HeyYou

Welcome to the Nexus. :D

I would tend to agree with you. Between seriously over-processed food, genetically modified foods, and the pesticides they are finding in our food..... Is it any wonder that we are unhealthy?

Have a look here. Note how low it rates on the scale.... and the value vs. price. (big goose egg.....) I don't think its worth it.

We might make it to mars, but, I am not holding my breath. There just doesn't seem to be the will to do so. Not like the space program of the 60's. Beyond that? Not in the foreseeable future. It would take us a century or more to reach even the nearest star, with todays tech. So, barring some astounding technological breakthru, I don't see humans making it out of this solar system any time soon.

Vanilla game seems to manage it. There are legendarys for sale at various vendors. Maybe look at one of those weapons, and see if you aren't missing a trick somewhere.

I don't think the source files are even necessary. :D

The more I think about it the more I think this whole thing is just a misunderstanding. What they probably said was Video Games are for Chillin Kudos for that comment. :D

Readme with AV uncapper should tell you where to put the files. (its a plugin for OBSE, isn't it?) Or, in the file description on the mod page. if it is installed properly, it should be working, you'll find out next time you level up. :) Welcome to Nexus. :D

I built my current machine back in 09, or 10. I have added ram, upgraded harddrives to SSDs, and upgraded the vid card, but, still the same processor, and MB. Trouble with PC hardware is, in six months, it's 'obsolete'. That does NOT mean it doesn't work any more. For those that have to have 'the latest and greatest', yeah, I hope ya have a good job.... (or trustfund....) But, my machine still plays the games I want, without trouble. Of course, I do PC work for a living...... which makes it cheaper for me. :)

Yeah, I run full screen. Seems to be the default for the game. I have HOMM3 Complete.

Should check out Jericho. It ran for two seasons. (I think it was two....) Available on Netflix. :)

I don't trust thumb drives for backups...... and I certainly wouldn't want to try and run a game from one. :) Solid state drives are the hot ticket these days, but, they are indeed more expensive than standard mechanical hdds. Still and all, HDD space has gotten dirt cheap. 2 or 4 Terrabyte drives are actually affordable. (Western Digital Gold drives please. MUCH more reliable.)

I run heroes 3 on my windows 7 machine, and it works fine. There is a tweak you need to do, to restrict it to a single processor though.

Buy a bigger harddrive, and just leave stuff installed. :D

That that's what would happen is just speculation, and as I see it this speculation doesn't match the evidence that we have. If we look at western Europe (and probably all of the western world really other than the US), this is not what will happen. Yes, there will still be guns, in particular criminals in organized crime will find ways to get access to guns. Guns are a LOT less common though, and that's valuable. Unstable teenager gets bullied, gets angry, and in an impulse wants to act on it? In Europe, what happens is that they can't, because they don't happen to have a gun lying around and can't easily get one either. They can with planning, they can if they remain determined for long enough, but it's not easy, it's impossible to just get a gun in an impulse and immediately act on that impulse. That's where a lot of s*** can get prevented. Same teenager gets bullied in US? There's a high chance (ridiculously, embarassingly high from a European point of view) that they just happen to have a gun lying around already, and can immediately use it. That's the real problem. In Europe, yeah, there is organized crime, there are criminals with guns. It's incredibly rare those get used against civilians though. Even if criminals decide to bring them, it's much more likely just to threaten than to actually use, they're gonna be much less trigger-happy because they really don't have to worry about e.g. a shopkeeper also having a gun and using it in response. I'd personally much prefer the outcome of getting some of my stuff stolen by an armed criminal but coming out of the situation unharmed myself, over a 50% chance of me being the first to pull the trigger but also having a 50% chance that I'm too late and get shot. And that's assuming organized crime suddenly becomes interested in burglary in a common house or shop. Regular burglars aren't really likely to have a gun either. I don't actually think it'd be a workable solution to ban guns at this point in the US though. Hypothetically, if all the guns could suddenly be made to disappear in the US, I definitely think the US would be better off than it is now. But it's too late, I don't think it'll ever be possible in practice anymore to take people's guns away. There's just too many of them around already, people have grown up with them and think it's "normal", etc. It's a lost cause. Not familiar with the gun culture here in the US? The US is not comparable to Europe in any way, shape, form, or manner. Europeans have been deprived of weapons since the feudal era, when the various leaders didn't want the peons having weapons with which to rise up, and overthrow them. They are used to it. Here in the US, we have ALWAYS been able to bear arms.

By 'security thing', I meant not being able to get to the site. Not the ingame error.

Wasn't that a mod conflict in Skyrim?

That's hitting pretty close to the heart of the matter. The illusion is that America is a somewhat peaceful place where law and order reign almost supreme and the occasional criminal is running scared. It's almost the complete opposite. People living here choose not to see any of it or acknowledge there is a deep cancer in our nation until it kicks in their door and ravages everyone and everything inside. Most of the larger inner cities are controlled by gangs and violence. The more honest, hard working people move further and further out into the suburbs to try and escape it. Also you must consider that most Americans are "doped up" most of the time to help deal with their reality- or as another means of escape. Hhhhmmm.. "Glorify war and violence."??? Odd, I was never taught that. Our government certainly gives that appearance though, doesn't it...... There are segments of our population that glorify violence, and 'the thug life' though. Unfortunately, that is not something the american people as a whole, can address. That particular segment of the population needs to address it, as any outside interference is seen as bigotry, racism, etc. Our education system does indeed suck. The whole 'everyone is a winner, everyone gets a trophy' thing is one my biggest problems with the attitudes of today. That is a relatively recent advent, that is only turning out kids that are woefully unprepared for the real world. They simply do not know how to handle rejection, failure, or someone else being better at something than they are. The result? What we see today in mass shootings, and suicide by cop. (or, see how many folks you can kill, before it becomes apparent that you are cornered......) We USED to have a really good education system. It started going downhill with the federal department of education being formed, and then deciding how kids should be educated. Mostly by folks that didn't have kids...... Is banning guns the answer though? Nope. We tried that once with alcohol. All we managed to do was create an underground market, that gave rise to organized crime. Where there is a demand, there will be folks willing to meet the supply. The criminals will still have guns, and the law-abiding populace will be disarmed. If things then follow the usual trend, certain types of crimes will then INCREASE, as the law-abiding will no longer have the means to defend themselves, nor the deterrent value of potentially being armed. Not to mention the logistical issues with first, getting said legislation passed, and even more complicated, enforcing said legislation. That would be really messy, in a big hurry. Mental Health? Yeah, that's another problem. Reagan dismantled most of the mental health infrastructure we had at one time. All those folks were subsequently put out on the street, to fend for themselves. Not a good scene. We are also a rather pill-happy society. If you have a 'problem', it's quite likely the doc will have a pill for it. Whether it actually does more good than harm though, that's an entirely different proposition. Quite frequently, the side-effects are far worse than the symptoms the drug was designed to treat. Not to mention parents/doctors feeling a need to medicate kids, simply for being kids. According to theory, 5% of elementary aged children suffer from ADD, or ADHD, yet in one of the schools here, THIRTY PERCENT of the kids were on some form of treatment for it. If THAT doesn't indicate a problem, I don't know what does...... So, what's the fix? As I see it, there isn't one. At least, not anything that would make a difference any time soon. This is simply an attitude that is going to have to run its course, and hope society survives it. I have already made my views quite plain on the topic of mass-shootings, I don't see a real need to rehash that again here.

I think it's a security thing. Try going to just 'silverlock.org', and use the links on that page to get the extender you want. (worked for me. Firefox whined about the security thing.)

Excellent movie. And I haven't been a kid for decades. :D Also, if you watch animation, be it simply cartoons, or movies..... there are several levels of humor there, some of which, the children will get, the rest.... well, adults will understand it, the children (hopefully) will not.

The problem is you're thinking like a rational person - school shooters (or pretty much any mass murderers) are not thinking rationally. Sure there may be teachers with guns in our hypothetical scenario, but that doesn't really enter as a factor in the mind of a school shooter. The "reason" they go to their school and shoot people is because that is where they see all their pain coming from. All the people that bullied them, etc, are in one location. And yeah, I had a Vietnam vet as a teacher in high school. One of the nicest people I know. Also wouldn't want to mess with him. Actually, I was. I helped with running Dexter's Civil War days for the sesquicentennial a few years ago. I mean, this scenario is entirely hypothetical - I was speaking more in terms of the lopsided firepower dynamic, not whether your average GI would follow the order or not. Actually, that's not the (federal) law at all. There are two conditions that bar someone from purchasing a firearm: if the person is involuntarily committed (by a court, past the normal 72-hour hold) to a mental hospital, or if a court or government body declares them mentally incompetent. That's it. And courts are very tepid about involuntarily committing people or declaring people mentally incompetent. The difference is that process of drinking alcohol doesn't kill other people. And all the other things you listed have a primary use: alcohol is for imbibing, cars are for transportation, knives are for cutting things, and guns are for killing peo... self-defense. :tongue: Yeah, any tool can be misused. Except the entire purpose of a gun is to kill. Not my fault you decided to live in the sticks. :tongue: But I understand your point. While not every school shooter is going to take into account the possibility of armed resistance, some will. Adam Lanza didn't go to HIS school, he just picked a location to go and shoot folks. There was NO ONE there that had any real ability to fight back. Hanging a 'gun free zone' sign does NOT make people safer. If anything, it makes them LESS safe. Still and all, armed security in the schools hasn't been real effective either.... At Columbine, the armed guard waited for police to show up before actually doing anything. (which was policy at the time. That changed immediately afterward.....) Trouble is, a fair few schools are BIG. Expecting a couple guys to secure that much territory, just isn't practical. Putting an army into schools isn't really practical either. Locked doors, and metal detectors only keep the honest people honest. Another consideration is, sure, armed cops in schools might help, if they are in the right place, at the right time. Teachers/staff will almost ALWAYS be in the right place..... CCW holders also tend to be better shots the the police, and a fair few of them actually spend more time training than the police..... They also tend to train for specific scenarios, one of which is, hunting bad guys in occupied buildings... Once could argue that they would actually be BETTER at defending the students, than the police. Civil war days, sorry I missed that. :) Yes, the military has MUCH better weapons than the average civilian. But, before you get to the point where that becomes an issue, quite a bit needs to happen. Folks still remember Kent State, and are rather reluctant to give the government permission to use military force on home soil. I suppose martial law could be declared, but, that has problems all its own. Basically, banning guns, and then trying to collect them, would be incredibly impractical, and the government knows that. (though the dems my try to fool themselves into think that they could simply pass a law, and the sheep would turn in their guns. Realistically, it wouldn't happen that way. There WOULD be resistance, and lots of folks would get dead. Both military, and civilians.) There isn't any other agency that would have the manpower to even attempt a gun grab. Do you think folks would simply sit back and watch, as soldiers went house to house, searching for weapons? (as that IS what it would take. The government has no real clue how many long guns are out there, or who owns them.) And then we have fun areas like south side of chicago, Los Angeles, etc..... where damn near EVERYONE is armed, and VERY willing to use them. How long do you think it would be before the gang-bangers had a nice collection of those military weapons? Nope, a gun grab won't work, for the very same reasons an invasion by a foreign power wouldn't. I will concede the point on mental health issues. Something that obviously needs addressed. Trouble is, how do you walk that fine line between doctor-patient privilege, and protecting society? I have quite a few friends that would beg to differ that consuming alcohol doesn't kill other people. I went to six funerals in one summer because of folks drinking, and driving, and killing other folks. And no, it wasn't my friends that were doing the drinking, it was the folks that killed them that were drunk. Here in the US, 28 people are killed EVERY DAY by drinking and driving. That is far more than folks killed in mass shootings. (in fact, its equivalent to a mass shooting EVERY DAY.) Yet alcohol is perfectly legal, and no one is up in arms about all the dead folks, or calling for a ban on alcohol. Yes, guns can kill, they can also defend, they can also provide food for the family, among a host of other jobs that do not include the killing of innocents. Folks kill folks in a variety of different ways. Guns are certainly the most popular.... closely followed by knives, and fists..... (what I found intriguing was 'defenestration' actually had a place in the statistics..... yes, tossing someone out a window in order to kill them made the list. How weird is that?) Blaming the tool for what the human does with it though..... Do I blame the hammer for crushing my thumb? Of course its your fault, you were holding a gun to my head, forcing me to sign the papers to buy this place. Admit it. IT'S YOUR FAULT!!! :D A pretty significant portion of our population lives 'out in the sticks'....... Just recently, not too far from me, three guys broke into a home, beat dad half to death, raped mom, and the 11 year old daughter, stole their truck, and drove away. So far as I know, the perpetrators were never caught. That was just a few miles from MY house. They did not have any guns in the house, by the time the cops got there, the bad guys were long gone. Here is a family that will bear permanent scars from the experience. Dad now keeps a gun in the house, and has most certainly learned to use it. The police are not a deterrent to crime, they are not proactive, they do not prevent anything, they REACT to crime. By the time they get there, the damage is already done. Now, the left wants to deprive americans of the ability to defend themselves? Sorry, I cannot support that position.

You accuse me of trying to turn schools into prisons, yet your solution involves allowing teachers to bring guns into the classroom. Yeah, there aren't any foreseeable problems with that scenario - except the teacher has to have somewhere to put their gun. Unless you expect them to keep it holstered all day long, which provides for its own set of challenges. So either they need to keep gun and ammo in a gun safe in their classroom or they need to keep the gun holstered, both of which provide opportunities for an attacker to subdue the teacher and then obtain a gun or now have a 2nd gun. Since you brought it up, let's talk about warning signs and what happens: Nothing, generally, because it is practically impossible under current law to take someone's guns away from them unless they pose an immediate threat. The fact of the matter is that there are some people who are not mentally capable of owning firearms safely and yet there is no real way to keep them from obtaining firearms or having authorities take the firearms away. Yeah, the second half of your argument went out the window with the invention of the Gatling gun. The first half (self-defense) doesn't mandate that people have anything like an AR-15 rifle or other long gun. See, you miss the point entirely. Guns are designed to kill people. That is literally the reason they exist. The issue isn't that X thing kills Y people. It's that X thing kills Y people AND has no real utilitarian benefit. Cars, when used properly, don't kill people. Guns, when used properly, do. No worries. :smile: There is no perfect solution. Staff at schools aren't really meant to attempt to deal with the situation. (although, there are some teachers I had, that I REALLY wouldn't want to mess with, especially if they are armed.) They are meant as a deterrent. The typical mass-shoot is, after all, a coward. (they take their own life, rather than deal with the consequences of their actions.) So, staff simply have the POSSIBILITY of being armed, would serve to dramatically reduce the number of incidents. Were you aware, that most of the field artillery, and gating guns, used in the civil war, were privately owned? Armies couldn't afford them...... Should the government decide they are going to attempt to confiscate everyones guns, there would be a LOT of dead folks on both sides. You may see the military as the 'long arm of the government', and sure, SOME of them would actually obey orders to disarm citizens, and relish the thought of a firefight. The bulk of them though, would not. Not to mention, that in order to even use the military on US soil for such a purpose, a host of laws would have to be changed. THAT would MOST CERTAINLY draw attention, before even the first attempt at a gun grab was made. I don't think even the military leaders would be real excited about THAT particular prospect. After all, most of them are republicans after all. :smile: Yep, currently, it is law that folks with mental instabilities are not legally able to purchase firearms. That law is already on the books. The problem? Doctor/patient privilege. Doctors CAN'T tell ANY authority that their patient *might* be a threat. Not and keep their license at any rate. They would be sued out of the medical field in a short second. The other problem? Folks with no history of mental health issues. Stephen Paddock for instance. No criminal record, no mental health issues on record, yet he still killed 59, and injured hundreds. So, even that wouldn't be a 'complete' solution. (though I agree, it would be a VERY good start.) Guns are designed to provide a method of self defense. Yes, it is potentially lethal force, but, that is what MAKES it a 'good defense'. Remember Heinlein? An armed society is a polite society. If you don't know if the person is armed, or, even if you know for a fact that they ARE, you are going to be a LOT less likely to want to take them on. THAT is the whole idea. That aside, what something was 'designed for' really isn't relevant. Alcohol kills 10 times as many as guns, is a LUXURY ITEM, yet is perfectly legal. EVERY OTHER form of alcohol is a deadly poison, (as is this one, in sufficient quantities....) So, it's ok for someone to poison themself, but not ok to shoot themself? Where is the logic in that? I would argue, that if you are using a gun to MURDER people, an inherently illegal act, you are NOT using it 'properly'. Guns have a great many utilitarian uses, chief of which, is self defense. The left never seems to want to hear about how many crimes are PREVENTED by gun owners. (CDC estimates somewhere in the neighborhood a couple million 'defensive uses' of guns in the 90's.....) A gun is just a tool. Just like a car, truck, hammer, knife, etc. ANY tool can be misused. That's why there were 80 some dead in France, killed by a person driving a truck. Couple dozen dead in Baltimore, from pressure cookers. The world is NOT a safe place, nor will it ever be. (not so long as humans are around....) My 2nd amendment rights give me at least some small chance of being able to defend myself. Do not think I will sit back and just let it happen. I will use my second amendment right, to defend my second amendment rights. Sure, I might get dead from it, but, everyone has to die from something. At least it would be while standing up for something I believe in. Also, ya gotta remember, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away. Out where I live, its more like an hour. I don't relish the thought of being at the mercy of persons with ill intent for an hour, before the police finally show up. Everyone here would quite likely be dead by the time they got here. Police do NOT prevent crime, they react to it. Not to mention, your average CCW holder is actually a better shot than the average cop. :)

Ah, I see we disagree here. Putting a price on childrens lives? No, not really. I provided one example of the mismanagement of funds in the local school system. There are many more, all across the country. This isn't a problem you are going to solve by throwing money at it, or turning our schools into what essentially amounts to a prison. I even offered a solution that would work, and wouldn't cost the taxpayer one thin dime, which you simply dismiss out of hand. Why is that? Why do we have to spend millions of dollars to solve a simple problem? I would point out also, that several of the schools that were subjected to mass shootings did indeed have metal detectors, AND armed security. (one or two officers to cover a building that sprawls over several acres..... yeah, that was certainly effective, now wasn't it?) Adam Lanza walked up to locked security doors, broke the glass, and walked right in. His rampage was so effective, simply because there was NO ONE THERE TO STOP HIM. Do you think the death toll would have been as high, if some of those six dead teachers had been able to be armed? And what ended his rampage? The cops showed up, (people with guns) and Adam killed himself. Even the NY Times ran an article about the ineffectiveness of 'hardening' our schools. In that piece, INTERVENTION was touted as the better solution. There were warning signs for almost all of the mass shooters going in to schools. Authorities ignored the warnings. (Steven Paddock, though not a 'school' shooter, was right of the blue, apparently no one had any idea what he had in mind.) Most of the mass shooters also passed federal background checks to purchase their weapons. (even though a couple of them should NOT have been able to...... various agencies, including the US military, dropped the ball there.) A few took weapons from their parents, and a few more had someone else purchase the weapons for them..... The second amendment was passed so that not only could people protect themselves from other folks with bad intent, but, also from their GOVERNMENT. The idea was the people would be similarly armed as the military, so, should the government 'overstep' themselves, the people would have real recourse to deal with the problem. Granted, they had no idea what the future held as far as weapons development, and I am quite certain they would NOT have advocated for private ownership of ICBMs, or nuclear weapons in general.... and neither would I....... Still and all, there are over 300 million legally owned firearms in the US. A little under half the households in the US have firearms. (usually just one or two.....) 99% of those weapons are never used for illegal purposes. A very tiny fraction of them are. And the response is to ban guns????? Terribly sorry, that is logic fail in a big way. Using the same logic, we should ban doctors, forks, cars, tobacco, alcohol, and a host of other leading killers of americans. So, why single out guns? Looking at it from a purely statistical viewpoint, they are only a very minor drop in the bucket when it comes to leading causes of death. Tell ya what. I will give up my right to bear arms, when you give up your right to free speech.

The biggest problem with that is, the public schools squander money left and right already, and folks are reluctant to flush yet more money down the toilet. Schools here are VERY top heavy. LOTS of administrators, with six figure salaries.... all in the name of 'improving student performance'. Yet, year after year, we see performance go DOWN. Whatever they are doing with that money, it sure ain't workin'. Of course, that basically been the case since Bush instituted the Department of Education. So far, all I have seen them do, is screw stuff up. No child left behind was another real 'winner'...... Case in point: A local school district submitted a millage proposal to build a new stadium. The people said no. They didn't want to spend money on that. (the school already had a perfectly good stadium, albeit, older.) What did the admins do? They built it anyway. 5 million dollars. The funniest part? Their plans did not include even one bathroom........ Back when I was in school, we didn't have cops in the schools, we didn't have metal detectors, all the doors were unlocked, if you looked out in the student parking lot, more than half of the vehicles out there had gun racks, with guns on them. We didn't have any shootings at school. Not even one. (and still haven't.....) I brought a MACHINE GUN in to school for my demonstration speech. (I warned them in advance, and informed them that the weapon was non-functional. No firing pin.) I got some funny looks, but, it was approved. (I also got a A on that speech.....) So what's changed since then? Society. The whole 'no one is responsible for their actions', and 'everyone wins, everyone gets a trophy' attitude has not done the world any favors. We teach these kids that everyone is always a winner, then they graduate, and discover the world is NOTHING like what they have been taught all their lives. Is it any surprise that society as a whole then suffers for it? That is a VERY simplified view of it...... but, it hits the basics of what is going wrong. We are doing this to ourselves, and, instead of treating the actual problem, we poke at the symptoms. But then, government isn't in the business of SOLVING problems. There is no money in that.

The point is, violent crime has actually gone UP since the gun grab. Sure, there aren't any mass-shootings, and there is less gun crime overall, (big surprise there, eh?) But, as the crooks now know folks are unlikely to be armed, various other violent crime has increased. The problem we have with 'doing something' about the mass shootings here (an no, it is most certainly NOT "ok".....) is it's a political bomb. (as the poster above me noted) The lefts plan is to ban a certain segment of firearms, which will have zero effect, as the weapons they want to ban, are not the most commonly used weapons in crime in general, or in mass-shootings in particular. The left simply wants to 'get a foot in the door' on banning weapons, with the end goal of banning ALL of them. Here in the US, that just isn't going to fly. (our culture is A LOT different that Europeans in this regard.) In all reality, it would be pretty easy to dramatically reduce the number of mass shootings. Get rid of the gun-free-zone designation. Allow teachers/staff that are properly trained/licensed to carry on campus. (that is ALLOW, not REQUIRE) The mere fact that ANY adult at a school may be armed will serve to deter 99% of the cowards that perpetrate these types of crimes. But, the left won't let that happen. Another option is airport-level security at the schools..... but, who gets to pay for it? Our schools already suck, taking money away from academics to pay for it will not help..... raising taxes won't exactly fly either.