answer for this, just a collection of ideas and some legwork, really. One thing I can say: This is a freaking menace that someone should be shot for creating...but then, we all knew the old saying before we ever heard of the Internet: There's no such thing as "free".

OlPaint - even with the directing in your hosts file, I would think you'll still wind up with the issue Flyby describes - the 'back' button will just say "(your browser) cannot display the page", but there would still be at least one if not several 'layers' of URLs that will try to load, which is why he found that clicking "back" didn't actually go back on the first attempt (or even subsequent tries). The sites we're talking about aren't really 'phishing sites'. They are (what the business logic deems) "helping" us. They are perfectly legitimate businesses themselves, but I disagree strenuosly with what these people consider legitimate. The way they look at it, they provided you a service, for free (Google, etc) that you consented to by using it. The 'service' they sell is in targeting ads based on your internet activity...I've heard it called lots of things, including 'behavioral advertising'. I call it bullsh!t, myself... Are you saying you have some method to completely eliminate this? If so, kindly outline (in laypersons language, please) the steps to do it - I am sure many would appreciate it.

Next to the back and forward buttons, you'll see a little arrow for 'dropping' the browser history. You can drop this and you'll see immediately what's happened...pages aren't going directly from page to page anymore, there's too much potential revenue lost that way (b@stards). You'll see things like "ad.doubleclick.net" in the history, even though you never went to such a site (or thought you didn't). Your navigation is being 'redirected, because - and this is the stupidest GD thing I've ever heard of - the idea that you 'passing through' these redirections is making someone money. In that drop-down browser history, you'll also likely see links like "criteo.us.com" (or some such), or "Internet Explorer cannot display the page" (because there wasn't a "page" exactly, to load. Go search for criteo online, you'll see what they do: Ad services. And there are a *bunch* more like 'em. These are the things that make the ads show up on a site that are customized to you. Try it - have you ever noticed you can be looking at a site- Home Depot, for example - and have an ad on that site that has *nothing* to do with Home IMprovement? That's the type of things these redirections do, by basically follwing you around the web. It is **very** annoying, but since a lot of it is driven by stupid corporate greed, I don't see it getting better. As you have realized, it's getting worse. It is not by far just Google. Maybe others have studied it more and know a way to stop it; there might be. Personally, I just drop the down arrow and go back a few steps (to the actual last site, not the re-directions). There are some "opt-out" pages you can register with that supposedly help - but I've already been there, registered, and passed their 'opt-out' test...and it still happens on my machine. (I suspect because money is more valuable than my desire to not be annoyed. As I said: B@STARDS. Sorry I can't help more.

Hi RugbyFan, I've used both paid and free products historically. I use Norton Ghost (at work), and did use PowerQuest DriveImage at home (PQ is no longer in business; product rights bought and actually became the newer versions of Norton Ghost). Currently, for any non-Windows 7 machine, I use Macrium Reflect free edition. It works well so far as I can tell, and offers an option to create rescue media (to boot/restore from a DVD; although it can be a little involved). On the half-dozen or so W7 machines I've built over the past 6 months, I've used the free/built-in Windows image/restore and it has worked OK for me. It's fairly 'bare-bones', but you can't beat the price, and it seems to me it would do just fine for most people. Even in my fairly complex boot arrangement, the W7 feature works perfectly to restore everything from scratch using only: - a boot DVD (which it will create for you, but is only needed if you *don't* already have a Windows DVD) - the backup image file (Windows walks you through making this) - driver(s) if you happen to have any unusual hardware reqired for booting (I use a RAID controller, for example, but I imagine most wouldn't even need to worry about needing drivers). You do need some sort of media to store the image file on - an external hard disk, for example, but even DVDs will work. Images will go roughly 0.5-1x the size of what you're backing up, so if you back up a machine with a drive loaded up with 100G of stuff on it, it's going to take a while and will use 50+G of storage for the image. OTOH, if you carefully just install Windows, update it, then only install a few programs you really need, you can create a decent "base" image that's not too large and will get you off the ground nicely if you ever suffer a drive crash. TBH it's so easy and inexpensive to do drive imaging these days, there's really no reason not to. At home, I keep drive images for every single machine I build (which is a lot, counting friends and family; probably 25 a year). This has saved tons of agony and time; the hard disk restore can put a machine right in an hour (counting installing a drive physically), where re-installing from scratch can take hours or even days, depending. I hope this helps