Meg

Quoting from the Installation Instructions that are around here some place . . . 1. Create a new folder in your My Documents\Sim City 4\Regions and name it after the region you wish to download and install; e.g. \Seattle. 2. Download the associated .jpeg file by clicking the icon provided. Save this in the new folder. 3. If there is a .bmp configuration file for your new region, download and save it to your new folder and rename it config.bmp. 4. Start Sim City 4. 5. On the Region Screen, click the Open Region icon. Select your new region folder. The screen will change to a large flat area - this is normal. 6. Hold Shift+Alt+Ctrl+R and navigate to the jpeg file you just saved. Select this and hit okay 7. Sim City 4 now converts this .jpeg file to a new region; it takes approximately 5 to 15 minutes depending on the size of the region and the speed of your computer. 8. You're done! Don't forget to add trees and wildlife to suit your preferences.

Welcome to the Simtropolis House of Worship, Take 2. The original thread was so popular it became so long that it was taking forever to load. It is locked here, in case anyone wishes to quote from a post in that thread. Remember, this thread is for discussion of any form of religion or worship. Other threads that deal with subtopics in more detail: Creationism vs. Evolution The Definition of "Christian" Shalom! Calling all Jewish Simtropolnites! Why Does Secularism Hate Theocracy? Simtropolis Official Discussion of Cosmology Free Will vs. Determinism Existence of God Remember: discuss the issues, not each other. Edit: thanks to all who helped locate additional threads

I'm testing the page flip bug

Like many others here, I appreciated the insight and viewpoints that he shared, even when I didn't agree or it frustrated me. I believe that hearing from various points of view is essential and he was always ready to discuss things. I am very glad he was here. I hope people here can recognize what we gave to him. In my experience, many elderly people get depressed because they feel they are isolated from society and that no one cares what they have to do say. That was not the case for him. He knew that we were here, that he could talk with us, and that we would listen to him and engage in lively debate. I imagine this meant a lot to him. It is something that many elderly people do not have.

I can't be the only one who is tired of rehashing the gun ban argument from the start every week or so. So let's make this the official discussion gun ban thread so we don't have to keep repeating ourselves. To get started, here is the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.quote> What does it mean? What does it not mean? Is banning guns a good idea? Would it work? Why or why not? As always, discuss the issues and not each other.

I think Canada is way ahead of America in terms of being socially liberal. When I was a kid, it was not uncommon for mixed race couples to move to Canada. That slowed down a bit once it stopped being illegal here. and Canada had legal gay marriage before it was even a topic in most American households. fwiw, I grew up in the Washington, DC suburbs which are considered to be a liberal toilet according to some of my fellow Americans. I suspect that other girls had more difficult time than I did. No, it did not stop me. The random guy was just an example. I had a lot of people asking me what the bleep I thought I was doing. I would have been happy working in a research lab but that was clearly going to be an uphill battle. I was fortunate that I have a knack for computer programming. (I can spend hours at it and not notice the time going by.) At the time, the industry was new enough that it wasn't already set in stone and, since most people couldn't program, they couldn't be too picky about keeping the ones who could. I see it more as trying to explain to nice guys why women can't always tell at first whether they are scum or not. Of course, it's not an either/or thing. Most things fall along a continuum, not into either/or buckets.

I literally find it awesome that you think that is a weird assumption. Seriously. When I was a kid, it was a radical notion. For centuries, women were legally and socially regarded as property. When I was in school, it was considered a new and odd concept that a woman just might want to do something other than be a wife and mother, or be a teacher or a nurse. Examples: - When I was in middle school, there was a science award which was earned by a cumulative total of points on various activities. I accumulated the most points in the school. My teacher refused to give me the award because "it would be a waste to give it to a girl". To quote: "You're very talented but I don't know what good it is going to do unless you pass it along to your son some day". He would not be able to get away with that today but, at the time, it was considered to be a valid point of view. - A few years later, a guy pumping gas next to me noticed the university parking stickers on my car. "Oh, you're going to be a teacher!" I told him, no, I was going to be a computer programmer. Judging by the look he gave me, you would have thought I had said that I was going into outer space. and, no, going into outer space was never one of my options. - The married adults at the time were having interesting discussions. (My parents were active in the church and hosted several of the discussion groups so I got to listen in.) The men literally could not understand it. They would be asked "Can't you see that your wife is a person in her own right with her own hopes, dreams, and aspirations?" The men would look puzzled, shake their heads, and say "No". The men in my generation had two curve balls thrown at them: the Vietnam war and the changing roles of women in society. Some adapted. Many did not. Your generation gives me hope; you find it to be a weird assumption that someone might not have the basic empathy to understand that women are people. It wasn't always that way.

@MilitantRadical Interesting food for thought. Rather creepy in some ways. Here is some additional food for thought. Guys, Here’s What It’s Actually Like To Be A Woman (Warning for language and discussion of body parts.) Not saying that it's perfect but it is the best article of its kind that I have seen.

Good point. When my mom was a child there were former slaves walking around.

We have not yet adapted to what the world is now.

There should be no one here under the age of 13. The pictures that were shown were available on many mainstream TV broadcasts and newspapers. The evening news can no doubt be harsh but it is a valid topic of discussion here.

Exactly! One problem with this is it leads to the conclusion that men are predisposed to raping women. Many men find this to be insulting and I can't blame them. Over the years, societies have dealt with this in different ways. Historically, a lot of the laws about women not being able to do X, Y, or Z stem from the belief that men can't really control themselves so they have to control the women. Currently, many societies believe that it is up to men to control themselves, although that doesn't go as far as some would like it to. For example, women have been taught for decades what situations to avoid to minimize their chances of being raped. Only recently have men been told "Don't rape". I remember when the marital rape laws were being debating. Some men were truly confused at the concept. "If you can't rape your wife, you can you rape?" and "Marital sex can not be rape" were common reactions. The general thinking was that a wife was a man's property and a man can do whatever he wants with his property. In many societies today, women have decided they have had enough that that crap: women are human beings, not property. On other societies they do not yet feel empowered to do so. (btw, that was the original definition of feminism: The radical idea that women are human beings.) A lot of it has to do with economics. Where I live a woman can say no and still get to eat next week. A lot of women worldwide do not have that option. In general, that is true. But I go back to the Matrix quote: "I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species and I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You're a plague and we are the cure." It would be nice to think that we are intelligent enough and self-aware enough not be behave like a virus but evidence shows that is wishful thinking.

The pendulum swings one way, then it swings the other, rarely stopped at a balanced midpoint. Evolution has done a sad number on the genders. Sexually, men prefer frequent sprints while women prefer less frequent marathons. This makes sense from an evolutionary point of view. The best way to maximize your genes in the next generation is different for each gender. Men can have hundreds of children so they are wired to have as many kids as they can, far and wide, and some of them are bound to survive. Women can only have a handful so they are wired to slow down so they can chose their partners wisely. To put it another way: the male drive to have sex far exceeds the male drive to raise the resulting children. (btw, this is how I know "intelligent design" is a myth because that design is not intelligent. But that's a different topic.) This leaves everyone in a bad situation. But, instead of dealing with the overall picture, the pendulum swings one way, then it swings the other, rarely stopped at a balanced midpoint. and, yes, of course there are many honorable men who meet their responsibilities. But I suspect that, if the only people on the planet were those who had fathers who were truly interested in being an involved father, the planet would not be overpopulated. So, yes, it's easy to say all of the problems in the world are because men are the way that they are. Even if that was true (and it isn't), it doesn't solve anything so why harp on it?

An interesting read: Which of the 11 American Nations Do You Live In?

From Time magazine As TIME explained in 2005, here is how the nomination process works: STEP ONE: The President selects a nominee Nomination: The President announces a nomination to the Senate. Nominee’s Paperwork: The nominee completes paperwork concerning finances and personal background. FBI Investigation: The FBI probes the nominee’s criminal history, if any. STEP TWO: The Senate confirms or rejects the nominee Senate Confirmation Hearings: The nominee is sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Eighteen senators interview the nominee. Topics include the nominee’s qualifications and previous casework. The committee also questions witnesses who support or oppose the nomination. Committee Vote: The committee votes on the President’s nominee. No matter the vote’s outcome, the nominee is generally sent to the Senate floor after the committee hearings. Senate Vote: The full Senate deliberates and then votes on the nominee. A simple majority (51 votes) confirms or rejects the nominee’s appointment. If the nominee is confirmed, the Supreme Court justice is appointed for life. If the nominee is rejected, the President chooses another and the process is repeated.

I've been wanting to do that for while. If you figure it out, please let me know.

I don't understand the use of the word "hostile" in this context. Let's say that Group A has the "traditional values" you mentioned and Group B has no problems with gay, divorced, atheists. Unless Group B is actively infringing on Group A's lives, how is that hostile? or does Group B's mere existence constitute hostility? or is it society's acceptance of Group B's existence? Where, exactly, is the hostility?

I was speaking of the population, not the federal government. However, I agree with what you say here except that the 1990s were hardly progressive at all compared to the 60s and 70s. Not sure about that part but let's go with it for now. Not sure I'm following you here. What, specifically, constitutes the propaganda? And what part of culture is hostile to family and traditional values? I can see where things are including more than traditional values but how is that hostile towards them? Just to make sure we are on the same page: what so you think constitutes a RadProg?

The USA had been pushing to the right for the past 30 - 35 years. The pendulum has started to swing the other way again. Interesting that you see "radical progressives" when I see more "radical conservatives". Don't forget all of the defense contractors. That's a multi-billion dollar industry that will collapse as well.

But that is the thing: no one is trying to revise history. No one is claiming Cecil Rhodes is anything other than what he was. They just don't find it to be admirable.

Inconvenience? Enslaving / subjugating / killing people while plundering their land for natural resources is more than an inconvenience. As I understand it, you are saying that the ends justify the means, however brutal and oppressive those means happen to be. "The industry provided through the triangular trading system". Let's forget the word-smithing and call it what it was: the slave trade. Your basic premise here seems to be that Europeans wanted the resources on other continents so they were justified in taking them. Perhaps the people on those continents needed the resources too. Too bad for them, huh? In many situations, I find myself wondering what people were telling themselves so that they thought what they were doing was okay. What was the reasoning here? The issues here are theft and oppression. Theft is illegal, even in Europe during the time in question. So, yes, it was criminal. I have a problem with the mindset that something may be illegal in one part of the world so it's okay to do it in another part of the world. That kind of thinking has created most of the havoc on the planet. (and, yes, it is still going on in modern times.) Here's an alternative: how about we leave each other alone and have contact only by mutual consent? That assumes that everyone in a pre-industrial society is suffering. Your premise seems to be that, since they are suffering anyway, they might as well suffer more so that other people can live a different life. What is the justification for deciding that Society A is more worthwhile than Society B? Sure, take all of the swipes at Jefferson Davis that you want. I'll help you. As for making the stars and bars illegal to own or display . . . as appealing as that idea may be, it would be a form of censorship if imposed on private citizens. But I do think it is inappropriate for it to be displayed in official settings. It is not about hiding the ugly. It is, as I said earlier, about what a society is choosing to honor. I'm not seeing the connections here. How does artists wanting to stop engineering fit in? And what about this is decadent?

It is an honor to have a statue of oneself. If we no longer find their actions honorable, why keep the statue? Things would be different if Hitler hadn't been around. Does that mean we should have a statue of him? Granted, it can be tricky, looking at past events, judging them by today's standards. People back then didn't live in the reality that we do so their actions were maybe not what they would have done today. But why is it wrong headed political correctness for people to decide that they don't want to do something anymore? What is wrong with deciding that they don't like a tradition and deciding to change it? Let me take an example that is close to where I live: the Washington Redskins. They are an NFL football team. The term "redskin" is somewhat akin to the n-word. Why is it used? The answer is: it's tradition and the people in power don't want to change it even though it is offensive to many. Just because something is tradition and history, that is no reason to keep it around. Let the name go the way of the Washington Bullets (the old name for the basketballteam) and let it stay in the museum. That is where a lot of history belongs: in the museums and history books. Not part of everyday life.

Learning history is one thing. Honoring historical figures that we no longer find honorable is another.

Yes, black people can read. But the original form of the Constitution said they counted as 3/5ths of a person so it might be less than inspiring to them. I don't know if it is the main problem but I believe it is a problem. And I wouldn't use the word "psyche". I think it's more an issue of culture. Of course, there is no one "black culture". Some people, both white and black, seem to believe there is and try to shove all black people into that category but "black culture" is varied and complicated. Personally, I believe one way some black people harm themselves and each other is use of the N-word. To many people, including myself, that is trash talk. It shows a lack of respect. A co-worker once asked me "How am I supposed to respect them when they don't respect themselves?" At the risk of sounding like a cranky old person: What ever happened to manners? Simply treating each other with respect would avoid a lot of problems.