Jump to content

d3M0n

Members
  • Content Count

    200
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by d3M0n

  1. Yeah, the CMOS reset worked... Everything was going wonderful... Then as I was loading the new drivers for my X-Fi sound card it locked up. Now it will go through the entire boot post and just show a blank screen where Windows is supposed to start... :/ This is getting frustrating.
  2. I just got this mobo... I also got the E6600 and a 7950GT to go with it. I loaded windows and everything was going just fine, until... I did a bios update. Used Winflash per the DFI site instructions. Backed up the bios, gave it the downloaded bios file from the DFI site. It showed the "bios updated successfully" screen and said to reboot. I rebooted, but now it won't even post? I'm trying not to freak here, but if I need to send it off or something to have the BIOS reset plz let me know... Thanks!
  3. CharmedLover84- You can always lower the clocks of your RAM in BIOS. Just find a timingset with timings that are higher than the ones it currently reads. Then you can clock away with the GPU. Let me know how it goes...
  4. LOL... note the sacastic happy face at the end... nevermind, most people never get my sense of humor... :drool:
  5. Happiness is a state of mind best acheived by forgetting all but one person in the world whom you love the most exists,and then forgetting all the bad things that they've done...
  6. ok, I'm going to sell my rig and buy a new one, but before I do... I'm SERIOUSLY thinking of investing in a Conroe E6700 or E6800. So I have a few questions... 1. When is the LanParty line of Socket T mobos slated to come out or is it even slated yet? 2. Are the benchies in for Conroe vs. AM2 as far as gaming is concerned? and 3. Would the Infinity series be okay for Socket T or would it be more prudent to wait for the LP series?
  7. I think the major problem with the oil companies is that they truly are doing something illegal as far as a capitolist system goes. When Microsoft began to flood the market with their products they were forced to back off because they were being considered a monopoly, which under the current laws is illegal. Because the oil companies are fractionated and share the wealth they are not considered a monopoly, but they are indeed a monopoly in the fuel industry. There are VERY few cars or planes or vehicles in general that run on anything BUT oil based products. If all of them work in concert and agree to keep prices at such and such a level, then they are truly acting as one company that controls all of the fueling needs of our society and thus are indeed a monopoly which is, in fact, illegal. I agree with you ExRoadie about the whole "we are paying the prices that we should be now because of inflation and such". My father explained that to me in great detail when I began whining about gas prices one day... lol! The thing I don't agree with is the fact that the oil companies have gone to great lengths to supress any other source of fuel that may be cheaper or more efficient. That is the action of a monopoly. The thing that TRULY sucks about all of it is that there is no way that AG's suggestion is going to work. People are not about to bike cross country to see their families. People are not going to travel by wagon for 3 days to get to a business meeting. People are not going to walk or ride a bike to work either when most people in the US work about 20-30 mins drive from where they live. It is NOT our fault that we are dependent on gas. Our society and lives have been shaped around it. It caused cities to expand rapidly because we could get from place to place faster. It caused new places to be developed outside of cities where previously there was no option for development because it was too far away from businesses to be feasible. What we SHOULD really do is get all the top scientists and the greatest thinkers alive today and have a conference (or series of conferences) where they come up with the most efficient, most cost effective, and cheapest new sourceS of fuel so that new companies can be built to rival the oil companies. Only then will the monopoly on transportation and our dependence on oil be truly broken. Then, those that wish to use gasoline may use it and those who didn't want to pay the prices for gasoline could go with the cheaper stuff. Tell me how fast the price of gas would drop then?? It would have to at LEAST compete with the lower priced fuels in price in order to have ANYONE want to continue to buy it... :nod:
  8. If you look at it realistically though... Suppose there are roughly 50 million driving Americans. Suppose again that roughly half of the times someone fills up they go to the Exxon station. Suppose again that people fill up and average of every 3 days. This works out to roughly $12 in profit for Exxon every time someone fills up at their gas station (out of between an average of $35-50). Giving them some leeway even and saying its the upper end of the price to fill up ($50) it would work out to about 25% of everything you pay in gas goes to the PROFIT of the oil companies. I certainly don't know many companies that make a 25% profit on everything they sell... AND I've been told that we're going to have another $0.50 - $1.00/gal increase in the next few days. :eek2: Looks like they want to double their profits. They need closer to $20 billion every 3 months apparently.
  9. Ok, I understand now... The things I was talking about would run easily off of a battery or 2 though and you really would just put water in your tank and go if they work as the inventors say that they do. In fact... The hydrogen producing machines that they were talking about actually generate MORE energy than is needed to run the thing in the first place by anywhere from 115% to above 900%. That is why these machines are of such interest. They create power for much less energy consumed, so if they were utilized in the power plants, then the fossil fuels would have to begin the reaction, but as long as you never shut it down they would never have to be used again. It would simply power itself and provide an excess of power even after doing that. The show actually scrutinized the machines stating that it is scientifically impossible according to the laws of conservation of energy and motion to have a machine that can put out more energy than it takes to run it. Apparently, scientists refuse to work on this sort of project because of funding issues. They are much more likely to get funding by studying quarks and leptons and neutrinos than by studying a supposedly impossible machine. It did make a quite convincing case for the validity of the machines though. I'll have to see if I can figure out what that address was so I can post it and you can watch it for yourself. It's a very interesting show...
  10. How is it still requiring fossil fuel to make engines that run on water? The hydrogen producing machines that I saw were run on electricity (like very high current, very low voltage through a transformer er maybe that is reversed) and only used water. I don't understand... :confused:
  11. I saw this show from a link one of my friends gave me about hydrogen power. There are people all over the US currently developing water based hydrogen power systems. The basic theory is that they break water into its hydrogen and oxygen components and the hydrogen burns while the oxygen allows it to combust (so it would work even in a no oxygen environment like space). It showed some examples of these machines. All of them ran at greater than 100% efficiency as well (meaning they put out more energy than it took to run them), some of the water based ones were reported to be 800-900% efficient O_O. They looked very neat! The sad thing is that they also talked about how the inventors were being either bought off or having their lives threatened or their patents stolen, etc. AG speaks the truth... the oil companies make far too much money and have far too powerful an influence (because of the money) to let any other form of energy become our primary fuel source (especially if its water because then you could just go to the nearest river, use a home distiller, and fill up ROFL!). As long as the oil companies have oil to pander, we won't see any real improvement in our power and fuel needs.
  12. Just thought I'd let everyone in this thread that has said they have problems with the temp reporting on the CPU for the Expert motherboard... I didn't even see it till today when I popped on the DFI site to see if there were any updates, and VOILA!! A new bios (4/6/06) is out for the Expert and GUESS WHAT?? It has a CPU temp calibration option!! Well... now you can have the correct CPU temp (according to your calculations) reported! There are some other fixes as well, but I'll let you read about that yourself... Here's a link Hope everyone is happy with that... seems the best DFI could do under the circumstances... :cool:
  13. there was just a local chinese restaurant that was doing it and they were shut down by the health dept... their response was that they thought it was more wrong to waste it claiming cultural differences... sheeze... does everything have to be an argument? Sorry if I sounded like I was stereotyping. :confused: The worst thing about it was that I had eaten there before. :/
  14. actually, I know of a lot of chinese buffet places that will recycle unused food back into the buffet... :/ They really don't believe in waste, so to them, its perfectly alright to do this sort of thing.
  15. I love camping, hunting, and fishing... There isn't really a whole lot to do otherwise recreationally here in good ole WV. Campfire cooked apple or blueberry pie, roasted marshmallows, hot dogs, freshly sliced kettle cooked potato chips, fresh trout filet... I would live high on the hog if I had to live without all of the modern technologies... I love it!! My boy scout troop when I was a kid would do a winter survival weekend. It always ended up cold as @#$%@ and numb in a lot of areas when we woke up, but it was always quite fun after we got moving. LOL!
  16. ... It was fundamental properties of the universe, not religion, but consider it dropped.
  17. (Response in sections, please scroll down...) Ok, I should have clarified and said that there were no negative consequences to these things. I assumed that this would be understood, but I was wrong.... This is just blatently wrong. Animals have emotions the same as you or I. A dog gets happy when it sees his owner is home to take him outside. The same dog is depressed when the owner leaves. The same dog shows a total devotion to a mate or owner by committing selfless acts of salvation and by being so depressed that he won't eat or drink if someone he is devoted to dies. The fact is that instinct has everything to do with emotions. Emotions are simply mental reactions to events that occur in the environment. Those mental reactions then spawn action (or non-action depending on the case). The resultant reaction-action that occurs due to the interaction of the animal's state of being with its environment we then call instinct. Very simply, an animal that is starving feels fear, desperation, anger, self pity, etc for its situation and then decides that it must do whatever is necessary for its survival because the pain of starvation is too intense to bear. An animal that is "in heat" feels axious and an intense desire and in many cases pain to release what it must to relieve the anxiety and/or pain. These feelings and the events that occur because of them are then imprinted into the psyche of the animal so that it learns how to deal with the situation more effectively the next time it occurs. The fact that certain imprints are common to all animal life simply brings about the existence of what we know as instincts. Whether or not these imprints are deeply enough engrained among animal life to be imprinted into the genetic code is sort of like asking, "what came first the chicken or the egg?" Doesn't really matter which came first, both are simply the nature of the beast. Does the ability to reason and imagine separate us? Again, I think not. Animals have reasoning capability. Animals are always figuring out the easiest ways to fulfill their needs. They are, in fact, quite resourceful at such tasks and do not all go about them in the same manner. It has been proven in several studies of primates that they can reason and imagine things of which they can then draw pictures. These things are not what separate us from the animals... There is one thing that does separate us from the rest of animal life on the planet. That one thing is quite simply the level of intelligence. We're smarter. That's it. That's all there is to it. The fact that we can figure out how to get around faster, build better, and keep the elements (including the other less intelligent animals) at bay is the only reason that we exist at the top of the food chain instead of as just another link (although the occasional poor human soul does become a meal from time to time). We've sucessfully bred many physical traits into animals. This is why there has been much heated debate over the whole "genetic instinct" issue. We can sucessfully condition animals to behave differently, but we can't, as of yet, breed behaviors or greater intelligence into animals beyond the limits of the most favorable behaviors exhibited/greatest intelligence exhibited as pertains to the species/breed of animal. The Earth sustains our life. It circles around the sun, spins on its axis, holds its atmosphere to the surface in the correct proportion of gasses, spawns plant life, spawns animal life, etc. Did we cause this to happen? Can we replicate such a thing? Does this have control over us? Allow me to answer... No. No. Yes. Without the planet as it is we would cease to exist. To take another quote from the last Matrix movie, "That is what control is, we can just shut them off if we want to." The fact is that we are at the mercy of a "higher power". The only real questions that make sense are what is the greatest higher power in the chain of higher powers that control our lives, and is it intelligent? Whether we like to think about it in these terms or not we are under the control of a "higher power". The Earth is simply an example of a higher power that does indeed control us. It determines all of our instincts and encompasses all of our experiences (with the exception of a few astronauts), it shapes us in every way, and molds us by the forces applicable to the universe. Now, if we were able to go to other planets, then the example would simply expand to our physical constraints being the higher power (the availability of food, water, shelter, breathable air, etc.). If we were able to create planets, then the stars would become the higher power... etc, etc, etc, until the universe (or multiverse though there is no evidence of one as of yet) becomes the higher power. This is indeed where the conception of God (leaving religion out of it, strictly philosophical existence of God stuff) comes into play. The universe is, quite observably, a progression of finite events. This chain of finite events must have, at some point, had a beginning. Why? 2 reasons actually... 1) because all scientific evidence points toward this conclusion and 2) because an actual infinite (what you get if you have no beginning) of finite things would never have enough finite space to be able to contain an infinite amount of things. Were the universe to be without beginning, then it would simply fold over on itself and collapse into an infinite blob of infinite density for infinite finite space. And if it had no beginning it must have always been this way and since it is not, once again, I conclude that the universe indeed had a beginning. The next question that follows from this is did this beginning of the universe have a cause or was it uncaused? Was the universe formed by something outside of it? Or did it simply spring into existence out of nothing? Well, nothing is not even the possibility of something. Therefore we may say reasonably that the universe did not spring forth from nothing because it cannot have come into existence if there was not even the possibilty of its existence to begin with. So then, we may conclude that the universe was indeed caused. We must also say then that because the universe had a caused beginning, that whatever existed before the universe began that caused the universe to exist must itself be infinite and uncaused. The reason for this is the same as the the 2nd reason for the universe having had a beginning. At some point in the regression of the finite, it must terminate, so as not to become an infinite regression of finite things. This leads us to ponder over what this infinite, unembodied (because anything physical is limited and thus finite), uncaused, cause of the universe is. Because the universe exists as it is, the entire universe must have existed in non-physical (ideal, idea) form before it was caused. This means that the uncreated creator was either an amalgamation of abstract ideas or it was a mind. It is possible to say that abstract ideas may generate patterns randomly, but we could not say that those abstract ideas could generate patterns to the extent that the universe is made of without an organining factor (a mind). Further, ideas, of themselves, have no power to create. Only a mind has the power to use ideas as tools (as ideas are not real in the physical sense) in order to organize them and bring them to fruition in a physical state. So there we have it... God, Allah, the creator, or whatever you call it. There is an uncaused, infinite, unembodied mind that created the universe and knows every tiny detail of it. Religion causes wars, philosophy causes realizations of truth. If it seems to you that I have missed something here (made some sort of fatal assumption, used faulty logic somewhere, etc.) then please, by all means point it out. I don't like organized religion. I never have. I just try to have good solid reason and evidence for what I believe. And I believe wholeheartedly that there is indeed a God, and that God is the same one that spawned us all... not our 5000 different conceptions of "my God, your God" crap. There is no version of reality except what exists outside of perception. There are, however, different versions of perception. It is arguable that only perception exists, but then we wouldn't be able to know anything as the universe would only be constantly changing according to each individual perception of it. Since it doesn't do that sort of thing, and the vast majority (except for a few psychotic people) can agree on many aspects of their many perceptions, and since we are able to know things... I think it is only reasonable that we say that there is one reality in which all of us live and perceive. Of course, if you don't want to be reasonable, then that is certainly your choice.
  18. You're very welcome... I'll update the nibitor link as soon as I can. Thanks for letting me know it was dead!
  19. I have another question for you HG... You say that it is obvious that some things are wrong (ie- murder, pedophilia, greed, etc....). This means that there is a set of actions that is right and a set of actions that are wrong. This is the principle of moral absolutes, which means that there is a set of actions that is opposed to what is "right" just becasue of the nature of reality. My question(s) is how do you define those moral absolutes? I mean, if there is no higher authority (government, religion, mystical forces, etc.) to enforce these "universal laws" then how or why could they exist? Or as the universe may be a cosmic accident, then how could there possibly be anything that is "morally obvious"? Any moral belief would simply be a consequence of government and society. So, without the presence of consequence, is there really any reason to not act as you wish even if it violates your idea of what is obviously wrong? ps- this is from a purely philosophical point of view...
  20. My friend always used to say that any person in the world will have . with you if given the right set of circumstances... lol! Its just a matter of finding the right time and place and state of mind apparently.
  21. Of course the reason all governments eventually fail is because of human involvement. People are easily corrupted. Because there are a lot of corrupting factors in government (ie-power, money, etc.) the people that administer the government are likely to be more corrupt as they gain more of these things. Very simply put... People are corrupt. People run government. Government is corrupt. The founding fathers did their very best to see that the government remained as untainted by humans as possible with the system of checks and balances, but even that has now fallen to the swine. Communism is even easier to corrupt because the government has control over all the resources. If the leaders would distribute it equally, then it would be paradise, but since the we all know the one with the most cookies wins...
  22. WOW!!! Love the changes on the forums the HG!!!!! VERY NOICE!!
  23. I have to agree with you there HG... We apparently have a lot of opinions that differ, ROFL... I don't really like the quality of Starbucks coffee as much as what I can make myself at home. I also have to agree that I've always gotten great service at any Starbucks that Ive been to. I asked one guys for a full cup of espresso and he gave it to me and only charged me for a double shot. It was very nice of him. He told me to come back around cause he wanted to see me after I'd finished it though... LOL! It just wasn't the same as the espresso I can make at home though....
  24. Ewwww... Starbucks? Their coffee isn't even good... much cheaper to pick up a $10 coffee grinder and some whole beans from your local place that sells whole bean coffee. Invest in a good coffee maker and/or an espresso machine and you've got WAY better than Starbucks for overall MUCH cheaper! I guarantee you'll be MOST pleased with the extra effort it takes to kick Starbucks for better home made coffee... :nod:
  25. I under stand that one... I just don't see a whole lot of point to clothes that only have the purpose of coming off (like lingerie). I do like sexy outfits quite a lot though! For instance, see my wife in the pics post thread.... :nod:
×
×
  • Create New...