SD Nihil

Well I checked the Obsidian counterparte to this thread and they don't mention Windows 7. Until someone else tries another computer with Win7 besides Astro's one he checked, all I could tell those on that thread is that that computer with those specs worked. But you did say Astro that those who did download the Win7 RC on that site you gave did have good results. Those individuals need to come here and post there specs so we can get a better idea about what works. And to the last suggestion about storing the kotor2 folder, if you are worried about space just archive the folder. I know people around here really like 7 Zip, but I did a little searching and I found something called IZArc and it can deal with more archive file types than 7 Zip and its right click menu is similar too. Just thought I'd pass that along.

Thanks. I'll look around. Maybe there are others who have tested K1-2 on Win7.

You can get Windows 7 for free at MS whereever that is? I have seen computers advertised in the paper that come with Windows 7. How are you able to get it for free at one place, but have to buy it everywhere else? So I guess the moral of the story is from reading the new replies that if you get Windows 7 with a NVIDA card you should be set? What do you mean by original discs? How could they not be. I didn't know there were other disc versions of K1-2. Since Windows 7 works like a miracle it seems with the KOTOR games I will be going to tell other forums like Obsidian and maybe the comments area of the Vista fix on KOTORFiles. But before I do I want to know what I'm talking about with the above questions so I don't have something wrong when I tell them the great news. Thanks.

Astro along with the questions in the post before this one I have another. I know that for .zip, .rar, and .7z files that to extract all 3 of those types you should get 7-Zip which I have. I hear it can extract other types too. But recently I downloaded a game mod that was in .ace format. I tried extracting it with 7-Zip, but that didn't work. So I concluded that 7-Zip must not be able to extract .ace files. I let windows do a search for what programs can extrac .ace files and it came up with WinRAR and WinAce. Should I get one or the other or is there something better to get. Meaning if 7-Zip can deal with a multitude of different archived file types is there another program better than 7-Zip that can extract what 7-Zip can extract and deal with .ace files, or should I just go with the windows suggested WinRAR or WinAce? And I would still like to find a way to prevent messages that are forwarded or sent from having cell or > symbols in them. I'm not sure why it happens, but simply editing the message before sending it can be tedious and time consuming. Do you know of a better way or something that can fix this problem? And speaking of tedious and time consuming I do know of those Firefox add-on translators that can translate other languages on sites to English. But the ones I saw require you to copy and paste the text to be translated, or simply use the Google translate button on a search result. Using that function of Google only translates that first page, but not the others. And as before copying and pasting text to translate can be tedious and time consuming as well. If there were only a program or something that can translate pages as soon as you go to them for all pages of a site without a bunch of copying and pasting. Is there such a solution? Thanks again.

Thanks guys. Another question. In my e-mail how do you get rid of those > than signs that get into e-mail messags rather than having to edit the e-mail? Also, is there some kind of Firefox add-on or something that can translate pages into english? I did a search through the add-ons on firefox.com for such an item. But all i seeem to find are ones that are either out of date, or ones that require you to copy and pate the text into a translator. How time consuming and tedous that would be to have to each page copy the text. Is there some way to make it so all pags are translated on a site? I did try the translate button link for a search result in google for sites that are not in english. But all it does is translates that one page. After you go to the next page it goes back to normal where the pages after that one page are not translated. So like I said I'd like for there to be some that all the pages of a site can be translated. Finally, last night I saw on National Geographic a show called Living in Space Living on the Moon. I tried to search for a video or parts of the show on google and blackle.com, but I can't seem to find it. It had to do with the Constellation program and all the missions of colonizing the moon by 2050 and beyond. It was so interesting, but I cannot find it. Would you know? I know that isn't quite a tech question, but just asking. Thanks again.

When Firefox updated to version 3.5 the following add-ons no longer work. I've checked for compatible versions, but there are none. Do you know of other add-ons that do the same as these: Keyscrambler 2.2.0: encrypts your keystrokes on pages such as when you are typing a password. Some sites have the yellow url bar letting you know the info you send will be encrypted like for password or financial information, but it doesn't encrypt your keystrokes which onlooking hackers that intercept packets can see. So this takes care of that. Microsoft.Net Framework Assistant 1.0 Realplayer Browser Record Plug-in 1.0 AdvertisingCookie Opt Out 1.0 Thanks

Well Darth Eclipse and SkinWalker, I spoke to True_Avery elsewhere on this and I have to agree w㝨it her. Whether or not Jesus existed or not is truly subjective. So Skinwalker that is my position. Now I know it isn't the typical position for a topic like this such as arguing he existed, or that he didn't exist. But you can have a third position that it is subjective. Again that is my position.

In general my friend in general I say on both sides. You are of course entitled to your own conclusions in that you do not wish to be lumped to a generality. And I shall say it again. Both sides will not change the other's minds if they both are closed minded. As for the Jesus stuff you sai some are open minded on both sides. Both will say either you are not practicing science and are choosing to be ignorant by choosing the other side, and the other will say you are choosing to loook at thing from the physical and not the spiritual. Word choices very. But in the end proof matters more to science. Things they can touch, see, hear, smell. Things of the five senses or at least one. Religon acts on faith and does not care of evidence. Yes it may strengthen their faith, or do nothing to it. It's their choice what they wish to do with the evidence or lack their of. People will make their conclusions. Pointless. Non closed minded will change sides and each side will place a lable on the other and judge them on their thinking. So yesh that can happen. You've said there has been no proof for Jesus's existence. I said what one said would say it doesn't matter for it is a matter of faith. Or it might strengthen their faith. Other's may say lack of evidence means they'll choose science and reject religion. Science is happy for that outcome. But in the end numbers change sides, but now that people have switched sides the entity of religion and the entity of science remain the same. Only the people in both changed.And conclusion of the two upon the other remains.

Ah. I do not wish to be educated by either side. Again I choose not to pick a side. Now I know either side would view that not picking their side as picking the other. And either will call me names and come to their own conclusions, say I'm frusterating in their opinions. They wil wish me to do as they wish to pick a side. Good Religon bad Religon is still Religon. Oh the cult leader tells people to give him all their money and take a pill while waiting for the mother ship. It's still a cult which is religous. Doesn't make it not religon. I guess it's how they choose to distance themselves from it. Man is responsible for all sorts of wrongs or ills. It depends on perspective and sometimes mental status. Some see themselves as visionaries. Others see them as nuts. Science ah bad science, okay science. I still hear the word science. Ugenics. Maybe if we take the Jew and do this experiment maybe they'll die this way or that way. Ah conclusion heart exploded. Whereas in this instance they died of disease. Conclusions theories, hypootosis, all in Germany though science. Yes bad science. Still I hear the word science. Again like religon I guess it's how you choose to distance yourself from it by saying it's not religon or science at all. Again man is responsible for all sorts of evils. Evil again that is a matter of perspective. I wonder if the Christian religon's Satan considers himself not evil. I wonder if scientists under Hitler considered themselves evil or part of a greater purpose. Ah perspective.

About the money amount I was speaking hypothetically. Of course holding a billion would be far fetched to hold. Ah focusing on minor meaningless details. Yawn. Skinwalker thanks for your post. I agree. One functions on the unsean, the other deals with the physical, and believes what they can see and touch. And whatever you wish to say calling religous people whatever you want is your opinnion. They can have theirs of yours. You think well religon shouldn't be allowed to do this, and they vise versa all opinions and reasoning from the two viewpoints. Religous community thinks one way and science thinks another. They criticise each other. In the end with this each side already had their conclusions from the start. Nothing has been acomplished aside from energy used through the mind, and keystrokes of the fingers. Energy and time has been used. And to a final end both sides will think as they wish. One side might feel they won for having the final post, or another might feel they made a better argument, all in all nothing really constructive has occured. And threads with this same topic might be happening across the internet elsewhere. I can hypothosize this. Will one assume so or will one not. In the end with them the same outcome. Everyone has their minds made up, both sides believe as they will. Religon will think as they do regardless of lack of evidence, or anything of the physical. Science willl reject religon's claims and say what they will about the religous community. And again ohters see themselves as victors in a thread based on their reasoning, how they see things, etc. Again time used and energy also used to come to the same conclustions both sides originally had at the start. Both sides are closed minded though they say they are not. Because really both sides are incompatable to each other. Like an American device being plugged into a European outlit. Again nothing truly accomplished.

With your million dollar comment how do you know I'm not holding a billion dollars. Again my point is one side's faith is another side's lack of proof. Just another example to allow me to show here's both side's logic. Again religon doesn't care about proof since they operate on the idea of faith. Science operates on the scientic principal of proof. Science wants religon to provide proof because they are judging them based on their thought process. Religon is doing the same to science. They think Science should have a little faith. Both are unwilling to do so. Again both sides are at an impass. One side says they are not. The other says they are not. Agreeing to disagree.

What do you mean by same bag? Don't worry about the whole conform thing. Like I saidsymantecs. I being an analytical minded individual can get a little nit picky about word choices and meaningless stuff like that. Maybe the bag thing you said is nothing too. But I'd like to know what you meant by it. And I'm not being biased. Just because I don't agree or say I disagree with you or whatever doesn't make me a creationist or a person on the religious side. It does make me one who is going to bring up this side's contradiction, an apposing view to what they might say. But in no way am I going to pick your side or the religious' side. Both sides I can role play against. If I wanted to. But I don't choose to. And I don't think it'd do a thing to pick a side. All it would do is create an endless debate without end where no side is going to change the other's mind. The point is you don't know if I am for your view, Creationialsm's view, ifI am putting on a front, ifI am role playing, or if I am actually supporting you, but just am not saying it, or not. The thing is I really don't care if you think I am apposing you. It is not my intent. My intent in this thread is to not give into either side's bait. I don't care for a non constructive argument. I am only posting here on these political threads recently so that both sides can somehow toss their biases aside and come to a compromise to appease the two sides. Maybe I'm wrong. But I'd like to think I'm not. So with doctorenation you can't think of anything at all. Religion can have corruption in it how can science not have that too. Be consistent. Both have human beings in it. Al humans can be corrupt, dishonest, have agenda, twist word, faine ignorance, and can have some political agenda. And you honestly come up with one. Science has been in extended for longer than some civilizations. Does religion like science have the capacity for corruption, political agenda, and indoctrination? Are you honestly saying that companies can have indoctrination and be corrupt, Religion can be corrupt, but science cannot is incapable of corruption and indoctrination? To be consistent wouldn't be possible for all man to have the capacity for these bad things? Man is greedy, corrupt, can have a political agenda, and all organized groups outside of society, work aside society, and non society are all man. So how can man in this grouping not be capable of these bad things. All laws operated by all man and so all man can do wrong. So I ask again to be consistent can all man including those within the Creationalism realm and the scientific realm have political agenda, and can be corrupt, and can indoctrinate? You gave an example of how those in the Creationalism realm can indoctrinate, but what about in the scientific realm. I applauded that you gave an example for the one, now please provide for another meaning the other sides. Both can do indoctrination. I would like to have 1 example for both. Your not biased because I know you'll come up with one for the other side.And I know you are not biased. Does eugenics ring a bell for one side. Does persecution ring a bell for the other. Now lets see you come up with one for each.

I read. I was just making sure that is what you meant which it was that you meant to say science cannot conform to a society rather than what I thought you accidentally said which was society conforming to science. Don't worry about it. I can get a little picky with symantics. I have a analytical/ameable personality with a side of intellectual. Anyway, you said you think thy should teach religion in public schools since that would be the best way to disprove it. Okay well I believe an earlier poster said they wouldn't want that to happen since they didn't want their tax dollars to go to it, but was okay with it being taught in private schools. Just pointing out there is a disagreement there. I'm not trying to dodge. I'm just presenting things from a neutral standpoint and speaking on both sides of the issue. Since if I did pick to play the role of one side or another it'd just probably go no where with either side. Like I said both sides have their own opinions, thinking, etc. Please see the Jesus man topic thing. Point is regardless of being proven whatever religion doesn't really care how they are seen or what science says. Science thinks they are foolish. But again to the title of this topic yeah I guess there are those non technology using uncivilized tribes that believe in Creationalism as well as the religous communities. I really am not sure what else you want me to say. Oh and well so okay religion can indoctornate. Do you think though that parts of the scientific community through politics can indoctornate for an adgenda? Don't you think that if religion can do it that science can too?

I'm speaking as to both sides and how each sees things. Science has their reasoning, idology, what they consider this and that, their rules. And then there is the religous commmunity that has their form of idology, thinking, reasoning, what they consider proof, etc. Like I said they'll believe they the way they want, and science will view them in tehir thinking. Reasoning to the two is different. Both think differently. Both can claim their right by their reasoning based on how one sees the other and how the other sees the world. So really the two are at an impass to which neither will yeild.

Both have their opinions of each other. The one side thinks the other is offlish and lacks credibility. They both have different idology, and of course they'd have apposing views of each other. Your viewpoint, and their viewpoint. Again both judge lack of evidence or proof of evidence in different ways. Both have drawn their conclusions. And that is that.