HeyYou

What is this then? Isn't that the definition of Vigilante? If a crime is committed against us, but, we don't immediately go out and exact 'justice' on the perpetrator, does that mean we don't feel strongly about ANY crime? If someone stole my car, should I go and hunt them down? Or, should I call the cops, whose JOB it is to go and hunt them down?

Guess I am in the minority here as well. I liked NV better, as game play was more along the lines of what I had come to expect from a fallout game. FO3 was more like "oblivion with guns", to borrow a phrase from history. True, it had some shortcomings, radiation was basically a non-issue..... but, all in all, I enjoyed NV more..

Precisely, gun laws do nothing to deter the criminals. They only hurt the law-abiding citizens. If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. Just because they are illegal, isn't going to magically make them get rid of them.... that's just stupid.

That's pretty much what I said. You want someone dead but you don't feel strongly enough about it to take care of it yourself, or you don't want to face the consequences of your actions. Why would you expect someone else to do something you're not willing to do yourself? Ok, pick a side here. Who is doing the killing? And why are they doing it? Is it the courts? The Jury? The government? Personally, I would have zero issues killing a killer. None. Nada. Zilch. You wanna take an innocent life? Fine, I will have no trouble taking your worthless one. And I will sleep just fine. ThankYouVeryMuch. So, if someone believes in the death penalty, but, won't just go out, find the guilty party, and whack 'em dead, that makes them a coward? Seriously? Where do you come up with this stuff at? That's why we HAVE a legal system. Or, would you be another advocate of going to back to 1800's justice system? When whomever shot first, (and made it count) was the winner?

I am a big fan of gun ownership. One of the main reasons the founding fathers wanted an armed populace was for the occasion when the government got to big for its britches. Whole lot easier to subdue an unarmed populace. As someone said earlier: An armed society, is a polite society. As an addendum to that: Ya get more, with a smile, and a gun, than just a smile. There are some places here in the states where the head of household is REQUIRED to own/carry a weapon. (unless there are very good reasons they should not.... convicted criminal for instance.) For home defense, there is nothing better than a short (sawed off) multi-shot shotgun, with bird shot. Won't blow thru walls and kill your neighbor like an assault rifle round, and has a nice spread..... granted, it tends to wreak havoc on the interior decorating...... but, given the choice, I would rather have to patch a few holes, and replace a few articles, than be dead, or have to bury one of my family members.

Way COOL! :D Enjoy the game.

FFDShow codecs...... Couple options for that one: 1. Run Nightmare's Codec Reset Utility. Keep in mind, this WILL break any application that relies on codecs that don't come stock with XP. Reinstalling the app will fix it. (and possibly break oblivion again.) 2. See if you can find the FFDShow control applet. According to theory, it's in All Programs somewhere. (I have never been able to find it.....) 3. Download, and install, some Codec Utility, that will allow you to individually turn them on/off. Page File: 954MB used, 4006MB available..... This is way up there for XP. Try a Clean Boot. Also may wanna try installing DirectX 9.0c..... I think you are still on 8 there???

Go to my documents\my games\oblivion, and delete the oblivion.ini.

Navigate to the C:\Program Files\Common File\installshield folder. Rename it. Try the install again.

Ignore the area for a few days. (whatever your respawn time is set to, plus 1) Try it again.

I think the fifth anniversary edition combined the Shivering Isles esp file into everything else didn't it? In the launcher, does AGS show up in the data files?

Yes, you should......

Its actually cheaper to leave them rot in prison till they fall over dead from natural causes, than it is to spend 20 years in court, with appeal after appeal..... Take a look at conviction dates, and then compare that to execution dates. Note the time span. Keep in mind, that ALL during that time, the convicts are working the court system to get another delay, another appeal, etc. etc. Now, that said, there are folks that I would have absolutely no problem holding a pistol to their head, and pulling the trigger. (the two in the above story, I would actually ENJOY it.) The current system isn't really workable. (big surprise....) Now, alter that a bit, you get ONE automatic appeal of a death sentence, after that, Light 'em up Charlie. As for innocents being executed... well, personally, I would much rather be dead, than look forward to spending the rest of my life in prison.

Crime is logical? That's like saying "Politicians are logical". THEY keep doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results, how is that logical? Criminals break the law because someone else has something they want, and they aren't willing to work for it, like everyone else. They want it NOW, and damn the torpedoes. The "justice" system as it is now is illogical. There is no justice, there is no revenge, there is no rehabilitation, there is no 'lesson learned'. (aside from altering the way crimes are committed the next time, so they are less likely to be caught.) Saddam wasn't a criminal in the sense that I am using the word here. (and the whole: America: World Police, thing is another topic entirely) I am dealing with crimes/criminals within our own borders here. Tin Pot dictators are another subject altogether.... (but, just as an aside, if we were so hot and heavy to "get Saddam" because he 'might' be developing WMD's, why do we not invade N. Korea, whom we know FOR A FACT are developing nukes? Hint: N. Korea doesn't have any OIL.) What do criminals understand? They understand how to work the system as it currently is, in our "no one is really responsible for their own actions" based society. They can whine and cry about how society mistreated/misunderstands them, and get a plea bargain down to next to nothing. Wanna Kill someone? Get drunk, and run 'em over with your car. Claim it was 'an accident'. If you do two years, I would be surprised. But, what happens to the family of the person that is now dead? They are left to their own devices. Some drunk whacks a father of four, with a wife...... he was the sole income...... drunkard gets off with a little bit of time, the remaining family is left to sink or swim on their own, and the killer bears no responsibility to them at all. He walks free, while children are raised by mom, without dad. You consider that JUSTICE? I sure as hades don't.

That's one of ghandi's worst platitudes and I think it's only ever even quoted because he was the one who said it. For instance executing a murderer - okay, you've taken a life in response to the taking of a life, but whatabout the future victims you've saved? When it's tempered, I also don't have any kind of problem with revenge. It's just crappy, cereal packet feel-good philosophy being used to paint revenge, retribution, justice etc as something that the 'intellectual', 'civilised', all round good guys should regard as primitive and barbaric. "justice" is just a cover so that society can pretend to be civilized when they exact their revenge? :D In all reality, that works for me. So long as the revenge is proportional to the original crime. (see death penalty for stealing a car.....) I always though that would be good anyway.... Kill someone? You die. Steal from someone? You are forced to pay it back, or, work for the individual until the debt is paid. Beat the crap out of someone? hehehehehhe, several someones beat the crap out of you.... Etc. No need for prisons. Justice is swift, punishment inescapable, and when its done, its done. No more sitting in a nice warm cell for 30 years with other folks footing the bill. But is that really a logical solution to the crime? Is there a logical solution to crime? I suppose, if we just started killing off the criminals, we would eventually run out, right? So, there wouldn't BE any more crime. That sounds logical, but, not a solution many would accept.

Nope. I am just not that social.

That's one of ghandi's worst platitudes and I think it's only ever even quoted because he was the one who said it. For instance executing a murderer - okay, you've taken a life in response to the taking of a life, but whatabout the future victims you've saved? When it's tempered, I also don't have any kind of problem with revenge. It's just crappy, cereal packet feel-good philosophy being used to paint revenge, retribution, justice etc as something that the 'intellectual', 'civilised', all round good guys should regard as primitive and barbaric. "justice" is just a cover so that society can pretend to be civilized when they exact their revenge? :D In all reality, that works for me. So long as the revenge is proportional to the original crime. (see death penalty for stealing a car.....) I always though that would be good anyway.... Kill someone? You die. Steal from someone? You are forced to pay it back, or, work for the individual until the debt is paid. Beat the crap out of someone? hehehehehhe, several someones beat the crap out of you.... Etc. No need for prisons. Justice is swift, punishment inescapable, and when its done, its done. No more sitting in a nice warm cell for 30 years with other folks footing the bill.

Codec Issue. You can try installing the Klite BASIC codec pack, set it to repair broken codecs, and make sure ffdshow is set to ignore oblivion, both audio, and video. If that doesn't help, try disabling music in the oblivion.ini, located in My Games\Oblivion. Find the setting: bmusicenabled=1 change the 1 to a zero. Try the game again. (you won't have music though....)

Government Subsidized Industries: Video Games........ Agriculture. An interesting article.....

Wasn't going to reply to this but since you brought this up, ill tell you what I told grewaste in a pm. Tax cuts have to be made up somehow. You don't get cut taxes then have the money the person was supposed to pay in taxes magically appear. If you cut taxes to certain groups, other groups have to pay for it. You do realize if someone does not pay all the taxes they normally would, the taxes are made up by other groups, or through spending cuts that effect other groups? The reason tax cuts go in with the welfare system as discussed in this topic is because certain spending programs sometimes need to be cut to make up for tax cuts. That includes cutting social security and welfare programs. My point is that it would help all entitlement programs do better if we stopped doing some of the economics that have failed time and time again. You really have to jump through hoops to explain this. Not really. Look at Michigan. Corporations got tax cuts. How did the state pay for it? By taxing pension incomes...... give the rich guys tax breaks, and finance it on the backs of retired people. "Budget" includes both expenses, AND income. If you cut income from one area, you have to make up for it by increasing income from another area, or, cutting expenses. What are the favorite programs to cut? Police, Fire, and programs to help the poor, and lets not forget infrastructure spending....... Have you noticed that the roads have been getting progressively worse over the last decade or so?

This is Sharia law. However I agree a little with you and also @HeyYou. Perhaps death penaltie would be too harsh for stealing a car. But I support it to some extend in cases of economical crime, where the smart one ruins thousands of average hard working people. And walks away due to good lawyers. This is very unjust, and mercy is out of the question here. This is not Sharia law. Give me a break. I didn't mean that they could pick any penalty, The law should have a set guidelines for what a person should get. It is the victims that should have a say so in how much leniency the court should impose. If any. This would be true justice. I agree with this. Just looking at the court cases in my home county, 99% of the time, the criminals plea bargain down to a DRASTICALLY reduced charge. This isn't justice by any stretch of the imagination, and is basically a slap in the face to the victims of the crime. My girlfriend was assaulted, she racked up over 15,000 dollars in medical costs, and was permanently damaged, and her ability to work compromised. What did the perp get? One year probation. That's it. No restitution, nothing.

The government cannot directly create sustainable private sector jobs. (one could argue they don't seem to be able to do it indirectly either...... unless of course, you count jobs in china/india/etc.) They might be able to provide a climate in which job creation is more feasible, but, that's about it. (and they suck at that too..... unless you count china/india/etc.........) The banks should not have been bailed out, they burned their arse, they should sit on the blister, same goes for the auto companies. Now, I will grant that the collective collapse of those in roughly the same time frame would have done horrible things to the economy, but, my question becomes: Would we have noticed a difference? The banks got billions of dollars, which they promptly used to pay millions in 'retention bonuses' to the people that sank them. WTF? Seriously??????? The logic in that escapes me completely. So, not only did the banks get bailed out on those crap loans they wrote, they still foreclosed on the houses that the government had just basically paid off, and then turned around and sold those same houses...... So, get money from the government, get money from the house, all in all, a tidy profit for the banks. Who loses? The people that used to live in those houses, that now have a major hit on their credit score..... In all reality, had the fed just given 30 grand to each registered voter (bailouts divided by number of voters.....) The people would have been able to do something with their mortgages, would have been in better financial positions because of it, and perhaps auto sales wouldn't have dropped like a stone...... but no. Can't help the common man, got bail out the bankers, and the big corporations, you know, the ones that make campaign donations....... and advertising dollars......

An interesting thought, but somehow, I think the death penalty for stealing someones car might be a bit harsh. :D Although, were it my car, I might revise my opinion.....

Why should I show mercy to someone that couldn't offer the same to his/her victim?