Bumdark

I want to load a savegame into the Map Editor so that I may publish it, along with its road network, as a map for new games. I just found this year-old post on Reddit regarding a Mod Tools hack that seemed to work at the time, but I tried it now and all I get is a readout of errors ending with “Failed to compile command-line”. Unfortunately, I know nothing of coding or modding, so I can’t troubleshoot this myself. (It’s possible I may be using Mod Tools wrong – this is my first time trying it.) Does anyone have a fix for this, or barring that, some other method of extracting a map from a savegame? It would be really appreciated.

It works! Thank you! Is it all right with you if share this on the other forums where I asked this question (Steam, Paradox Forums & Reddit)?

Thanks for the suggestion! Unfortunately, it didn’t work – the moment I hit “Run”, some red error text flashed across the console, and once the Map Editor loaded (which it doesn’t at all when using the old code), it gave me a blank, glitchy map with the following error message: File format version not supported (5788513 > 111015)! [System.Exception] Details: No details Anything we can do about this?

Just noticed this pinned thread (oops). I already have a thread opened for this, so I’ll repost it here. (Let me know if I should close the original – not sure what the proper etiquette is.) What I’d love are traffic lights styled after those in Québec, Canada. They’re mounted horizontally and have two red lights, and each light is shaped differently (square reds, diamond yellows and arrow greens; the lights on the right typically have up- and right-pointing arrows, whilst lights on the left typically have left-pointing arrows). Here’s a Google Image Search with some more examples. I think they look distinctive enough that they could really add a nice flair to cities – plus they’d add a touch of home for me. It’d be extra awesome to have street lights (both single and double) to match the style, but I’d choose the traffic lights first. I’m happy to compensate (pay) any interested modders for their work, too. That’s how bad I want these babies.

I’d like to add a little touch of home to my cities, so I’d love to replace the vanilla traffic (intersection) lights with ones modeled after those in Québec, Canada, for a touch of home in my cities. Unfortunately, I can’t model or script at all. So I’d hugely appreciate it if someone could model/texture these lights and script them so that they replace the default lights. I’d be happy to compensate (pay) them for their work, too. As for the traffic lights: They’re mounted horizontally, with arrow-shaped green lights, diamond-shaped yellow lights and two square-shaped red lights. Here’s a Google Image Search showing some examples. I’ve attached a couple pics. There are a few things I’d like to do if it’s possible, such as different lights for different sizes of roads. But if that’s not doable, I’ll be happy with just reskinning the default lights. If anyone’s interested, please let me know. Otherwise, I’d also appreciate it if someone could refer me to established modders who do this kind of work (I don’t know who the big players in the C:S modding scene are). My thanks to anyone who replies.

… Right. STEX. Totally knew that. *bashes head on desk* Pardon my apparent n00bishness; I haven’t played SC4 or browsed ST in far too long. xD Thanks.

I read the Readme and most of the rest of the documentation (it’s far too long to read fully, I just skimmed to the relevant bits), I did searches for “roundabout” and “filler”, but I never found how to actually install roundabout fillers. Could someone please tell me what I’m missing?

I searched for a while through the forums, but so far I couldn't find what I need, so I'm posting it here instead. If any Mods think this should be elsewhere, I beg you to relocate it, I'm just not sure how to tackle this. Thing is, my Plugins have started becoming hectic for a long time – when I download a file I just dump all the contents as they are into the folder itself (I do read the Readmes of course), but that's starting to come back to bite me in the arse, as it's nigh impossible to find any particular files in there amidst all the junk. So, through the weeks of browsing the Forums here, I've come to hear about two programs – the Cleanitol and the DatPacker. And here's where the questions overthrow the dam... 1 – I've searched but can't find an answer – what exactly is Cleanitol, what's its function? 2 – I've read it needs files, in .txt format, to search for files – could someone clarify that please? I haven't the foggiest what it means. 3 – Similar to question one, what is the DatPacker? 4 – Finally, just in case all the answers to the above questions are answered in the individual programs' Readmes (I assume they have them), could someone direct me to where you can find them please? Any help here would be greatly appreciated. Thank you!

In a nutshell: Alan Turing is pretty much the man who single-handedly saved the Allies's asses in WWII. He was a mathematical genius who not only broke the German Enigma codes, which not-so-subtly turned the tides of the war to our advantage at last, but he also came up with the basics for what would soon become the entire field of informatics and computer programming. In other words: he's a hero who saved countless lives, plus he laid the foundations for the entire modern world, as far as technological revolution goes. Problem is, the man was also gay, and a while after his heroism, he was tried and prosecuted for sleeping with another man, hence the "gross indecency" charge. He was given the oh-so-fair choice of either going to jail, or undergoing "anti-gay treatments" which consisted of female hormone injections intended to chemically castrate him. (Because, somehow, his production of sperm made him gay, or something. Yes, that was how medical science was back then.) Following the castration, he committed suicide only two years later, obviously unable to live with the shame and ostracizing anymore. Why is it important that the government apologize to him, even if he's dead and obviously won't care either way? A) he still has living relatives, and I don't think they'd dislike having such cruel treatment of a family member, especially a heroic one who couldn't possibly deserve what happened to him less, denounced; and second, it shows that the government (and people in general) have a conscience and recognize how such things are utterly horrific, and how they can never be allowed to happen again.

This is just horrible beyond words. So many dead ... villages and cities destroyed, a disaster zone the size of a nuclear blast (and about as effective in terms of damage as well, minus the radiation contamination) ... Horrible. My best wishes to all those affected, particularly fellow STers who may be in the area. I'd send donations if I had any cash. And to the arsonists who have been proven to have caused this murderous inferno ... I cannot write what I'm thinking here, as 1- no words are dark or violent enough, and 2- I'd probably get banned ... But seriously, anyone who thinks it's fun to light bushfires then stares while said fires kill hundreds of people and destroy entire villages ... Hanging isn't hard enough for those demented murderous bastards. This sort of stuff makes me sick.

The words speak for themselves. Enough said.quote>Ok, so you don't understand that, unless you referenced my age sometime in the past, then that simply does not apply to *you*, but to the select twits, especially on IMDb.com, who *did* 'call me out' on being 15-16 (and now 17)? No offense (honestly) but you're still misunderstanding what I wrote. Where did I ever mention I was personally offended by your comment? I said I noticed it, and chose to comment on it as a sidebar. I certainly do not have a 'persecution complex' or a chip on my shoulder or anything of the sort. I simply like to write alot, and oftentimes I catch myself rambling on about things even I don't care about. And again, I never called you a 'moron' or'ageist' or anything at all. I said *all those who used it against me* had, in those specific cases, been moronic themselves, judging by what they wrote before/after and how they wrote it. I'm certainly not afraid or hesitant to call a moron a moron if I encounter one, and so far it appears you are not - merely misunderstanding what I write. If you never used name-calling or age-calling on me (ie. you haven't), then that does not apply to you, as it was not intended to. Besides, it was always ever used on me in the swamps of IMDb.com, so unless for some reason you posed as a twit who insulted me like that, on IMDb, long ago, then it simply does not apply to you. I'm not still replying because of any open wounds or unhealed scars, don't worry about that. I just like matters and records to be set straight, and this one stands thus: I never insulted you. You never insulted me. You made a snide comment, which you say you regret. I just commented on your comment, which led us down this unpleasant tangent. You misunderstood what I meant (twice) and name-called me, whereas I never said anything of the sort to you. That's all ... If I was to get worked up about something I'd go all postal on you, and seeing as I personally find myself to be quite serene, perhaps a tiny bit ... um ... (damn you, small vocabulary) whatever the word is for 'tired of explaining this three times', then you can sleep safe knowing I certainly don't give a crap what people think or say about me either. I've dealt with worse than being called 'teen' before, I can assure you that. o_o I'd be happy if you didn't reply and I didn't either. Pointless tangent. Starting to wish a Mod would delete the lot of it (oh wait - Page Flip Bug ... grrr). I certainly do not feel offended, or any negative feelings towards you ... Let's agree to keep it that way, alright? :-) Glad to be back on topic ... I agree with your last sentence. You might elaborate more (unless you've posted your more-detailed thoughts here before, which I would then have missed ...)

// I find this most recent post to be most hypocritical. // Odd, seeing as I neither mentioned you directly nor indirectly, nor even had you in mind. I was commenting on the use of the 'He/she's a teen' tactic in general, not anyone in particular. It has been used against me, fact. Every single time by people who thought they were right when I knew, thanks to logic and/or knowledge (or simple common sense), that they were not. Fact. Then things got nasty when I politely pointed out they were wrong when they used the 'You're just 16, just a stupid kid, what do you know, blaaah ...' cop-out on me (I've never felt the curiously common urge to hide my age). So where exactly did I name-call you, or what? Nowhere, and nothing. Yet I was treated to 'name-caller' myself, even 'hypocrite', not to mention that dang metaphor that's used ad nauseum these days. So you can keep your 'hypocritical' to yourself. That post is/was neither ad hominem, nor insinuations of any type. I do hope that was your last post if that is how greatly you misread what others may write. And yes, one can be humiliated in a so-called 'anonymous' public forum. Pick an argument with an honest idiot (over on IMDb though, considering the mods' zeal for censorship here) and throroughly prove him wrong again and again, blast away any credibility he/she had, and just ram them into the ground. If that's not 'humiliation' on their part I seriously need to read the dictionary again. (Yes, that was dry humor.) (Not to mention my mention of 'them can't taking that a kid could humiliate them' or however I phrased it originally was clearly intended as a comical side-remark, not a serious observation.) (Mods: none of the above was any sort of flaming. At least, definitely not intended as. Just pointing out the fallacies of calling me a hypocrite when he misunderstood my post to begin with.) Now if that's done with ... Well at least this was a bump for this thread in any case. Come on folk, discussions are begging!

... What is this about 'Seth McFarlane' and 'God farts' and whatever? Were those posts deleted or did I just miss a few again? I'm far from being any sort of scientist, much less a Hypothetical Astrophysicist, but I do have my own opinions/thoughts on how our Universe began ... Usually I elaborate for decades and go into all sorts of metaphors, but my show's about to start so I'll cut the crap. Personally (and I dunno if there's any 'name' for this particular hypothesis), I do not believe in 'God' as the Bible and scriptures and religions and all that stuff will tell you He is like. I do believe there is *something* out there, but that whatever it is, 1 - it is so vastly 'out there' and strange to us that we couldn't even wrap our minds around the concept of It even if we were presented with a HD picture with explanations, and 2 - I don't think It gives the slightest crap about us (Humans, life, Earth, etc.). See how often praying has helped people in need. Now, this being/intelligence/creator/whatever pretty much wrote the laws of physics, biology, chemistry, all that sort of stuff, and basically 'threw it all out there' in the form of the Big Bang, along with the basic bits of matter necessary for the creation of the Universe as we'll eventually know it. This 'throwing out there' is the Big Bang to me. Imagine it as like a programmer who inputs a few basic lines of instructions into an infinitely powerful machine, then he lays back and hits 'Execute' on his keyboard. The machine starts equating and equating, performing calculations, adding and multiplying this and that, etc. and all the matter and stuff start to interact, build on itself, grow more advanced and complex, until eventually we have stars, planets ... life. Of course this is about as good a guess as any at the rate of knowledge we have (ie. very little) on this matter, but it seems to make sense from how I see it. Without a Designer, and if nothing is truly 'eternal' and everything has a beginning, then how could it have all began if there wasn't something to create it? (I'll stop now before this turns into a tangeng on Intelligent Design or whatever.) Just my 1.85c.

@hym: So my question is, exactly how to you reason with a mindset that only desires to kill you? //quote>Different terrorists had different mindsets, different goals, and different possibilities for ending the fighting. What I said didn't target any particular group - Islamic extremists, IRA, FLQ, etc. - I meant the 'terrorism' aspect in general, which admittedly takes on a very wide range of circumstances and differences between groups and ideals. As I said, it's not like offering peace and compromise on both sides will invariably end in love & peace. Of course some (if not many) of the groups simply refuse any and all alternatives (and here I *do* mean mostly Islamic extremists) other than the retreat or destruction of their 'enemies'. I meant the sort of terrorists who *could* be reasoned with. Why fight when peace is possible? @hawkpride147: weren't we at "peace" before September 11th?quote> As Jasoncw stated above, no, America was not at peace with the Middle-East prior to 9/11, nor was the attack entirely unprovoked. Of course I'm not insinuating anything as stupid as 'America got what it deserves'; I'm saying, you can't continually step on people and bully others without eventually finding someone who's tougher and more insane than you are and is willing to take you on, either for dominance or for vengeance for whatever reason. America (and many others) has been meddling in the Middle-East for a long time, so it was only natural and expected that eventually some of them got real pissed and decided to throw the fight back to America. i mean seriously if you're getting pushed around unprovoked at work or school by the bully, and you offer peace, what will they do? laugh in your face, call you weak, and increase the intensity of the attacks because you will not stop it.quote> Not to split hairs, but you can't logically compare being harassed by a schoolyard bully, which is out of nothing more than idiocy and immaturity on the bully's part 90% of the time, and being persecuted by terrorism, whose reasons are far deeper and political/sociological. @Easy Bakes: People seem to have found a way to reason with the IRA.quote> And there's my beloved proof-of-concept. Some may not be reasonable or negotiable, but others are, and if there's a chance an offering of peace could work, what sort of insane self-flagellistic idiot wouldn't want to jump on it? Remember, not all terrorists can be reasoned with, such as Islamic extremists, but some *can* (as stated above with the IRA example). You can't kill a mentality, but you could try to convert as many as you can from it. I'm not trying to sound idealistic or martyristic or whatever; I'm speaking logically. It's simply impossible that any two parties at war can win. The killings and massacres will be everlasting, there can be no other way around it. Troops are lost, others are recruited. The only way anything ever stops is if one surrenders, or both parties agree to a ceasefire and sign a truce/treaty/whatever. That's just how it is. Example: in recent times, how many battles/wars between two iron-willed parties who both refused to surrender, ended by one of the parties completely eliminating the other? (Answer: None.) [Edited for typos. Argh.]

// I'm sure that the terrorists would love to do nothing more than disarm their car bombs and go to a local starbucks to talk about how to solve our differences. // If there's ever to be some measure of peace and quiet between terrorists and the people being terrorized, one of the sides has to initiate the peace offerings first. It may or may not work, but someone has to try something if anything will ever be achieved. Both sides keeping up a fight is not exactly the way to solve a conflict, unless one is eventually wiped out. That is impossible, as you're not dealing with finite numbers of troops, but a mentality/idealogy. Such things can not be extinguished with bullets or bombs, but only with knowledge, reason and compassion. Terrorists terrorize for two basic reason: their anger/resentment for the people they attack, or to achieve a goal. Steps should be taken to try and amend both cases. If they're angry, then try anything to reconciliate, forgive & forget, etc. I'm not delusional to the point of saying it will absolutely work. I'm saying it's the only way it could ever work, if anything is to work. If they terrorize to reach a goal, then both parties would need to compromise, which is also possible. Terrorists are not animals, devoid of intelligence or capacity to reason/be reasoned with. Lord do I know how easy, even feel-good, it is to let anger and hatred for them and their terrible deeds overshadow and cloud our judgment towards them - same for them towards us. I'm saying that, idealistically, both parties should just work things out. Nothing ever *needs* to end with bloodshed and bullets. If it usually does, it's because one (or both) were unwilling to compromise and attain peace. I'm probably just rambling because I've been up for nearly 24 hours, but I think that, instead of trying to nuke them and them trying to nuke us perpetually, someone - us, they or both - should just lay down arms and say, 'Hey, look, how 'bout we talk about this? See where that leads ...' or something. Again, they can be reasoned with. We just have to come to them at a specific angle and show them that even though we're not 'giving up', we're just sick of fighting, for both ours and their sakes. People only say that one party should be obliterated when they're either too obtuse or too stupid to allow the thought into their minds that peace can exist after all. I'm saying, it's not like they'll drop arms at once and surrender, nor should the attacked party drop arms and surrender to them. I hope I don't sound like some sort of idealistic 12yo here or something ... Just so tired ... Just remember ... Whomever thinks they're the 'right' side is irrelevent ... No-one's ever innocent, even if they don't know which crimes they've commited.

// The question is: is a fetus a sapient and/or sentient life-form? // (For anyone else reading this: sapience is the ability to apply knowledge and/or skills to a task (hence our scientific name 'Homo Sapiens-Sapiens') - ie. intelligence, while sentience is the ability to think and percieve for oneself and to have an awareness of one's surroundings, and being able to react to stimuli with thought-out actions and reactions - ie. the 'soul' or 'consciousness'.) So no, a fetus is neither sapient nor sentient. It is not aware of its surroundings (some minor reactions to physical stimuli aside, which are a sign of it merely being alive rather than it being conscious), does not think, feel, or anything of the sort. Its brain is simply not developed enough to enable such advanced processes as of yet. So no, it's not a person, so no, ending its life is not important, or 'murder'. // Why would these be exceptions for something you consider to be killing a human life? That smells of hypocrisy. // Many pro-life people, at least those who accept the possibility of abortions in only the gravest of cases, seem to think a fetus' life is important enough to spare it the abortion, but less important than the mother's, which I think half makes sense, and half is ridiculous and hypocritical. . Makes sense: a fetus is incomplete and realistically worthless: it hasn't accomplished anything yet and cannot do so in its current condition, whereas the mother, if she has an abortion and is still reproductively able, can make more children. You're basically throwing away a cookie but keeping the mold - the cookie itself is unimportant, the mold can always make more. (A very crude way of looking at it, but it works.) . Hypocritical/ridiculous: according to their own arguments, 'all life is sacred', 'any life is a life', 'all life must be saved', etc. So permitting abortions, even in the most extreme of cases, directly goes against their own sayings. // Well, I do agree with you on the first definitions, and do agree that the latter definitions are the ones that are used by various factions in this argument. // Indeed. Whatever the words/terms meant originally, or 'properly', is now pretty much irrelevent as they no longer mean those things in the common consciousness. // That is agreed. I did not respond to it as a person's age is irrelevant in this argument. // It is a cowardly tactic I've had employed against me many times before (each and every time by morons or ignorants who simply didn't take it that a 'kid' would humiliate them in a public forum. XD). I simply wouldn't let it fly. Anyway, number one rule: attack the topic, not each other, right? Not to mention ad hominem, except for very specific cases, pretty much automatically disqualifies one and grants victory to the other as you've shown you can't be rational and mature in a debate. Personally, I only use ad hominem when I feel like being a jerk (it does happen ), but never to try and 'sway the argument in my favor' as that's just pathetic. But enough of that ...

Exception to what, Jasoncw? As for that pointless and rather headache-inducing argument about definitions, I'll take the liberty to settle this. 'Pro - ', in its most basic sense, means 'for', 'approving of', etc. So, if we went by definitions and technicality alone, the word association 'Pro-Life' would mean 'in support of life' / 'in favor of life'. 'Pro-Abortion' would mean 'In favor / support of Abortion'. 'Pro-CHOICE' is what is meant as 'in favor of giving the woman the choice between yay or nay'. Problem is, Lord knows definitions and meanings are incessently skewed and turned into something else with misuse over time and/or stigma/associations, so these days, here's how they stand, in the context of the current debate/argument: . Pro-Life: People who are against abortion as a general rule (and may, or may not, have ideals about when abortion 'might be acceptable', i.e. saving a woman's life or something). . Anto-Abortion: See above. . Pro-Abortion: People who agree with abortion (as in 'they don't rebute it') and encourage women to make their own choices. . Pr-Choice: See directly above. Same as Pro-Abortion. Pro-Abortion does not mean people who would encourage a woman to abort the baby (other than perhaps in cases such as rape or premature pregnancies (woman being too young to cope with having a child)). It means they aren't againt it. If you're not against something, you're then for it. There's no middle-grounds, no grey area, as far as I can tell. You're either anti - or pro - , but being pro - does not mean you enforce abortion on women. It means you're just not against it. On a side-note, there was no need for that lazy ad hominem, Barbarossa. Insinuating that he's a teenager, whether accurately or not, is neither respectful nor useful. Being a teenager does not limit one's credibility or understanding of any matter. I should know, being 17 myself. Just pointing that out. (Not to mention he's stated he is (was) at University, which futher disproves that insinuation.) People should stop using the old fallacy of 'Am I speaking to a teenager here?' as though it were relevant; I know several teenagers who are far more able-minded, coherent and intelligent than many adults I know. Sorry for the digression, just had to make that point.

@Explodingsims: Well - still on the Devil's Advocate thingy here - if cutting off a head means another one is spawned, then go higher and cut off the head to which those heads become the body. It's a common rule that there will always be a higher echelon, a superior rank, to whomever you're dealing with. Cut off the higher head, and all the heads/bodies below perish, unless they themselves elevate themselves to higher heads ... Okay I'm getting images of that multiheaded dragon-type monster from Hercules now. o_o And when you said '... the receiving party might make up for it in her health.' ... You don't actually mean that along the lines of 'If she did something illegal I don't agree with, then it's good for her if she suffers health-wise', I hope? 'Cause that would be transcending self-righteousness into plain malvolence and/or bad taste. Just wanna be sure. @Duke87: I've never heard of that particular option in drug-crimes. It certainly isn't like that around here (Montr

@Duke87: I know that, I only ever click buttons once, but the page never - and I mean NEVER - refreshes in under at least 10 minutes, and that's in no way an exaggeration. I dunno, this site, however wonderful it may be, has always been painfully slow for me, loading- and refreshing-wise. Just last night I got sick and tired of keeping myself awake (as you could tell from my irritated tone; sorry) trying and have it refresh before 5 AM, I clicked 'Delete' on a post and it just wouldn't come in. I closed the browser after about a quarter hour (watched TV in the meantime) as it gave me another 'timed out' error, I reopened the site and it still hadn't deleted the stupid message. Screw it, I just typed a quick little 'please delete them 'cause I can't' message in the Quick Reply, clicked 'Post' and went to bed ... And this morning I got up and it had again timed out. At least the message had posted in the meantime. I dunno ... is this site also really slow for anyone else, or is this just limited to me? Rather annoying when you're trying to post a simple message and it ends up taking half an hour, then it just times you out ... o_0 Anyway, messages are deleted now, so thanks (to whomever did the deed). And now, back on topic ... 'For those who haven't seen it, the question is: If abortion should be made illegal, what should be done to women who obtain an illegal abortion?' Indeed, that is a question none of the self-righteous anti-abortion activists were able to answer; when asked they literally just seemed like they were hit with an impossible query, which is hilarious, considering it's what they're parading around trying to stop, and they hadn't even thought about what to do if it *did* happen. I wish there were a brain requirement to become an activist ... ah well. Personally, to play the Devil's Advocate for a minute: if it were illegal and I was for it being illegal, and a woman had an abortion anyway, I'd say: don't punish the woman, but punish the one who practiced the abortion (doctor, whatever). It's like RIAA trying to end Internet piracy by only going after the individual downloaders - even those morons realized it was futile. Point is: don't go after the ones who receive the illegal deeds, but the ones who perform them, distribute them, etc. Cut off the head, see. Plain logic to me ...

MODS, could you please delete the first two posts of my triple-post above (another side-effect of this site's execrably slow bandwith I've been getting ever since I first found it years ago)? Or perhaps just edit them to remove the content, either way ... I'd do it myself, but I no longer have the strength nor the interest to force myself to stay up another friggin' half hour just because this site is so slow to respnd to my mouse's clicks and I'm going to bed ... zzzzzZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzz ... Update – Thanks. Dunno what it was about last night, I always seemed to 'time out'. Ah well.

@belfastuniguy: Thanks for clearing that up ... And if you wanna change it, by all means change it, if you want you can write something akin to 'formerly known as belfastuniguy' or something in your siggy. Regarding ID ... have you heard of Pharyngula? Or better yet, 'The Great Desecration'? Google them if you dunno what they are – the whole story is a curious mix of both insane hilarity, and insane ... insanity. (Literally.) But agreed, let's not go off-topic, I just wanted to mention the above ... PS – IF someone could please tell me why this damn site has always been so execrably SLOW for me in loading and refreshing, I'll give them a million dollars and a free cruise in addition. I've been trying to delete the previous double-posts for THRITY MINUTES and the damned page just won't reload, so sorry, but Mods, delete them, will you? Thanks ...

I don't see why some consider you to appear Anti-American, belfastuniguy. Any country has to stand up to criticism, no matter by who, or by what or why. I'm certainly no Anti-American - plan to relocate there myself once I attain a certain age (and monetary sum) - but I can certainly criticize loads of the US' actions and behaviors. Same with any other country on the planet. But you're right as well, it is rather amusing that the 'Land of the Free' is home to this debate more than anywhere else. PS - This is driving me nuts. What does your username mean??? You're a guy from Belfast, perhaps, but the 'uni'? 'One'? Just curious.

Ha lol, I regretted posting that almost the second I pressed the 'Post' button, thought I got a little edgy at times for Mods' tastes ... but what do you want. People who insist in meddling in other people's business are hypocritical morons, and should be called out on it. I'm not playing the devil's henchman, merely exposing BS as what it is. I just think people should mind their own business. Someone does something you don't approve of? Get over it and just walk away. (Unless it's truly devastating or horrible or endangers more than themselves, in which case it's supported to intervene ...) But I'm digressing *again* so I'll stop now, saying ... thanks!

Haven't posted on the Current Events board in quite some time ... and reading threads like this reminds me why. I see this thread is currently divided into three major currents, so I'll tackle each in stride: Abortion: Right or Wrong? / Human: Fetus or Person? / Abortion vs. Adoption. ABORTION: On Abortion: I'm 100% for it. Or, more accurately/specifically, Pro-Choice. Slice it any way you want, in the end, the girl has the right to do what the hell she wants to her own body, especially if it lasts for nine months, and NO-ONE has ANY say in that matter, whether it be government or civillian groups or whatever. The views and thoughts and feelings of people have no stand in deciding or governing the decisions of others, and that's that. Sorry to but it bluntly (well, not really), but anyone who is against abortion, and who specifically tries to convince women not to abort when the woman wishes to, or even worse, tries to outlaw abortion outright, is a total hypocrite. (Even a bit of a self-serving prig, but that's just getting petty of me.) It is NOT your choice. People need to mind their own dang business and stop putting their self-righteous noses in others'. If there's one thing on Earth I simply cannot stand without going berzerk over, it's self-righteousness, but this isn't about me ... People have the right to do what they want to their bodies if they're sane (and adult). When they're children or teens or at any point between birth and legal adulthood (ie. 18 years old), they are under the care and supervision (or even 'mercy') of their parents' rulings and decisions; even if some parents can be totally idiotic or abusive or self-righteous, it's how it is. Until you're an adult, you need supervision, and although some parents may go overboard, it's how it is. (Besides, if parents are too bad, just emancipate yourself when you can ... but I digress.) FETUS: HUMAN, OR PERSON? I'll state this briefly: any form of Homo Sapiens-Sapiens, from conception to death, is 'human'. Human is the species, no matter which stage of development you're in. While I agree with Patricus Maximus in general, I do think that even a blob of cells forming the most primitive of embryos is still technically a human: it's just a very, veeery early-stage Human, but a human nonetheless. Whether or not is has truly 'human' characteristics (body shape, etc.), it has a human's genome and DNA. That alone makes anything what they are, regardless of which developmental stage they're at. But it is not, however, a 'person'. My definition of person (which coincides with most major dictionaries - how surprising ) is pretty much any human that's sentient, who can feel, think, perceive. A fetus isn't capable of feeling emotions (it barely feels physical stimuli as it is, depending on the stage in development), it cannot think (although research has shown they can form primitive memories while in the womb), and most certainly cannot perceive, judge, reason, etc. Therefore, by definition only, it is not a 'person'. That is why it cannot be 'murder' to take a fetus' life, and any excuse of 'taking any life is murder' falls flat right there (which already eliminates about 50% of anyone's excuses against abortion). Murder, by definition, is the 'unlawful ending of a person's life'. The 'unlawful' bit may be debatable depending on your geographical situation and which side of the Abortion fence you're on, but the 'person' cannot, simply through definitions. It is not a person. So it is not 'murder' to end its life. (It is 'killing' of course, but I don't really care about killing anything that can't feel or think. It has as much gravity as stepping on an ant for me. Killing is horrible for humans because of fear, of compassion, etc. If the creature being killed cannot feel fear and/or compassion, then there's nothing 'wrong' with it having its life ended, theoretically.) ABORTION VS. ADOPTION & ENSUING DAMAGES Adoption is most certainly not an 'equally-effective 'alternative'' to abortion, they are totally dissimilar. Abortion is the ending of a pre-person life before birth to end the physical and psychological effects 9 months sooner (the duration of psychological or physical effects of the abortion itself nonwithstanding). Adoption, evidently, requires the poor girl to persevere during the whole nine months (which are nothing short of 'neverending' by any means; it most certainly is more than 'just nine months', that saying is utterly ridiculous and even a fair bit idiotic), fully aware (horribly so) that she's going to suffer through the birthing of a baby she has no intention to keep (which brings up the 'why am I doing this, then?' questions), just to give it away as though it were a prize for someone else or something. Yes, abortion is clearly a better option, for everyone involved. When the pregnancy is terminated before birth, the woman has a certain measure of closure: she knows what happened, very well. She knows the baby is gone, that her ordeal (meaning pregnancy, not the ensuing problems that may or may not arise) is over for now, and she can finally go back to her life (or trying to repair it). In adoption scenarios, the woman will more than likely be consumed with guilt or regrets (biological pressure regarding mother-child relations are undeniably coercive), and will, for many years (if not forever), probably wonder where the child is now, if it's safe and/or happy, or if it's even still alive. That is not closure, and a lack of closure to any situation can only be traumatizing. It's similar to the difference between having a loved one gunned down, or having a loved one be lost at sea and never found or heard from again. Yes, intellectually, you know both cases mean the loved one is dead and gone for good, but the 'gunned-down' scenario means you were there, you know what happened, you saw the end of the person's life. When they're lost at see, you never have closure. You never know, in your heart, what became of them, or if they truly are dead. They could be on a desert island for all you know, just waiting for help à la Chuck Noland (Cast Away. Of course they probably aren't, but it's nonetheless the type of psychological trauma you just don't really need. I have many more things to say about this or related matters but for the sake of not putting any readers to sleep I'll end the abortion discussion there ... Two small points appeared that I'd like to address: 1 - Someone whom I can't remember asked that, if not from religion, then where the heck else do you get morals/ethics/etc. from? Um ... reason? Common sense? Logic? *Thinking straight*? Seriously, people act as though religion was the one good way to be 'good' in life. It's just a bunch of cults, people. Nothing more. Personally, if I were to choose a cult, I'd go with Pastafarian. Besides, I prefer to think for myself, regardless of what a bunch of meaningless laws, or a 2,000-year-old book, tell me to. 2 - Duke said, 'a hot, sexy girl wants you, now. You don't have a condom. Nor does anyone else around. What do you do?' Smart, safe choice would be to say 'no' and walk away, but knowing that's about as likely as a fundamentalist speaking sense, I'd go with simply: doing anything that doesn't include coit. There are many ways to sex without the penetration, you know. Genitals aren't the only sex-related things we can ... er ... 'use' during sex.

First of all, before the actual message, I wish to say that if any Mods or Admins find this solution thread to be unnecessary or otherwise unwanted, feel free to delete it. (I don't really need to say that, do I...?) I originally planned to put this in the "Bugs and Technical Issues" category, but more people come to the General Discussion instead, so this will help more people than otherwise. If you wish, please send it there instead...Now, for the actual solution(s)! Please note that this thread is for most types of CTD's, yet there will always be the odd CTD that isn't fixed by this. I've tested these methods on several PC's, and roughly 80% of them didn't CTD again. (Of course, SC4 is itself full of small glitches, and occasionally you may see your game CTD unexpectedly and without explanation. If it happened just that one time, and never again, then it was just a bug, so just save next time before it could happen again. This solution thread is seperated in 3 sections: the Symptoms, the Cause, and the Solution. Symptoms How to distinguish CTD's from other random bugs and glitches? To recognize a CTD is very simple – it's actually rather difficult not to notice it, or recognize it, when it hits. All the different CTD's are rather similar, yet just for the sake of pointing them out: 1 – The game's fine, then all of a sudden it exits and you see your Desktop. No warnings, no messages, no confirmations; it just disappeared. 2 – The game's fine, then all of a sudden, it seems to freeze momentarily, with audio glitches and bugs, then you see your Desktop – once again, no warnings, to nothing. Finally, if either of the two occured yet you think there's still a slight chance that it may not be the much hated and notorous CTD problem that plagues so many SC4 players, here's what you do to verify it is indeed the old foe. 1 – Enter the "My Documents" folder. (For inexperienced users, the My Documents folder is found either on your Desktop, or in the "My Computer" directory, which is either on the Desktop or in the Start Menu. ("My Documents" is also often found in the Start Menu.) 2 – In "My Documents", head down the following path: "SimCity 4 > Exception Reports". 3 – In this folder, you'll probably find several icons. (There will be few or none of you game works fine and doesn't crash.) There are two types of files in here: basic Text files (".txt") and MDMP (Minidump) files (".mdmp). 4 – To verify that it was indeed a typical case of CTD, check in the TEXT (".txt") files, and try to find the latest one, as the dates are inserted in their names. 5 – When you find the latest file, open it and check at the top of the text. At the end of the second line of text, there should be those soon-to-be-dreaded words: "ACCESS_VIOLATION". If you have that particular exception, "ACCESS_VIOLATION", then we just confirmed you're a sufferer of the usual CTD's that plague us. Cause What the heck's going on? And what the heck is this "Access Violation" you just made me look up? There may be many reasons why SC4 CTD's, yet by far the most common and prominent – roughly 80% of CTD's, in fact – are caused by this particular error: Access Violation. What is "Access_Violation"? Well, I could go into the technical mumbo-jumble... well, actually I couldn't, I don't know all the technical crap. But I do know what it is, what causes it and how to stop the damn thing from ever h