jedipodo

What did you expect from this patch? It's just 1.0beta.

Have you tried the automatic and/or the manual update? Does it tell that the file is missing or that the checksum is invalid? What is the name of this file? Have you deleted the Override folder (maybe some files haven't been uninstalled)? I think this problem has to do with your Audigy sound card which is causing all the trouble. (no, not seriously ) Did this really happen? This sounds like a real bad virus.

Because it also has 1.0A things I guess (Manual and such...) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> No, that would be sw_pc_uk_from200420_to211427.zip, right? (It's also there.) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yes, the international patches are already available. Autoupdate is working.

"You shall not publish your email in a forum."

That's not saying anything. As an "equal"? Well, they get the same prices as everyone for trade, I guess. So do the US, Japan, Russia, etc. But none of those have a saying in european politics, including Turkey. Yep. Only a bit earlier they had been part of the Persian empire and later in their history came the Ottoman empire. Both of them had as a goal to overrun Europe (the former the Helenic civilization and the latter Europe itself). Thankfully they both failed. Please note I'm not holding some kind of historical grudge here, it's just they are historically not a part of Europe, and they have a rather distinct culture. And as someone said before, we should fix the house first before inviting more guests in. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I'm not saying they're not historical enemies (or that your holding a grudge) but the Ottoman Turks (and by extension Turkey) have been considered to be a European Nation (Well, I assumed so In Europe, Most definatly in North America). I don't remember Europe giving the consideration to Persia, India or the Far East the same consideration they gave the Ottomans in the Crimean War. Not to mention how the Ottomans were one of the Triple Alliance members during the Great War. What other Non European nation has enjoyed the "priviledges" of being an Equal to the Great Empires of Europe (of Past Europe, I should say, Seeing as the French, British, German/Prussian, Russian, Austrian Empires no longer hold the power they once did). Also, I'm not advocating any posisition, stance or descision taken by the EU, as I bear no claim to comment on its policies as a right by my History (My family came over in WWII). <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The "Ottoman Turks" can't be considered European from a historical standpoint. If I remember correctly, their ancestors, the Huns, came from the region of today's Mongolia (or China?). They overran the region (Persia, Arabia, etc.) and absorbed the culture and religion of the Arabians, which both definitely weren't of European origin. Some centuries later the so-called Ottoman Empire ranged from North Africa till Persia, Balkan and Greece. Are they European simply because they had conquered some land on the European continent or because Attat

And they are as much a part of Europe as Israel. Is Israel the next candidate for EU membership? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I think Russia could be the next.

We have a red-green government for some years now, they boastfully announced to be better than the others. And, in effect, they made it even much worse. They managed to establish a record of unemployment figures and deficit and they also participated in two "wars of aggression". So, I can only warn of this red-green combination.

This is not a essay against Turkey or something, but some problems can't be wiped away that easy as you did, I think. They do have conflicts with every neighbouring state. Not to mention the numerous inner problems, the problem with the Kurds is only the most obvious one. They cultivate a strange form of Nationalism concerning the role of Turkey as the heir of the Ottoman Empire. Only for example, is there any rational reason why the Turkish officials euphemise the circumstances of the displacement of the Armenian population by the Ottoman Empire about 90(!) years ago? Human rights can pass parliament, but what is written down in black and white isn't necessarily true.

pi Correction: no, sorry, it is e if I think about it twice.

Think twice, Rosbjerg. It's another big country, currently with more citizens than France and also more than Germany in about thirty years.

If someone is interested in it. I'm listening to no music right now.

What about the American dream that you can reach everything from start. I'd be shocked if the reality looks different from that.

This is called a good democrat. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Don't think I have anything against Germans or something, Of course, why should you. But you can read it? I'm pro Europe (and pro Denmark, too). The important thing for me is, that the EU isn't pushed to grow together too fast and "over the heads" of the citizens. It must be given the time it needs and it'll work sometime.

This is called a good democrat.

Cheat node sounds funny. What is it?

Yes, this is unacceptable. At least for Germany, a change of government will correct the current problems I think. In France I'm not so sure, maybe your griefs are warrantable there. ps: it was a deficit *over* 3 procent of GDP

so would I actually .. but that is very unlikely and would be pretty difficult to pull off I think .. the problem is that they are letting the big nations get away with too much, but if they change that I would think EU is a great idea .. until then though! let's make a united Scandinavia! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I would love to see a Nordick union of nations, independent of the EU. That would be a dream, to me. The EU is corrupt and a nonsense of statism. Burn it down, I say. :cool: <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Somethin like a club of the islands? :cool:

Not every nation can be as big as France, Germany, GB or Italy. Denmark has 16 seats in the european parliament. Compared to the population Denmark has three times as much seats than Germany (81). How many additional influence do you wish Denmark to have? Edit: Whoops. I'm sorry, I forgot that they have changed the seat allocation last year. But they still have twice as much seats.

I think we should first define the terms we use before arguing. What is the exact definition of Socialism and Capitalism in your opinion? Do they really exist in their pure forms as some have argued here? I think not. I can only speak of my own experiences, but, as like many others here, the country I'm living in is a Democracy (including a Constitution, separation of powers, free elections, freedom of opinion, etc). The state is responsible for health care, pensions, education, welfare, etc. This is called "social", but this is not "Socialism" in our understanding. Socialism is very different. There would be no freedom or private property, but dispossession and restrictive control. In my country we have a model of competitive economy, too. We call it "social market economy" (you can guess what the "social" stands for). But in Capitalism there wouldn't exist labour unions nor human rights, but dictation of industry and slavery. In my opinion Socialism and Capitalism are only expamples of the many "-ism" words. They stand in a line with the extremes like Imperialism, Fascism, Fundamentalism and Communism. These are completely inhuman and/or their ideals are out of touch with reality.

what do you mean precisely by socialist program? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I mean a socialist gov. like the one you are from. i was under the influence that the average worker gets paid more, gets their actual cut, so the top doesn't get it all, so their can't be a bill gates or enron exec with a swiss bank account. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Denmark isn't a socialist government! Social democracy, yes, but socialistic...? Where I come from Socialism is the pre-stage of Communism. It has nothing to do with Democray nor with a flourishing economy.

I think this WAS "Socialism". One could also call it "Communism in actual practice". It is interesting that Capitalism is introduced in the last remaining communistic countries of today. You can find this trend especially in China and Vietnam. They have gone to have great economic growth rates. In China, for example, they even kept Hong Kong as it is to take advantage of its economy.

Even if this should be right, would it be better then if zero wealth is in 100% of the population (as it is the case in most Anti-Capitalistic systems )? So do you. BTW where do you come from?

Why do we always talk about "Capitalism" as an abstract and absolute - yet negative - term. I think people have a different understanding of it, so we should rather talk about WHAT it actually means, and what not. We should also ask us why most modern democratic countries manage to have a form of Capitalism which is very advantagous for almost everyone. There the citizens don't have to be suppressed or murdered to afford a working and nationwide wealthy society. This social form of Capitalism is a logical implication of freedom and human rights and is in contrast to dispossession and oppressive state control. To the ones who still believe in real Communism on earth: Please, rationally compare the common living conditions of "capitalistic" systems with the ones in "real world"(=non fictional) communistic countries, e.g. USSR, China, Vietnam, North Korea... do I have to say more?

Childs...?

Mace does that in the Clone Wars cartoon. I guess it would not only be anti-climactic, but it could be considered evil to use the force to grip him to death. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yes, it would be very anti-climatic. But I think isn't less evil.