First, I need to point out that I made some corrections to my last post.


excuse me, that's not entirely true, sexual orientation is not judicially extended to the Equal Protection Clause. The due process grounds in the Equal Protection Clause was the decisive factor. Sexual Orientation was the issue that needed to be factored by the grounds of due process. Which is the prevailing argument against the constitutionality of the Defense Of Marriage Act, so this was the prelude to what the supreme court decision would be on hearing the Defense Of Marriage Act, if they ever hear the case.

Look, the only reason all of this was mentioned, is because someone challenged my point of social injustice against homosexuality through discriminatory legislation.

The constitutionality of the Defense Of Marriage Act was just an example.


I'm incorrect here, it wouldn't be in violation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause, because without the discriminatory portion in the legislation, it wouldn't warrant due process. In fact, it would just be reiterating the existing state rights over authorities of civil marriage.

excuse me, that's not entirely true, sexual orientation is not judicially extended to the Equal Protection Clause. The due process grounds in the Equal Protection Clause was the decisive factor. Sexual Orientation was the issue that needed to be factored by the grounds of due process. Which is the prevailing argument against the constitutionality of the Defense Of Marriage Act, so this was the prelude to what the supreme court decision would be on hearing the Defense Of Marriage Act, if they ever hear the case.

Look, the only reason all of this was mentioned, is because someone challenged my point of social injustice against homosexuality through discriminatory legislation.

The constitutionality of the Defense Of Marriage Act was just an example.


I'm incorrect here, it wouldn't be in violation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause, because without the discriminatory portion in the legislation, it wouldn't warrant due process. In fact, it would just be reiterating the existing state rights over authorities of civil marriage.

No, laws are not by nature discriminatory. They certainly affect, or remove liberties. It's when you apply a law against a specific group that is become discriminatory. In fact, if you removed the same sex reference from the Defense of Marriage Act, it wouldn't be discriminatory. At that point, everyone, heterosexual or not, would be subject to state's laws on the matter... which is still in violation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause.. However, it wouldn't be discriminatory legislation.

arguable? That IS the very premise of discrimination.

I recognize this as a form of empowerment, but there is no inherent creditability on the matter of perception, especially when you offer other people's perceptions and experiences. Also, who are you comparing yourself to when you say you 'understand a little more', in respect to the fourteenth amendment?

specify groups would defeat the purpose of the amended equal protection clause, yes.

Not sexual preference, sexual orientation. Preferring brunettes over blondes doesn't classify a person as homosexual, bisexual, or heterosexual. Nor does preferring your relatives or children (consenting or not).

sexual orientation has already be included the decisive factor in a supreme court ruling, in regards to the Equal Protection Clause. So the interpretation is lawful, and not open to public opinion.

"In Lawrence v. Texas (2003), the Court struck down a Texas statute prohibiting homosexual sodomy on substantive due process grounds. In Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's opinion concurring in the judgment, however, she argued that by prohibiting only homosexual sodomy, and not heterosexual sodomy as well, Texas's statute did not meet rational-basis review under the Equal Protection Clause; her opinion prominently cited City of Cleburne"

you imply as though homosexuality is some sort of new trend. In fact, homosexuality has existed and was acknowledge before our country was even declared, since at least greek-roman times. Why would you presume that laws didn't account for homosexual relationships?

On another note, as interesting as discussion has become, we should probably continue it in another thread. If you're to respond to this post, please start a new topic post, and post the link to that thread here, I suppose.

How are you factoring individual intolerance into what I presented? This is a discussion on Social Tolerance and discriminatory legislation against a part of society, and their individual liberties.

Defense Of Marriage Act is 'Actual' legislation.

"No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship"

This act only applies to same sex, hench it's discriminatory. It violates the Equal Protect Clause, written in the Fourteenth Amendment. Which is suppose to protect against discriminatory laws.

This act was introduced to usurp the 'Full Faith and Credit Clause' of the United States Constitution. Which states,

"Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof"

Congress, "having the right to prescribe the manner in which acts and the effect thereof" is moot, not only because the General Law violates the Equal Protection Clause, but also because the act itself gives states the right to 'prescribe acts, records, proceedings, and the effect thereof' which violates the Full Faith and Credit Clause itself!

Furthermore, The Supreme Court has scuttled the case for years.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=legislation+against+homosexuals

Furthermore, review 'Defense Of Marriage Act' and 'LGBT adoption'

LGBT adoption is an interesting case, as it is highlights the 'advancement' of legislation to change the social norm, unjustly.

Additional Reference: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_legis.htm

hmm.. I'm not sure if this generalization is warranted.

Also, there are social injustices, in the form interpreted legislation, that exist against homosexuality. 'Societies' treatment of homosexuals (apparently you are excluding homosexuals from being a part of society) is easily interpreted as handling.

A 'class' of society's liberties are being denied unjustly and they are being handled, and you trivialize their criticism as a victim complex?

I suppose it would have something to do with the liberal, socially free aspect of being openly gay. It's a bit of a social expectation. Perhaps you'll find better luck in pursuing the reserved type; thus, unconventional to the expectation. A reserved rebel.. haha

syneasthate, Bushidobillyclub, and others, there seems to a point of confusion on your understanding of the word 'belief' in the manner of which I use it.

As bushidobillyclub pointed out, the definition of belief is controversial. Here is how I present, and use it.

There is no such thing as a 'lack in', or 'lack of' a belief. A belief has a boolean state. It can only be a true or false.

'without belief in god' is the same as 'belief in no god', it is also equivalent to 'no faith in the belief of god' is the same as 'faith in the belief of no god'! I specifically dismissed the premise of the article I referenced (http://www.religioustolerance.org/atheist.htm), which claims a difference in the logic. There is no partial state of a belief.

syneast, "The lack of current proof, justifies the lack of [faith in a belief]" is incorrect. Faith corresponds to the acceptance of indeterminable matters, that are inherently unjustifiable. A lack of proof cannot prove or disprove the belief itself. The validity of a belief would remain indeterminable, but not null. There is no immediate logic outcome (true or false), so you cannot apply logic, or illogic, to such a belief.

Your example using gravity is invalid, because you are using a fact, which has a logical outcome. Gravity is provable. There is such a thing as a disillusioned belief, where someone has a belief that is contrary to a fact. However, this isn't a logic discussion on beliefs that create or alter existences. It's a logic discussion on existences that create or alter beliefs, or the 'acceptance' of a belief.

bushidobillyclub, your statement


is invalid. The subject of my statement was the existence of something, not the existence of the meaning of something, which may or may not exist itself.

It's possible to conclude whether something exists, without factoring in whether it has a meaning, reason, or purpose to exist.

Using your examples:
Does cancer exist? Yes
What is the meaning, reason, and/or purpose of cancer? indeterminable.
Does the indeterminable meaning, reason, and/or purpose of cancer make the existence of cancer indeterminable or none existent? No

I disagree. Infact, I think you're defining faith here, not belief. The state of a belief is not susceptible to all the degrees of acceptance.


There is no logical standpoint here, this is incorrect. Only at full acceptance, faith, can you claim a none fact belief to be true. Only at complete rejection, no acceptance, can you claim a none fact belief to be false. Otherwise it is indeterminable. Your claim suggests that indeterminable is equal to false, which is illogical. You seem to be implying that the method of validating a belief is to check for true, as opposed to returning the state.


That isn't how atheism is defined. There is no 'maybe' in the existence of god in atheism. If you claim atheism as everything not true, your accounting for the maybe, or indeterminable result.

Again, there is a difference in 'not true', and 'false'. Agnosticism, not atheism, accounts for the indeterminable result in the belief of god; thus, it includes everything 'not true', except 'false'.

atheism isn't any more logical than theism. They both have a belief, idea, or concept that they hold to be true in respect to the existence of a deity, while holding the other's belief, idea, or concept to be false.

same issue here

I love coop games, I'm very keen on AI development as well.

Natural Selection 2 ( www.unknownworlds.com ) is going to be my next favorite PC game.

Natural Selection 1 ( Best HL1 mod ) is my favorite PC game right now.

Though, I do spend a lot of time on Warcraft 3 (not WoW). But than, theres so many game modes to that, where every map's playability is different, it's like playing arcade style games really. Though they recently added Hashing to their editors, so ORPGs are becoming huge in that game. The hashing is dependent on account name and object serializations, so it's a relatively secure, anti-lamer, implementation to dynamic data loading. It's also server independent, so as long as the map is the same, you can load and save your RPG character, items, and other associated data online.


L4D was very good. It's re-playability factor is lacking. Though, the last time I played it the SDK wasn't yet released, so perhaps it's better now. It's certainly a novel game in the epicness of Zombie games.

First, a couple reference materials..

here is a reference to the generic system boot sequence http://www.pcguide.com/ref/mbsys/bios/bootSequence-c.html

these are references to POST, which is a bit more relevant information when attempting to troubleshoot your computer, or having someone else do it.
http://www.pcguide.com/ref/mbsys/bios/bootPOST-c.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power-on_self-test

this is a reference about BIOS
http://www.basicinputoutputsystem.com/


As always, more information is needed here for adequate support.

I presume it's the fan on the Power Supply Unit (PSU) that turns on?
You also said that the light turns on to the CD-Rom?

If your issue is a faulty Power Supply Unit, it could cause damage to your motherboard, however, it's unlikely for a PSU to commit a charge to the motherboard if it fails it's own internal tests.

Here is a summarization of the boot sequence events that occur before video display. Meaning, if any of these sequences fail, boot up will discontinue, and you won't see video display.

1.) PSU - initializes and performs internal tests for 'Power Good Signal'

2.) Processor executes code at a specific memory location for a 16 bit (2 byte) pointer to read the protected, read-only system memory location of the BIOS.

3.) Power-On Self Test (POST), "is a built-in diagnostic program that checks your hardware to ensure that everything is present and functioning properly, before the BIOS begins the actual boot." It's important to note that a common technique to determine whether boot sequences 1 & 2 are failing before POST begins is to remove your Random Access Memory (RAM) sticks, while your computer is unplugged and powered down, and than plug in your computer and boot it up. If you don't hear a beep, boot up sequences 1 & 2, and the associated hardware, are likely causing the boot up failing.

4.) video card BIOS are executed, if present, to initialize the video card.

4.) ROM(s) BIOS are executed, if present.

5.) Startup screen is Displayed.

( there are more sequences, but your issue is occurring before this point, so there no reason to summarize them here. Use the reference links for further inquiries )

I recommend turning off your computer, unplug it, wait 20 secs or so, take out all of your RAM, plug your computer back in, boot it up, and if it beeps, you can eliminate the PSU, Processor, BIOS chip, and the associated controllers on your motherboard that handle those components from the potential causes of this issue. Give this process of elimination technique a try, and tell us the result.

Haha, I loved it.

superhero alias.. mom.

Not much for secret identities, are you?

'I'm awesome.. true story' haha

^ Good sense of humor.

@ PacificStar, my ninja picture?.. but I just put that one up.. haha. I'll probably take it down eventually. *mumbles* must be a pirate lover .

@ 4974, I was born at Elsworth AFB, near Rapid City.

@ tootsweet, haha.. thanks, the first thing that came to mind after reading your comment was a mentos commercial.

First of all, a few corrections: 'discovered, why', 'a look AT mine'. With exception to myself, I'm not a spelling and grammar Nazi.

Thanks papersmile, but who are these 1.5% and where do they sleep? :P

Ladlid, nice?!

...is a mystery.

Until it's discovered why don't you take a look a mine, and tell me what you think.

lol.. yall didn't have a very good dos gaming experience

-CYBER EMPIRES
http://www.myabandonware.com/search/?searchValue=Cyber+Empires
-ACES OF THE PACIFIC <--absolutely wonderful WW2 Flight Simulator game
http://www.myabandonware.com/search/?searchValue=Aces+Of+The+Pacific
-ACES OVER EUROPE
http://www.abandonia.com/en/games/154/Aces+Over+Europe.html
-RED BARON <-- WW1 Flight Simulator Game
http://www.myabandonware.com/search/?searchValue=Red+Baron


Download DOSBox [http://www.dosbox.com/download.php?main=1]

It's a command line application, Run the executable, than you'll have to 'Mount' a Folder under you file system, that contains a DOS game.. and then run it on the DOSBox's console.

For example:

dosbox c:\atlantis\atlantis.exe -c "MOUNT D C:\SAVES"
This mounts c:\atlantis as c:\ and runs atlantis.exe.
Before it does that it would first mount C:\SAVES as the D drive.

In Windows, you can also drag directories/files onto the DOSBox executable.

I'm not entirely sure how Vista reformats. I would think it would be the easy, quick manner. Removing file start blocks, and not zeroing out all the data. It's easy enough for programs to recover data from memory addresses that have not been written over. Certain System data is stored at particular memory addresses, so the vast majority of your reinstalled OS wouldn't overwrite personal data. You would probably have a 90% data recovery scenario.

I still enjoy XP.. My next OS will be linux. As for Macs, any OS that claims security as it's best feature is crap. Macs are simply untargeted, so is linux. Windows is by and large the most used, tested, prodded, and probed OS. Bare that in mind when yall make the very relative comparison of securities.

this is hard one

These are my notables:
OREGON TRAIL (DOS) :D
ACES OVER PACIFIC (DOS)
AD&D Death Knights of Krynn (DOS)
CYBER WARS (DOS)
FF7 (PlayStation) = my all time favorite RPG..
Pirates (NES)
Lemmings (NES)
Mario Cart (SNES)
Romance Of The Three Kingdoms (SNES)
Zelda: Link To The Past (SNES)
FF Tactics (PlayStation)
Zelda: Majora's Mask (N64)
Gangster Wars (MSDOS?? Win95 anyways)
Delta Force 2 (PC) <--- this game got me into multiplayer games.

Perfect Dark (N64) - I was so good at this game I could own 3 Dark Sims on 1 hit kill with pistols only without camping. I've never even played Perfect Dark 2. These were the same developers of 007: Golden Eye.

I would have to say my favorite game to date would be Natural Selection, which is actually a Half-Life 1 mod .... which is FINALLY dropping NS2 on it's independent physics engine and rendering pipeline.. and it's going to be ridiculous

To the guy that said starcraft as his favorite.. NS is based on starcraft, and it's a first person shooter/ Real Time Strategy, except for 1 commander on marines/frontiersmen, and yes you can be aliens/zerg (there is no protoss though).. the link is [www.unknownworlds.com] you should check it out.. there are 1000+ people that have been playing that game for about 7 years now, so it's quite the veteran community.. so don't get frustrated if you don't perform well in the beginning.

As a generalization of mine, truck drivers are like loner ship captains.

This guy has a dramatic side, to be sure.

I don't know your entire situation.
I certainly haven't heard his perspective.
I can't make any sort of reasonable judgement here.