Windows 8 update KB2795944

OK, Microsoft has the Windows 8 Pro feature where they send out, and install, updates.

They don't care if your settings are set to "download, but do let me *choose* which updates to apply" -- they reset it to their "recommended" "Dang! If there is an update, install that thing anyway!" setting.

KB2795944 is a "cumulative" update, incorporating several other updates at the same time. A big "update", 19 plus Megabytes of download. In software, not video or audio or even document sizes that isn't much. In terms of updates to the operating system, it is a *bunch*.

When KB2795944 updates on my computer, it *kills* all audio. That means YouTube videos are silent. Adobe Flash crap is silent. Windows Media Player music and songs is silent.

I looked on the Microsoft "support" site (ha! Like calling the block long line at MacDonalds "Fast Food") at http://support.microsoft.com/find-solutions/windows/windows-8/. I quit looking at the Thirty First page of - get this - five - items per page. Without getting to a place to look for issues with KB2795944 or other updates that kill the audio on my computer. Demonstrably. Repeatedly.

And don't ask about the hours wasted, and work time lost, isolating this nonsense.

Apparently there are other issues of installing updates on Windows 8, including 8 and 12 hours waiting for updates to finish.

Sure glad I got in on the Windows 8 Pro offer.

Reactive gun control, prosecution, and mere gun ownership

Tam at View From The Porch found an article that twisted off the dial of Tam's *Doh!* meter.

Ohio's criminal gun law largely reactive

Tam's reacted,

I was unable to read this nice lady's column because of the title.

I read the article. Here is my response to Tam with my review of the article.
---

Jessie Balmert's article says, to me, that more folk with prior criminal convictions (firearm ownership "disability") need to be rousted out, searched for firearms they shouldn't have, and be sent to prison for having those firearms they shouldn't have.
That gets kind of close to putting people in prison for what they are thinking -- the implication is that someone with a firearm, because of prior convictions not necessarily related to violence or guns, is about to use that weapon to commit crimes and mayhem.

And that crowds very closely to the contention of gun-control activists that having a weapon makes you more likely to be about to commit a crime with it.

I have to wonder, in a world where, when seconds count, the police are minutes away -- someone previously convicted, living a "clean" life, having "paid their debt to society", isn't as entitled to protecting themselves in the neighborhoods they are allowed to live in, and protect themselves from tyranny from government (and unwarranted police harassment), as the next guy.

This smacks of class discrimination, the way Rosa Parks was arrested for setting in the wrong bus seat.

The article you referred to advocates, whenever anyone is stopped for anything from warning about rushing through a yellow light to driving past a drug den (even if you live the next street over), to "looking suspicious" -- to investigate and search to check in case the convicted felon has a gun they shouldn't have -- which presupposed everyone has to satisfy the cops all the time that: a) They aren't felons or otherwise "disabled" for firearm ownership; and that b) They don't have a weapon that would make them suspect of about to commit a crime with it and might have a disqualifying factor.

And then I recall that the Supreme court held it would violate the constitution, to require[edit] convicted felons to register weapons (i.e., the "disabled" person would have to voluntarily admit breaking the law -- which is a bad thing to do to non-convicted people, and a morally corrupt practice for government or police to do to anyone).

The article reiterates what everyone should know -- that gun control regulations, like Prohibition, the war on drugs, the war on crime, the war on poverty, and other attempts to legislate "morality" -- just don't work. Criminals get guns, suicides and others get guns. What government "wars" and vendettas do accomplish is to create industries invested in harvesting flows of government spending, creating criminal empires that flourish on the banned article, and tie the hands of honest, law-abiding citizens.

So, the poor lady [writing the article] doesn't advocate more gun laws. Just violating the rights of selected classes, accepting any "spillover" intimidation and harassment of *legitimate* gun owners and non-weaponed "disabled" folk as acceptable breakage, I guess.

Actually, for the most part, I think repealing prohibition is the right example approach, that gun ownership is a matter of a person's thoughts, arresting anyone for possession, or even for using a weapon in a crime, is a matter of arresting for *what you are thinking*, and unconstitutional. The crime you use the gun for is a crime, and making murder and mayhem a crime is sufficient to protect Americans.

Maybe I am getting to be libertarian. I thought I just couldn't stand any of the Democratic President candidates since LBJ, so I must be Republican. But the Republicans today seem to accept so much breakage. *sigh* Because there is the whole rest of the victimless crimes thing, from statutory rape of able, consenting folk (largely unprosecuted), adultery (unprosecuted, where stil illegal), drunk driving (most of us know folk that never drove sober, live quiet lives, never had an accident), prostitution in all its varied forms up to and including gold digging and sex for favors and job security, not wearing seat belts and running stop signs and red lights and speeding when there is no accident, etc.

Walmart vs. Assault Rifles

I am confused.

Gun opponents claim that gun control laws disarm criminals. They don't, never have, FBI statistics show that increasing legitimate gun ownership -- makes all forms of violent crimes, not just shootings, go down. At least it did in the cities and states that increased people carrying concealed, and towns that required all homeowners to own and possess a firearm in the home, over the last decade and more.

So one point of contention is the so-called "assault rifle". Often a rifle style that has been used, in the past to distant past, on the battle field (as how many weapons from knives and rocks have not?). Like the long rifles of the Revolutionary war these had the advantage of having the problems debugged, of getting ammunition and parts available, and having a corps of trained users steadily entering the civilian market place. We sometimes refer to them as "veterans".

The AR/AK type rifle is often used for hunting. Now, here comes my surprise. Walmart sells stuff. If folk will buy it, and Walmart can make a moderate markup and sell it -- most often it goes on the shelf. There are a few things they do as a service to the community, including handing out state literature on hunting and fishing seasons, selling hunting and fishing licenses and stamps. And ammunition and guns, where legal. Guns used to hunt, or paintball guns, since there is a market.

And BB guns, used to teach youngsters the fundamentals of gun handling, safety, and marksmanship. This is important. In case of emergency, we want as many trained shooters as possible, if ever called to service. The better prepared to serve our children are, and we are, the less likely some bandit, pirate, or enemy nation is to try something aggressive against us.

So, Walmart sells guns, mostly for hunting. They never claimed otherwise. They call where they sell guns variously "outdoor sports", "sporting goods", "hunting and fishing". No self defense, no "Hey this gun is great on bad guys!" promotions. Hunting guns.

Just like the Bushmaster .223. Which is sold by Walmart as a hunting gun. McDonalds didn't stop selling coffee because that lady in Alberquerque scalded herself. Yes, a semi-automatic gun shooting NATO rounds could find a place on the battle field. The framers of the Constitution, and the Congress that passed the Militia law, expected no less.

So, I am confused. Why does anyone worried about assault weapons care about what Walmart sells or doesn't sell for hunting?

The national debt ceiling, falling again.

Rachel Lucas wrote "Let it burn?", regarding the blanket "more of the same debt, debt, and tyranny" proposal to avoid the looming national debt ceiling confrontation -- as Obama pitches in for his next four years of unfettered whatever.


So I wrote Dr.  Coburn, US Senator, Oklahoma.
---
Dr. Coburn,

I have seen a synopsis of Secretary Geitner's nebulous budget proposal regarding the much anticipated deficit ceiling collapse.

Please agree to Secretary Geitner's proposal with a couple of stipulations.

 1. Immediately defund and abolish the EPA, DEA, ATF (or whatever it is called this week), the Dept of Ed, Dept of Labor, and TSA.
 2. Expire all Presidential appointments in the last 5 years that did *not* receive full Senate endorsement, and place a term limit of 8 months on all future out-of-session Presidential appointments that might, under *any* interpretation, warrant Senate review.
 3. Require the House to ratify *any* change of taxes, fees or penalties under any existing or proposed Federal regulation or law.
 4. Forbid any surveillance of anyone in the United States without a current, specific to the individual, court ordered warrant. Forbid any database of search or surveillance results not pertaining to court ordered searches and surveillance. Forbid secret "No Fly" lists or any other barrier to communication, commerce, transportation, travel or other personal liberty that is not both available for common public scrutiny and managed by publicly identified entities in a public and open fashion, similar to court sessions open to the press and the public.
 5. End the CRA, and any other program intended to redistribute the wealth. ("Don't expect to build up the weak by pulling down the strong", Calvin Coolidge). Tax bundled securities as a separate entity of wealth, at 10% of debt balance per year. The balloon of  debt not secured by tangible assets is a serious threat to national security, and must be reduced to a minor risk.
 6. No more continuing budget resolutions. Require a budget balancing expenditures next year with receipts from last year. No more borrowing it forward.

I think this would be a reasonable response to the Obama administration's requests.