hums005

thank you @Wolly9102 for responding. i dug a little deeper and asked exactly what he did. turns out he tried some random fix from google search for "Access Denied. (Exception from HRESULT: 0x80070005 (E_ACCESSDENIED))" and later removed the ticks from every listed user's checkbox thinking that he was reverting the changes he made. 
 
upon further looking, i found https://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/windowsserver/en-US/07aead23-1fce-4c3d-8df9-f772aef4fad0/local-security-policy-hot-to-remove-dcom-values-and-restore-to-ampquotnot-definedampquot?forum=winserverManagement
 
i obviously couldn't go through GUI to access the security settings. but he had later found another fix
 
I found another solution here http://www.pcreview.co.uk/forums/thread-2364917.php 
It says you can try to edit the following registry key - but I haven't tested it.

HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Policies\Microsoft\Windows NT\DCOM\MachineAccessRestriction
 
luckily regedit was working and I was able to reset the value to 1.
 
The problem is fixed now. thank you LTT Forum.
 

I know this is a long shot but I’m a 18 year old gamer/ streamer who’s pc recently died and it was my main component of my set up and due to medical reasons and reasons I won’t discuss I’m unable to work to fund a new one if anyone would be willing to donate to my cause or help me In some way I’d be more then greatful 

-= Locked =-
 
Sorry but we do not allow asking or begging of funds from forum members.

https://www.newsbytesapp.com/timeline/Sports/30745/137183/fans-using-in-store-units-to-unlock-fortnite-s-skin
 
 

https://www.newsbytesapp.com/timeline/Sports/30745/137183/fans-using-in-store-units-to-unlock-fortnite-s-skin
 
 

He's SOL. He either loses scan functionality or goes off buying a new scanner. Sometimes you have to tell someone it's simply not possible. It's weird how HP has absolutely 0 64-bit support for this thing. I've never seen that before, not even on older Officejet printers from like 2001-2002.

Some old XP 32-bit drivers can work in 64-bit windows 10. It doesn't hurt to try it

There are no 64-bit drivers with scanner support. The printer is simply too old. You'll need to run a 32-bit operating system to operate the scanner.
 
These are the last drivers with scanner support, for Windows 2000/XP 32-bit:
 
https://ftp.hp.com/pub/softlib/software9/COL13820/ma-38918-3/lj3050x-309x-PCL5-pnp-win-en.exe
 
No such drivers for any 64-bit version of Windows.

https://www.theverge.com/2018/5/9/17333292/fortnite-cheater-lawsuit
 
Defendant is a cheater,” said Epic Games in its October 2017 lawsuit against a 14-year-old boy. “Nobody likes a cheater. And nobody likes playing with cheaters.”
 
C.R. is being sued for live-streaming himself using a cheat he found online and then linking out to it in the YouTube description box. Epic Games doesn’t claim that defendant created cheat, sold a cheat, or even run a forum that distributes cheats. They are just discouraging streamers who use Cheat codes and Patches to attract followers because allowing such a trend will make the cheats spread like wildfire and cause a MiniMilitia 2 situation where the public lobbies were swarmed by "self crowned hacker" end users which quickly made casual gamers who were genuinely playing the game abiding to the rules and regulations of the game.
 
Quoting Verge "The lawsuit gives a few examples of what Fortnite cheats can do. “A cheat might enable the cheater to see through solid objects, teleport, impersonate another player by ‘spoofing’ that player’s user name, or make moves other players cannot, such as a spin followed by an instant headshot to another player.” It’s not clear what kind of cheat C.R. was using, but whatever it was, it was giving him a huge leg up in Fortnite’s Battle Royale mode, which pits up to 100 players against each other on a map."
 
It is not clear if the workaround or fix to the cheat is already in place or not. but it seems Epic games is going through with the case.
 
Verge says 
"It was probably this counter-notice that kicked off the unlikely lawsuit to begin with. The way that DMCA counter-notices work is that YouTube will keep the content offline for 10 days, but if the copyright claimant — in this case, Epic Games — files a legal action, YouTube has to continue to keep it offline. And that’s exactly what Epic Games did, before even realizing they were going after a 14-year-old.
 
That fact only came to their attention when C.R.’s mother, Lauren Rogers, sent a letter to the court, pointing out that C.R. was a minor and minors are not capable of consenting to contracts. She had never authorized him to play Fortnite, which meant that the EULA was not binding on her son.
 
Lauren Rogers isn’t wrong, per se. It’s true that, in general, minors do not have the capacity to make contracts. (It’s why standard EULAs like Fortnite’s ask minors to only use the service with the supervision of their parent or guardian, who must themselves agree to the EULA.)
 
 
By playing Fortnite without his mother’s permission, technically speaking, C.R. is outside of the EULA. But also technically speaking, playing Fortnite without being covered under the EULA might be a digital trespass, or worse, computer fraud and abuse. That might sound wild and ridiculous in a world where minors are almost certainly clicking through EULAs without their parents’ permission, but the whole underage internet exists on the precarious legal fiction that all these teens are being supervised by their parents, who are bound by these contracts that no one is actually reading.
But all this is a little beside the point. Being a minor can’t stop you from getting sued for copyright infringement."

Crime is a crime. Cyber one or not. And age should NOT be an issue.

Its been asked many times now. 
 
 

And that is usually within their power. Even more so if the EULA contains a clause wherein the end user waives right to arbitration if they consent to the EULA's terms. And most of them do have that clause. 

Good. Make them learn early to not be dipshits and maybe the world will be a better place.

That's typically interpreted as the company who controls the software's IPs and rights "owns" the software, such as the source code and the software's assets, while the end user "owns" a limited use license for it.
 
Though this limited use license can technically be revoked at any time, almost on a whim, this rarely happens without advance notice and probably some form of compensation. A unilateral revocation of a user's license if they have been completely compliant with the EULA's terms would be a PR nightmare of epic proportions for the company in question.

That's fairly standard stuff.  You should read the EULA for every game or piece of software you "own", most of them will say that you don't actually own it, that you merely have the right to use it until they withdraw that right. 

Which is shit. Software should be owned, not distributed or shared by said owner, but it should be owned by the purchaser.

You mean "Software should be free", right? 
 
 

Oh I understand that, and that wasn't my argument.
 
 
My argument is her child had access to an electronic device. Doesn't matter if its a game, porn, or a Dr Seuss book, the parent is responsible to restrict access to the child. This child is above the age of 13, which is the online age of consent unfortunately. Doesn't matter if she gave him explicit permission or not, he had access to it. If she didn't want him to she should've restricted his access. Simply not knowing isn't a valid argument... And my parental suspicion is that she is only trying to protect her child (don't blame her); however, if she didn't give him permission, she should've been supervising more. He's responsible for his electronic interactions at the age of 13+ in the US.

The law typically protects children from legal accountability based on the very real situation where they simply do not have enough life experience/lnowledge to be able to differentiate situations and make intentional decisions knowing the outcomes or laws surrounding them.  As far as I know no legal document or discussion has ever centered around kids lacking thinking skills or or having a low IQ as reasoning for this.

Didn't something similar to this happen a few years ago too?

kid should be punished. not sure if they can "sue" him though. though it's likely they filed the lawsuit prior to them knowing the kid was 14.
 
this case will do one of two things. scare the kid half to death and will never consider cheating again.
or
will make the kid think he cant be touched and do it even more.

I just realized that this sounds like a case from a few months ago? 
 
Unless I'm clairvoyant... Nope, still can't figure what women want.

If he's American, electronic age of consent is 13... So... Too late?
 
And parents can't argue they didn't know. That's their fucking responsibility as parents. I'd be damned if I let my kid play a game I have no knowledge about. Yeah, it might help that I'm at techie, but it's not an excuse to refuse to be involved in your child's hobbies and interests... and online activities.

https://www.theverge.com/2018/5/9/17333292/fortnite-cheater-lawsuit
 
Defendant is a cheater,” said Epic Games in its October 2017 lawsuit against a 14-year-old boy. “Nobody likes a cheater. And nobody likes playing with cheaters.”
 
C.R. is being sued for live-streaming himself using a cheat he found online and then linking out to it in the YouTube description box. Epic Games doesn’t claim that defendant created cheat, sold a cheat, or even run a forum that distributes cheats. They are just discouraging streamers who use Cheat codes and Patches to attract followers because allowing such a trend will make the cheats spread like wildfire and cause a MiniMilitia 2 situation where the public lobbies were swarmed by "self crowned hacker" end users which quickly made casual gamers who were genuinely playing the game abiding to the rules and regulations of the game.
 
Quoting Verge "The lawsuit gives a few examples of what Fortnite cheats can do. “A cheat might enable the cheater to see through solid objects, teleport, impersonate another player by ‘spoofing’ that player’s user name, or make moves other players cannot, such as a spin followed by an instant headshot to another player.” It’s not clear what kind of cheat C.R. was using, but whatever it was, it was giving him a huge leg up in Fortnite’s Battle Royale mode, which pits up to 100 players against each other on a map."
 
It is not clear if the workaround or fix to the cheat is already in place or not. but it seems Epic games is going through with the case.
 
Verge says 
"It was probably this counter-notice that kicked off the unlikely lawsuit to begin with. The way that DMCA counter-notices work is that YouTube will keep the content offline for 10 days, but if the copyright claimant — in this case, Epic Games — files a legal action, YouTube has to continue to keep it offline. And that’s exactly what Epic Games did, before even realizing they were going after a 14-year-old.
 
That fact only came to their attention when C.R.’s mother, Lauren Rogers, sent a letter to the court, pointing out that C.R. was a minor and minors are not capable of consenting to contracts. She had never authorized him to play Fortnite, which meant that the EULA was not binding on her son.
 
Lauren Rogers isn’t wrong, per se. It’s true that, in general, minors do not have the capacity to make contracts. (It’s why standard EULAs like Fortnite’s ask minors to only use the service with the supervision of their parent or guardian, who must themselves agree to the EULA.)
 
 
By playing Fortnite without his mother’s permission, technically speaking, C.R. is outside of the EULA. But also technically speaking, playing Fortnite without being covered under the EULA might be a digital trespass, or worse, computer fraud and abuse. That might sound wild and ridiculous in a world where minors are almost certainly clicking through EULAs without their parents’ permission, but the whole underage internet exists on the precarious legal fiction that all these teens are being supervised by their parents, who are bound by these contracts that no one is actually reading.
But all this is a little beside the point. Being a minor can’t stop you from getting sued for copyright infringement."

it seems when they initiated the lawsuit they were unaware the defendant is a 14yo. and by the way the kid and their parents are lawyering up, this is gonna define some new/modded laws and some major changes in EULAs across the Gaming, Live streaming and Video sharing platforms.