TexasCHLforum.com

Yes, this was a mechanism that RealPlayer implemented many years ago, to "protect" the original video file. The .ram file is basically a gateway/pointer to the actual video .rm file. Really no way to get around it that I've found, unless the direct link is discoverable from the .ram file.

Ameer wrote:

RHenriksen wrote:

Ameer wrote:Thank you to anyone who can help without installing new software. I already have VLC and QuickTime.

You have to go to http://www.real.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; and download their free Real Player software.

No I don't.

My apologies, sir. See: http://tinyurl.com/4l2djkt" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

RPB wrote:
3:55 AGAINST the bill freshman from Little Ulm Texas
Supports second amendment except in some places.
One wrong word and a CHL will kill everyone in school we need more police.
Imagine them playing and showing off the guns there goes the neighborhood.

Isn't that like saying I support the the first amendment except in assembly halls, media outlets, and places of religious worship?

Jasonw560 wrote:

RPB wrote:
3:55 AGAINST the bill freshman from Little Ulm Texas
Supports second amendment except in some places.
One wrong word and a CHL will kill everyone in school we need more police.
Imagine them playing and showing off the guns there goes the neighborhood.

Isn't that like saying I support the the first amendment except in assembly halls, media outlets, and places of religious worship?

I guess my comprehension is low. There is no grey area in the U.S. Constitution, the only possible grey area would be in the interpritation. Not in what it says. How can a person support it in certain areas and not others?

I have about 2 pages left of a 5 page essay to write, I know what I'll be listening to when I'm doing it

RPB wrote:

Beiruty wrote:What an Afghan Vertran who cannot ID Friend or Foe even when the suspected target wears the same uniform

yeah everyone in Afghanistan is safer with him at UT then

If you want to disagree with my viewpoint, that's fine. but you're calling my ability as soldier? you don't know me or anything about me. if you said that to me in person i would guarantee you a swift punch to the throat. I may not have come across as eloquently as i liked, public speaking is not my thing and this was the first time i'd ever done anything political. not to mention, this is my actual name that pops up now under this when you google it. so now every company or person who looks me up will read this while you remain anonymous. there are several things i would like to say, but will not here, because if i did my comment would be deleted. most involve four letter words, as sarah palin would say, or maybe something from a certain george carlin skit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendly_fire" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

here's a list of several cases of people who ended up dying in blue on blue engagements. these are only the cases where people were killed, you'll note that many of them came from bombs or aircraft, which do a great deal more damage than small arms. but, remember, that for the most part potential enemies are identified by other troops on the groung who are calling in for support.

one notable case was that of pat tillman, where army rangers started shooting at each other after an explosion. army rangers are some of the best soldiers in any military. if it can happen to them, i guarantee it can happen to anyone else. but please, if you wish to continue the debate, just walk up to a group of them in a bar and tell them they are (for the lack of a better word) bad soldiers, which is what you're calling me. I'd love to see that go down.

many times they don't end in people getting killed, because both sides have been trained in how to make use of cover. since you all seem to know so much more than someone who was actually in a war, i assume you know what that means, but just in case, it's where you hide behind something. you know. so you can't see them. or their uniforms. because they're intelligent, sentient beings and not paper targets. Thanks to the use of things like blue force trackers, radios, and seasoned soldiers ability to tell the difference between the sound of an m-4 and a ak-47, they usually figure it out before people get shot. like they thankfully did in the 2 cases i saw happen.

i very willing to bet neither of you have ever actually engaged a person before. if you did, it was probably one person trying to mug you or something, in a very clean cut situation, which is not what i was referring to. you clearly haven't been in any sort of real engagement, or you would understand exactly what im talking about when i say it's confusing. confusing and terrifying. shame on you.

trevorp wrote:

RPB wrote:

Beiruty wrote:What an Afghan Vertran who cannot ID Friend or Foe even when the suspected target wears the same uniform

yeah everyone in Afghanistan is safer with him at UT then

If you want to disagree with my viewpoint, that's fine. but you're calling my ability as soldier? you don't know me or anything about me. if you said that to me in person i would guarantee you a swift punch to the throat. I may not have come across as eloquently as i liked, public speaking is not my thing and this was the first time i'd ever done anything political. not to mention, this is my actual name that pops up now under this when you google it. so now every company or person who looks me up will read this while you remain anonymous. there are several things i would like to say, but will not here, because if i did my comment would be deleted. most involve four letter words, as sarah palin would say, or maybe something from a certain george carlin skit.

Son, you opened yourself up to criticism when you spoke publicly at the hearing.

I lost a cousin who was killed in Vietnam by "friendly fire". It happened because the soldiers involved weren't well enough trained, panicked and opened fire. I doubt there has ever been a "friendly fire" incident that wasn't the result of poor training, undisciplined behavior or just plain incompetence. And that includes the Rangers who killed Pat Tillman. (And yes, I'm a veteran.) EDIT: I should have added deliberate murder.

I'm not sure how "friendly fire" has any application to CHL holders though. Perhaps you could enlighten us?

trevorp wrote:If you want to disagree with my viewpoint, that's fine.

They disagreed with you a year and a half ago? Great first post!

baldeagle wrote: Son, you opened yourself up to criticism when you spoke publicly at the hearing.

I lost a cousin who was killed in Vietnam by "friendly fire". It happened because the soldiers involved weren't well enough trained, panicked and opened fire. I doubt there has ever been a "friendly fire" incident that wasn't the result of poor training, undisciplined behavior or just plain incompetence. And that includes the Rangers who killed Pat Tillman. (And yes, I'm a veteran.) EDIT: I should have added deliberate murder.

I'm not sure how "friendly fire" has any application to CHL holders though. Perhaps you could enlighten us?

you're right, I did, that doesn't mean i'm not going to defend myself. especially when the attacks are personal and not political.

I wholeheartedly disagree with you. firefights are chaos. it's hard to keep track of everything that's going on around you at once. when people end up in the wrong place it can have disastrous results. fog of war.

I linked to friendly fire because the people calling me incompetent were referring to the comments i made about identifying targets vs. friendlies. and then saying that people in the military are safer without me. so, I gave the link as evidence.

(edit) i missed the edit when i was writing this, but, yes upon further research i would agree that the pat tillman thing was probably deliberate murder. I hadn't really followed it past the coverup, but it seems it probably was.

I don't really want to argue about the politics of it. I have mild regret about going up there, because as i mentioned, it wasn't quite as eloquent as it could have been, and in the end i really don't care about it that much. regardless, i think attacking me personally is unwarranted and unfounded.

as for the other comment, it was the first time i read it. i don't really care what you think.

trevorp wrote:

baldeagle wrote: Son, you opened yourself up to criticism when you spoke publicly at the hearing.

I lost a cousin who was killed in Vietnam by "friendly fire". It happened because the soldiers involved weren't well enough trained, panicked and opened fire. I doubt there has ever been a "friendly fire" incident that wasn't the result of poor training, undisciplined behavior or just plain incompetence. And that includes the Rangers who killed Pat Tillman. (And yes, I'm a veteran.) EDIT: I should have added deliberate murder.

I'm not sure how "friendly fire" has any application to CHL holders though. Perhaps you could enlighten us?

you're right, I did, that doesn't mean i'm not going to defend myself. especially when the attacks are personal and not political.

I wholeheartedly disagree with you. firefights are chaos. it's hard to keep track of everything that's going on around you at once. when people end up in the wrong place it can have disastrous results. fog of war.

You can't end up in the wrong place without poor training, poor discipline or incompetence. You don't fire on people until you've identified them and confirmed that they are firing on you. Fog of war is an excuse, nothing more, when things go badly.

trevorp wrote:I linked to friendly fire because the people calling me incompetent were referring to the comments i made about identifying targets vs. friendlies. and then saying that people in the military are safer without me. so, I gave the link as evidence.

if you think army rangers are incompetent, I would wonder who in your mind is a competent or well trained soldier. even the best ones make mistakes. some of them involve fratricide. which, was the point i was trying to make in the video. if well trained soldiers are capable of making mistakes like that in a heated situation, than what is going to happen when a college kid with 10 hours of minimal training tried to get involved in a serious situation.

I am not calling anyone incompetent, but nor do I think that just because someone has a Ranger patch they are above criticism. Rangers are apparently really good shots, because Tillman was killed by three closely grouped shots to the head.

Well-trained and disciplined soldiers don't make mistakes that cost lives. In every "friendly fire" incident AAR, mistakes are identified, poor training practices are identified, instances of poor discipline are identified.

The same is true in the case of Pat Tillman's death. The AAR determined that the Rangers thought they were being fired upon by the enemy, so they returned fire, without identifying their targets and despite the fact that Tillman's position tried to signal that they were friendlies.

But seriously, what are the chances a CHL is going to be in a similar situation? Your statement reveals that you simply don't trust young people to be responsible with guns. I wonder where you got that idea?

This thread is almost 21 months old and it dealt with the 2011 Texas Legislative Session. I'm locking it and you folks can begin another thread if you like.

Chas.