Follow TV Tropes

Following

Discussion Series / TheITCRowd

Go To

You will be notified by PM when someone responds to your discussion
Type the word in the image. This goes away if you get known.
If you can't read this one, hit reload for the page.
The next one might be easier to see.
trashconverters "Team Ken, baby" (Series 2)
"Team Ken, baby"
Aug 20th 2015 at 1:03:38 AM •••

Does anyone else think Moss is Ambiguously Gay?

Stand up against pinkwashing, don't fall for propoganda
johnnye Since: Jan, 2001
Dec 8th 2012 at 3:49:59 AM •••

  • Double Standard: Abuse, Female on Male: In the first episode, a woman gives Roy a rather brutal beating using her shoes. Jen defuses the situation (after letting it go on for a while) but noone seems to be seriously concerned by it.

So, this scene is pure slapstick. The aggressor could easily have been a man, and the show wouldn't have treated it any differently. Is it really this trope?

Hide / Show Replies
Statzkeen Since: Mar, 2014
Oct 23rd 2014 at 2:56:40 AM •••

If it was man beating a woman with a shoe, how would it have come across?

johnnye Since: Jan, 2001
Feb 4th 2013 at 8:41:07 PM •••

Removed the following conversation from the Technobabble entry, ironically enough because it's full of technobabble. That's not a bad thing in itself, but it means I don't know what's a relevant point and what isn't so I can't sort it into a coherent entry — anyone who can, have at it.

  • How a badly programmed driver works in Windows. In the NT architecture, drivers should never hook system calls, for the exact reason Moss details. Unfortunately, there is, for deep and intractable architectural reasons, no way to stop them from doing so. Other than naming and shaming the responsible developers when the inevitable BSOD occurs, which I suspect was exactly what Moss was trying to do.
    • Although they slightly fluffed the line:
      You see the driver hooks a function by patching the system core table so it's not safe to unload it unless another thread is about to jump in there and do its stuff. And you don't want to end up in the middle of invalid memory!
What he should have said was "... because another thread might be about to jump in there ..."; another thread jumping into the now-unloaded memory is exactly what would cause you to "end up in the middle of invalid memory", and not something that would make it "safe to unload", so "unless" was the wrong word to use.

Top