taks

i was going to try tonight. same problem with IWD, btw. text blocks that come up on the screen are ginormous black boxes with the text on the top. it is almost unbearable. taks

and the fact they don't usually turn into tumors. there's a reason venture capitalists are chasing adult stem cells, and it has nothing to do with government funding. taks

the gov't does help fund adult stem cell research as i recall. of course, most commercial endeavors into stems cells are also adult varieties, but that's more due to the better results they seem to be yielding. taks

the only reason i had to reinstall is because this is a new build for my OS. in fact, i wiped the screwed up build last night (i posted on the issue in the tech forums), and reinstalled BG1/IWD afterwards. the artifacts with BG1 are almost intolerable, huge blocky fog of war stuff. taks

BG and IWD. i'm thinking BG may already be finished because of the graphical issues. btw, i thought it was possible to configure BG for 800x600 in spite of lack of support. is that an INI mod, or am i just dreaming? taks

btw, i reinstalled BG1 and IWD1 into my system. win XP with DX9.0c and an 8800 GTS vid card at 1600x1200. we'll just say that there are "issues" with the graphics. IWD isn't as bad, but still strangeness abounds. taks

I believe there is also an ongoing project to convert Icewind Dale to BG2. that's the icewindgate mod i was referring to. how does that work... they port all the maps? i heard that was difficult due to differences in the way they burned the graphics in IWD/BG2. taks

new router, or did you go in and reconfigure the router? taks

unfortunately, governments naturally do this regardless of political affiliation. it is always "in the interest of the people" and usually the worst offenses are "temporary." somehow, however, the people never benefit, and temporary solutions are never rescinded when the danger has passed. taks

then you should not have been discussing it. which is my point. you're willing to believe anything anyone writes that makes the case for outing bush simply because you (or those thinking this way) want it so badly. you don't care that there's no merit in the claim and what gets written by these fools is, well, foolish. again, you don't seem to get it. first, bush can override ANY executive order, whether he wrote it, clinton wrote it, or any other president wrote it. this is because executive orders are NOT LAW. this is simple stuff man. don't debate what you don't understand. then why argue points you clearly don't understand. why not simply ask "is this OK?" instead, folks like you run around with some axe to grind because you so dislike bush, but end up looking silly when you try to make immaterial points. funny, same thing happened under clinton, did you complain then? they all serve at the pleasure of the president, btw. no brainer. no, i, and others, keep pointing out that the president only has powers that are granted by the constitution. you on the other hand, have such a poor grasp of that concept that you're willing to believe anything anyone writes that makes the case for ousting bush. actually, genius, the universe is finite. you're working on proving the latter simply by your unwillingness to even understand the concepts of your own freaking government. taks

Sorry taks, just had to do it. oh that's a gotcha for sure. should be "fantasy from reality" or even "opinion from reality." duh. you're right guarddog, people want bush out sooooo badly they leap on everything some ill-informed author writes as if it has some merit or basis in reality. nevermind what we were taught about what the constitution _really_ means, congress should have a right to limit the president, right? those that desire ultimate control would prefer an uneducated society. it's a lot easier to fool people when they don't already know the truth. taks

it is a circular argument fallacy if any of your conclusions appear as one of the premises. aka begging the question. taks

you clearly said he thinks HE can veto things simply because HE wants to, which is his right as president. your words were: this is unequivocally ONLY the president's job, and the fact that you don't understand this is the point that i made. anyone past the 6th/7th grade _should_ be able to understand why your statement is senseless. i call it a failure of the US public school system as they are more concerned with teaching some freakish ideal that has nothing to do with reality. i'm sorry you must suffer, though i suppose ignorance is bliss. rest assured, my son will not suffer as you have, and he'll be able to distinguish fact from reality in the end. it is. they haven't. it is, in my opinion, unconstitutional in the first place, but that's another story. oh boy, a left wing _opinon_ article is somehow evidence, nay proof, of an otherwise baseless argument. taks

uh, that's a constitutional power of the president. he can veto any bill he wants and is not required to provide a reason. in other words what HE thinks is all that matter. no kidding. the president is the commander in chief. congress cannot restrain him (much). do they even teach the constitution in schools anymore? sorry calax, i'm not trying to be mean, it's just that these are things you should have learned in the 6th or 7th grade if you went to school in the US. if you did not attend school here, apologies, but you should do well to learn now. taks

WND is an extremely conservative "news" source, and their bias is well known. presidents have always had some sort of power such as this. lincoln suspended habeas corpus, for example, during the civil war. it's only a shock to those that refuse to learn its history sees this as an opportunity to bash bush. i'm not surprised, btw, that WND would carry it, as they are at the very least critical of _all_ government. taks

couple things you can check first... first, connect EVERYTHING up as you usally do. look at the cable modem, are there lights blinking? particularly send and receive. next, look at the router, there should be several lights, one called WAN or WLAN, which is the light for the cable modem connection. is it blinking? check each of the lights for your computer hookups on the router, probably all labeled LAN. is there any activity there? if the WLAN light is not blinking, yet you can connect your regular PC to the modem w/out issue, it's probably a dead router input port. not much you can do but buy another. if the WLAN light IS blinking, then it seems the router is at least talking to the modem. if the LAN lights are NOT blinking, then the router LAN ports may be dead. probably time to buy another. if the LAN lights are blinking, then it may simply be a router permission issue. go into your PC, start a command window and run ipconfig. you should get something like this: Connection-specific DNS Suffix . : xxxx.xx.xxxx.xxx (it'll be your cable provider) IP Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : 192.168.0.103 (IP address assigned by router to PC) Subnet Mask . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : 255.255.255.0 (just a mask that shows which section of the IP your addresses will occupy) Default Gateway . . . . . . . . . . . : 192.168.0.1 (IP addy for the router configuration screen) before i can go further, you'll need to report this screen to me unless you've already gotten to one of the "buy another router" dead-ends. as for the business computer, i'm not familiar with vista but if it is anything like XP, it shouldn't be too tough. i'll have to poke around a bit before i can give you specifics. taks

btw, the router's issue could simply be that it got reset (power surge, perhaps) and no longer allows external accesses. taks

i did read and ignored that part. the business pooter is having firewall/network issues that aren't difficult to repair. it is probably set up to get a specific IP from the router and cannot work from a cable modem which assigns dynamic (albeit usually fairly static) IPs. since the regular pooter works with the cable modem, it is probably configured to accept the IP the cable modem supplies. taks

pros and cons to both approaches i suppose. taks

well, i think there's still a small issue in the UK, but nothing like here in the states. ridiculous is an understatement. taks

thank you. taks

sheesh... just buy a new router. it took a dump. only $40 to replace. taks

that's not what i'm talking about. i'm talking about the massive amounts of red-tape in place that make it cost prohibitive to build new plants. this includes, but is not limited to, the lengthy legal battles companies must face from opposition groups. for the same reason, the US hasn't built any new oil refineries since the 70s. taks

agreed, musopticon2. plus, once the doors open to develop nuclear technology, it will ultimately become safer (which includes disposal), cheaper to develop, and cheaper to buy. the restrictions in place at the moment make it almost a losing proposition. taks

nuclear _should_ start to see a resurgence, but that's a catch-22 for the environmentalist camp as they traditionally block such efforts. the fact of the matter is that nuclear is the cleanest, safest and most abundant source of cheap fuel on the planet. given the current media hype over GW, however, they do seem to be softening in this regard. we need it simply for when coal and oil run out because the other alternatives, wind, water, solar and, potentially fusion, are either not sufficient, or technologically so far out in the future they're not viable for our soon-to-be near-term needs. btw, i wonder how much energy can be generated from the methane that is released from landfills? normally they just burn it off. taks