Steve Schacher

quote:In the American war for independence, both the American people and the British troops had muskets, but the fact is that if the Americans did not have the support of the French Navy, the war would have been lost. This is probably true. However, you are describing the time prior to the United States constitutional government. You have to look at the constitutional government defined by the US Constitution to understand the role that individual rights to bear arms plays in the complex tapestry of checks and balances. quote:In the French Revolution, the people managed to overthrow the corrupt monarchy with guns because the monarchy under Louis XVI was disorganized and weak. The victory boosted their morale to the point that they could defeat the Austrian troops that were sent in to stop them. And the American revolution and the constitutional government of laws that followed is what inspired them to their own revolution. quote:If the American government decided to oppress the people, it could do it, whether you have machine guns or not, because they have the SWAT Teams (equipped with tear gas grenades and sniper rifles that can hit targets 500 yards away), the Army (equipped with tanks), the Navy (equipped with missiles), the Air Force (equipped with more missiles and bombs), and the Marine Corps (masters of stealth who can break your neck faster than you can say 'ouch'). If all else fails, they can release Mustard gas bombs from the air to exterminate entire pockets of resistance. If that fails, covert agents could release mosquitos carrying malaria, anthrax, and who knows what else. If that also fails, and the government starts losing the conflict, they'll deploy a few low yield nuclear warheads to finish it. Eventually, the people would lose confidence, if not their lives, and become slaves anyway. As I posted earlier, if this nightmare situation were ever to occur, the country as we know it would be over. First, you would have to have a populace that, for some reason or another, voted into office a madman that would push a conflict to this extreme. Bill Clinton's administration running tanks through the houses in Waco and kicking down Elian Gonzalez's door was bad enough. I would hope that our military would revolt before following orders to nuke our own citizens. quote:I don't know about you, but I prefer to trust the government not to oppress me (to a certain point) instead of starting a futile arms race with them. If you don't trust governments, leave the country and join an Anarchist community Then you haven't been reading all the history and philosophy that is out there. Our government was designed the way it is precisely because people in power cannot be trusted. Guns, whether we like it or not, provide the last possible defense. Read the writings of Thomas Paine and the Federalist Papers to understand the debate more fully. Again: Thomas Paine's Common Sense, Feb 1776 The Federalist Papers, 1788 Thomas Paine's The Rights Of Man, 1792, about the French Revolution Jaguar: quote:The French hardly gave any help during the American revolution, yes, we had a treaty, and yes, they helped somewhat, but not nearly as much as you are giving credit for. I think you're wrong here. The French, and La Fayette, were very responsible for our win. It wouldn't have happened without them. quote:The American militia had rifles, not muskets I'm not sure about this one either. Rifles weren't invented until the Civil War. The difference here is that the barrels were "rifled" with a spiral groove that caused the shot to rotate as it flew, causing the shot to travel straighter. The machinery wasn't around in the 1770's to manufacture this. Otherwise, I have no quarrel with your other comments. I strongly urge everyone to read Thomas Paine. Common Sense was written before the Declaration of Independence, and it was Paine's plea to the budding nation that the time is now to declare independence. He even humbly tells the future declaration committe how to write the declaration. The Rights Of Man was written shortly after the French Revolution to rebut a book by an English Parliamantarian who tried to defend the English form of government by discrediting the French Revolution. Paine counters every argument by describing how governments form and how they can only exist by the will of the people. He says that governments can only exist as an extension of individual rights of man. One should read Paine in chronological order, as The Rights Of Man builds on concepts first introduced in Common Sense. Even though he wrote in the late 1700's, it is very easy to read today. That is why he was such a milestone writer for his time -- he was able to write deep social philosophy in a way that the average 18th century farmer would understand. [ 05-01-2001: Message edited by: Steve Schacher ]

What made you go for the Plexwriter? Did you consider the Yamaha CRW 2100EZ?

Does anyone have any opinions on the Plextor Plexwriter 16/10/40A (lowest price $198) vs. the Yamaha CRW 2100EZ (lowest price $185)? After my last scare, this will be my next purchase.

quote:I think I can translate that comment with one of my fave song's lyrics: How about The Beatles: Happiness is a warm gun. Bang Bang Shoot Shoot When I hold you in my arms And I feel my finger 'round your trigger Then I know that nobody can do me no harm because Hapiness is a warm gun Bang Bang Shoot Shoot

I've also been interested in a new PC, and also looked at tomshardware, and am also leaning towards AMD. Did you look at www.micronpc.com? They also allow you to custom select AMD pc's.

JoeyGuppy, The difference is that you weren't secure in your home -- you were out on the streets. People have an expectation of being safe in their homes, and a right to protect their homes.

quote:If a robber enters your home with a gun, there is a good chance that he or she will not shoot you The problem with this argument is that it puts all control of the situation in the hands of the robber who has already shown no regard for the law. I don't own a gun, but this does not seem like a desirable situation.

quote:If you want an example of a bad election, think about this. The majority of Americans voted for Al Gore. Bush won the election instead. Maybe HE should be overthrown. Our electoral system is based on the Constitutional recognition that the people are represented by the States. Therefore, it is the states that have votes, not the people. Bush won the electoral college, made up of electors from each state, therefore he won the election. Let's not go down this path... please... quote:Ralph Nader wasn't even allowed to enter the debates, and he was the top third party candidate! This effectively meant that Americans only had two choices, and their choice didn't win! LOL. Interestingly, the Democrats and Republicans conspired to wrest the control of debates away from the League of Women Voters by creating the Bipartisan Committee for Presidential Debates. Gore cited this committee as the "traditional" reason for his ducking one-on-one meetings with Bush on NBC's Meet The Press, yet this committee wasn't formed until 1986 or so, as an attempt by the two parties to keep out third party candidates. quote:If you want to label me, call me a Socialist Personally, I don't want to label you. The only label that counts around here is BCM Beta Tester. We just like to pass the time between patches with interesting current events dialogs. So, whatever your opinions, political leanings, social leanings, or whatever, as long as it is kept civil and respectful, and not taken too personally (the CAT team will step in if it gets out of hand), and as long as you like intellectual debates with willing counterparts, you can call yourself whatever you want as long as, at the end of the day, you still feel your debate opponent is your colleague in the Battlecruiser community.

I'm not saying it's a left-right conspiracy, but rather that nature abhors a vacuum. The right wing fled to radio because the left wing owned television. The left wing is now expanding its consolidation to radio. To say that CBS is slightly left is to say that Clinton is slightly Democratic. Fox is a bit of an anomoly. It is the only television outlet that explores the conservative viewpoint in depth -- the others only pay it lip service. Yet the Fox News Channel is the fastest growing channel and is now beating CNN. People have come to learn the spin game and know bovine excrement when they see it. They are now turning to Fox for their news, and CNN is taking notice. Also, the current Republican administration is making Fox their preferred channel, which has to annoy the "elites." And yet, Rupert Murdoch also owns the Fox network which has very low-brow entertainment. Rumors are that he is also eying UPN, which is even lower than Fox (except for Voyager). Murdoch also own the New York Post, which is a somewhat tabloid newspaper in New York City except for its conservative editorial board. But to get back to my point, as soon as News began to be treated as a commodity, the first amendment check against an overbearing government went out the window. News gathering capabilities were cut due to corporate bottom line objectives. Reporters stopped digging for unfavorable stories because they didn't want to get banned from lavish White House dinners. Networks didn't report news because it would adversely affect the parent company's parent company's lobbying efforts. For an excellent chronicle of network news bias, check out the Media Research Center.

quote:The deregulation started in the 80's but didn't really have too much efect untill Clinton passed some laws allowing more ownership of radio and TV stations. I think the broadcast industry is a special case because it is the only private occupation specifically mentioned in the Constitution (free press). With that in mind, Clinton knew very well what he was doing. As I'm sure you know, the television market (where most people get their news) is dominated by the left. This forced the right to move to radio, where people like Rush Limbaugh and Laura Schlessinger flourish. In order for a cabal of leftist media moguls to dominate the airwaves, the laws limiting ownership in competing markets had to be abolished. We are now seeing the effects in conglomerations like AOL-Time-Warner-CNN and ABC-Disney-ESPN. In radio, you have national networks gobbling up local stations and sending national feeds with no local flavor. The media are no longer acting as agents of the people, responsible for watching over the government (as was intended by their special reference in the first amendment). With Clinton's love of everything Hollywood, and Hollywood's love of adoration by Clinton, they are being transformed into a propagandist arm for the left. In order to do this, ownership has to be centralized. In order to do that, deregulation has to occur. [ 04-27-2001: Message edited by: Steve Schacher ]

RE: Rights I'm in the middle of reading a fascinating treatise that I'm sure many have heard of and few have read. Follow the link below: The Rights Of Man, by Thomas Paine, 1792. An excerpt: quote:Hitherto we have spoken only (and that but in part) of the natural rights of man. We have now to consider the civil rights of man, and to show how the one originates from the other. Man did not enter into society to become worse than he was before, nor to have fewer rights than he had before, but to have those rights better secured. His natural rights are the foundation of all his civil rights. But in order to pursue this distinction with more precision, it will be necessary to mark the different qualities of natural and civil rights. A few words will explain this. Natural rights are those which appertain to man in right of his existence. Of this kind are all the intellectual rights, or rights of the mind, and also all those rights of acting as an individual for his own comfort and happiness, which are not injurious to the natural rights of others. Civil rights are those which appertain to man in right of his being a member of society. Every civil right has for its foundation some natural right pre-existing in the individual, but to the enjoyment of which his individual power is not, in all cases, sufficiently competent. Of this kind are all those which relate to security and protection. From this short review it will be easy to distinguish between that class of natural rights which man retains after entering into society and those which he throws into the common stock as a member of society. The natural rights which he retains are all those in which the Power to execute is as perfect in the individual as the right itself. Among this class, as is before mentioned, are all the intellectual rights, or rights of the mind; consequently religion is one of those rights. The natural rights which are not retained, are all those in which, though the right is perfect in the individual, the power to execute them is defective. They answer not his purpose. A man, by natural right, has a right to judge in his own cause; and so far as the right of the mind is concerned, he never surrenders it. But what availeth it him to judge, if he has not power to redress? He therefore deposits this right in the common stock of society, and takes the ann of society, of which he is a part, in preference and in addition to his own. Society grants him nothing. Every man is a proprietor in society, and draws on the capital as a matter of right. From these premisses two or three certain conclusions will follow: First, That every civil right grows out of a natural right; or, in other words, is a natural right exchanged. Secondly, That civil power properly considered as such is made up of the aggregate of that class of the natural rights of man, which becomes defective in the individual in point of power, and answers not his purpose, but when collected to a focus becomes competent to the Purpose of every one. Thirdly, That the power produced from the aggregate of natural rights, imperfect in power in the individual, cannot be applied to invade the natural rights which are retained in the individual, and in which the power to execute is as perfect as the right itself. We have now, in a few words, traced man from a natural individual to a member of society, and shown, or endeavoured to show, the quality of the natural rights retained, and of those which are exchanged for civil rights. Paine then goes on to apply these concepts to governments. [ 04-27-2001: Message edited by: Steve Schacher ]

quote:Right now in the States is a movement whose main thought is that less government is better. That may be true. Unfortunatley the definition of what part of the bueracray is not neccesary varies as you go not only from race to race but from one economic level to another. I think that the issue is not so much one of wanting less government, but rather, of wanting a smaller federal government where many of its responsibilities are pushed back to the states. quote:While this is happening the services the government offers is going to deteriorate now due the lower tax base Perhaps, but my wish is that with a smaller federal government, our taxes will stay in our municipalities to be used locally. Currently, most of it goes to Washington where it is either 1) wasted, 2) sent overseas where it is wasted, 3) sent back to the states as block grants with strings attached, only allowing the states to have it if they conform to federal "regulations." We should only have to send enough money to Washington for it to be able to provide for the common defense, ensure interstate commerce, and to administer to itself. The powers of the federal government are limited and laid out in the Constitution. The tenth amendment says that anything not expressly granted to the federal government belongs to the states and the people.

Why not go straight to the source and include a Founding Father in the debate. In The Federalist #8, Alexander Hamilton states the fear of having a standing army. quote:The institutions chiefly alluded to are STANDING ARMIES and the correspondent appendages of military establishments. Standing armies, it is said, are not provided against in the new Constitution; and it is therefore inferred that they may exist under it. Their existence, however, from the very terms of the proposition, is, at most, problematical and uncertain. But standing armies, it may be replied, must inevitably result from a dissolution of the Confederacy. Frequent war and constant apprehension, which require a state of as constant preparation, will infallibly produce them. The weaker States or confederacies would first have recourse to them, to put themselves upon an equality with their more potent neighbors. They would endeavor to supply the inferiority of population and resources by a more regular and effective system of defense, by disciplined troops, and by fortifications. They would, at the same time, be necessitated to strengthen the executive arm of government, in doing which their constitutions would acquire a progressive direction toward monarchy. It is of the nature of war to increase the executive at the expense of the legislative authority. The expedients which have been mentioned would soon give the States or confederacies that made use of them a superiority over their neighbors. Small states, or states of less natural strength, under vigorous governments, and with the assistance of disciplined armies, have often triumphed over large states, or states of greater natural strength, which have been destitute of these advantages. Neither the pride nor the safety of the more important States or confederacies would permit them long to submit to this mortifying and adventitious superiority. They would quickly resort to means similar to those by which it had been effected, to reinstate themselves in their lost pre-eminence. Thus, we should, in a little time, see established in every part of this country the same engines of despotism which have been the scourge of the Old World. This, at least, would be the natural course of things; and our reasonings will be the more likely to be just, in proportion as they are accommodated to this standard. A militia of the people, or Posse Comitatus would be a counter-balance to a standing army. In The Federalist #29, Hamilton states the need for a militia to be regulated by the States, not the Federal government: quote:THE power of regulating the militia, and of commanding its services in times of insurrection and invasion are natural incidents to the duties of superintending the common defense, and of watching over the internal peace of the Confederacy. It requires no skill in the science of war to discern that uniformity in the organization and discipline of the militia would be attended with the most beneficial effects, whenever they were called into service for the public defense. It would enable them to discharge the duties of the camp and of the field with mutual intelligence and concert; an advantage of peculiar moment in the operations of an army; and it would fit them much sooner to acquire the degree of proficiency in military functions which would be essential to their usefulness. This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority. It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, RESERVING TO THE STATES RESPECTIVELY THE APPOINTMENT OF THE OFFICERS, AND THE AUTHORITY OF TRAINING THE MILITIA ACCORDING TO THE DISCIPLINE PRESCRIBED BY CONGRESS." Hamilton then argues that the formation of the militia by itself should be enough to prevent a standing army from forming. quote:Of the different grounds which have been taken in opposition to the plan of the convention, there is none that was so little to have been expected, or is so untenable in itself, as the one from which this particular provision has been attacked. If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security. If standing armies are dangerous to liberty, an efficacious power over the militia, in the body to whose care the protection of the State is committed, ought, as far as possible, to take away the inducement and the pretext to such unfriendly institutions. If the federal government can command the aid of the militia in those emergencies which call for the military arm in support of the civil magistrate, it can the better dispense with the employment of a different kind of force. If it cannot avail itself of the former, it will be obliged to recur to the latter. To render an army unnecessary, will be a more certain method of preventing its existence than a thousand prohibitions upon paper. Hamilton now argues that it is impractical to expect a militia to act as a standing army. quote:``The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year. Hamilton then reasons that if there should be a need for a standing army, there should at least also be a disciplined militia to offset the power of the army. quote:"But though the scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be abandoned as mischievous or impracticable; yet it is a matter of the utmost importance that a well-digested plan should, as soon as possible, be adopted for the proper establishment of the militia. The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate extent, upon such principles as will really fit them for service in case of need. By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist." Finally, Hamilton supposes that a militia under the control of the States would resist the temptation of a Federal authority using it for it's own purposes. quote:There is something so far-fetched and so extravagant in the idea of danger to liberty from the militia, that one is at a loss whether to treat it with gravity or with raillery; whether to consider it as a mere trial of skill, like the paradoxes of rhetoricians; as a disingenuous artifice to instil prejudices at any price; or as the serious offspring of political fanaticism. Where in the name of common-sense, are our fears to end if we may not trust our sons, our brothers, our neighbors, our fellow-citizens? What shadow of danger can there be from men who are daily mingling with the rest of their countrymen and who participate with them in the same feelings, sentiments, habits and interests? What reasonable cause of apprehension can be inferred from a power in the Union to prescribe regulations for the militia, and to command its services when necessary, while the particular States are to have the SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE APPOINTMENT OF THE OFFICERS? If it were possible seriously to indulge a jealousy of the militia upon any conceivable establishment under the federal government, the circumstance of the officers being in the appointment of the States ought at once to extinguish it. There can be no doubt that this circumstance will always secure to them a preponderating influence over the militia. A sample of this is to be observed in the exaggerated and improbable suggestions which have taken place respecting the power of calling for the services of the militia. That of New Hampshire is to be marched to Georgia, of Georgia to New Hampshire, of New York to Kentucky, and of Kentucky to Lake Champlain. Nay, the debts due to the French and Dutch are to be paid in militiamen instead of louis d'ors and ducats. At one moment there is to be a large army to lay prostrate the liberties of the people; at another moment the militia of Virginia are to be dragged from their homes five or six hundred miles, to tame the republican contumacy of Massachusetts; and that of Massachusetts is to be transported an equal distance to subdue the refractory haughtiness of the aristocratic Virginians. Do the persons who rave at this rate imagine that their art or their eloquence can impose any conceits or absurdities upon the people of America for infallible truths? If there should be an army to be made use of as the engine of despotism, what need of the militia? If there should be no army, whither would the militia, irritated by being called upon to undertake a distant and hopeless expedition, for the purpose of riveting the chains of slavery upon a part of their countrymen, direct their course, but to the seat of the tyrants, who had meditated so foolish as well as so wicked a project, to crush them in their imagined intrenchments of power, and to make them an example of the just vengeance of an abused and incensed people? Is this the way in which usurpers stride to dominion over a numerous and enlightened nation? Do they begin by exciting the detestation of the very instruments of their intended usurpations? Do they usually commence their career by wanton and disgustful acts of power, calculated to answer no end, but to draw upon themselves universal hatred and execration? Are suppositions of this sort the sober admonitions of discerning patriots to a discerning people? Or are they the inflammatory ravings of incendiaries or distempered enthusiasts? If we were even to suppose the national rulers actuated by the most ungovernable ambition, it is impossible to believe that they would employ such preposterous means to accomplish their designs. Here is a link to the entire set of Federalist Papers. Even though these were written in 1788, the principles still hold true today. [ 04-27-2001: Message edited by: Steve Schacher ]

quote:Prohibition comes to mind More to the point is Kent State. quote:You really think a bunch of gun totting dissidents can stand up to a military? On an individual basis, no. You just have to look at Waco, Ruby Ridge, and Elian to see that. In the first two, the presence of guns was the justification for the government action. In the third case, the "fear" of presence of guns was cited. In all cases, one can debate whether the government violated people's fourth amendment protections while people were exercising their second amendment protections. But the second amendment protection against an overbearing government was meant to be on an overwhelming scale (then and now). An entire populace has to rise up to throw out an illegal government. If that government then tries to use modern military weaponry of mass destruction to subjugate the populace, this country would effectively be over as we know it.

quote:My posts are particularly emotional because I'm angry at a society that recites the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness with pride while at the same time supports an economic system that forces people to compete for the goods and services required to sustain life. I'm angry, too, but I believe the problem here is that we Americans are overtaxed by our Federal government that has grown beyond what the Constitution intended it to be (see the Taxes thread). If our government didn't drain away 50% of a person's earnings, there would be more money for them to acquire the basic necessities of life. I'm not saying that this is the solution, but I do believe that it can be a mitigating factor for many people.

Well, I'm pleased to announce that my computer is safe and sound at home again. Gateway installed a Voodoo3 3000G AGP, which they say was released about 6 months after the V3 3000. Otherwise, everything is running as was, and our data is still intact. I will be jumping over the to the CDR topic to pursue backup options. Now if I can just figure out what my scanner is doing...

An interesting column by Michael Kelly: Unrest In Quebec [ 04-25-2001: Message edited by: Steve Schacher ]

They probably didn't want to be seen as too passive the way that Seattle was.

quote:The American spindoctors worked overtime on the spyplane issue when they said that it was over international waters. That may have been true, but consider this. The American plane was not spying, it was on reconnaissance. It was not over sovereign territory, it was over international waters. quote:The Chinese were not demanding an apology for the invasion of Chinese waters, they demanded an apology for the invasion of Chinese AIRSPACE. The Chinese were finally demanding an apology for the unauthorized landing on their island. However, international mayday treaties allow for emergency landings without permission. quote:The Chinese pilot that was killed in the accident was trying to force the spyplane to leave the area without firing on it. Considering that the Chinese military had every right to use lethal force against an intruding military aircraft, that pilot showed commendable restraint. The Chinese pilot was trying to down the plane by stealing its airflow. The pilot tried to get close to the left wing in order to disrupt the airflow over it, thereby causing a stall (the Bernouli effect). The left wing of the American plane stalled, causing it to dip which caused the plane to veer into the Chinese plane which was too close. The Chinese pilot, in effect, committed suicide. quote:think back to the recent incident in the Middle East where an American F/A-18 Hornet dropped live bombs that completely missed the test site and killed thirty observers. That accident was caused by the controllers themselves. They gave the pilot the wrong coordinates. By the time they realized their mistake and called for an abort, it was too late. The American pilot had already released his bombs. quote:I have no doubt that if a Chinese spyplane was in American airspace, it would have been shot down without hesitation. I have no doubt that if a Chinese spyplane was in American airspace, it would have been immediately escorted out.

I got a call over the weekend from Gateway telling me that the problem is my video card (I had a Voodoo3 3000 AGP). They said it had a history of running hot. They are replacing it with a version with TV/OUT. That was all the guy was able to tell me about the card at the time. I'm not sure which Voodoo that one is. He said it should be delivered to them in a few days. I guess we'll see, in a few days, if that was really the problem.

Thanks, Tyrn. I figured that if the hard drive crashed, the screen would still remain intact until the opsys tried to access it again and then, maybe, it would go to the blue screen. The fact that it went black (and to be more specific, it stopped receiving a signal rather than receiving a black screen signal) led me to believe it was some firmware and not the HD. My wife will be pleased at this, although she won't be happy about losing internet/email access for two weeks. I'm going to Gateway today after work to get the repair process started. Thanks, everyone!!!

quote:Might be something that just got borked. Oooohhh... I'll save that one for another time.

Your replies all sound encouraging (from a data recovery standpoint). Here is exactly what happens: 1. I turn on the power. 2. The monitor indicator flashes on and off. 3. The HD light goes on. 4. The CD light flickers once or twice. 5. After about 30 seconds the HD light goes off. Nothing more after that. No sounds of any kind. Now that you mention it, I don't hear the fan going. What usually happens is this: 1. Turn on the PC. 2. The monitor light goes on steadily. 3. The Gateway logo screen comes up while a status bar grows along the upper left. (if I press F1 at this point, I go into BIOS setup) 4. The CD light goes on and off. 5. The floppy drive accesses. 6. The HD accesses. 7. The internal speaker beeps and the screen changes to the disk controller status. (if I press F8 or CTRL at this point, I go into the boot menu). 8. The Windows logo screen comes up with the status indicator on the bottom crawling from left to right. 9. The Windows login popup appears. Let's hope that it is a CPU/Motherboard problem.

Yesterday my PC stopped working. My wife was on it at the time. She says that while she was working in Excel the screen suddenly went black. The light on the monitor started blinking, so this leads me to believe that it stopped receiving a signal from the computer. When she turned off the computer (at the switch because ctrl-alt-del didn't work) and restarted it, it briefly accessed the HD and then did nothing. I was on the phone with Gateway support but they had me go through all the things that I had already tried before calling them: 1. Reboot 2. Reboot pressing F8 to get to boot menu 3. Reboot pressing F1 to get to bios 4. Reboot pressing both shift keys (some sort of back door -- I didn't try this one) 5. Reboot with Win98 disk 6. Reboot with Gateway System Disk 7. Reboot with emergency restore floppy disk In all cases, the PC didn't respond. It usually accesses all the disks searching for where to boot from, but it did none of this. I plan on bringing my PC to a Gateway store technical service dept since I am still under warranty, but my wife is afraid that the HD may be lost. I'm not so sure about that yet -- I'm hoping that it is a firmware problem and that the HD is recoverable. If they tell me that they have to reformat the HD, I'll probably tell them to put a new one in and I will try sending the old one to an HD recovery service. Any comments on my situation?

quote:The reason why we have elected officals is because way back when the country started, there was no reliable, nation-wide communication system. There-for it was decided that there would be representives from all the major 13 colonies that would meet on a regular basis to conduct the 'business' of the 'people'. This eventually became the US Federal Government. There was no "eventually" about it. The Founding Fathers set out to develop exactly the representative form of government that we have. The US Constitution describes both the Federal government and the States. This was intended to be a limited powers government. The States were supreme as far as individual rights and affairs were concerned; the Federal government was only supposed to address the common defense and inter-state commerce. Since WWII, the Federal government has used the Interstate Commerce clause as justification for everything that it has done to expand its powers. But the true intent of the Constitution was that any power not expressly granted to the Federal government in the Constitution belonged to the States. quote:Since the 'government' was essentially broke when the War of Independence started, they needed a reliable source of monies for weapons and ammunition, salaries and wages, food, clothing, and other such requirements for the troops that were needed to defend against the English war-machine. These monies came from the business communities that wanted to insure thier PROFITS. You can imagine the consessions that were demanded by these business persons in exchange for monies loaned to the 'government'. There was no central "government" when the War for Independence started. Each colony was its own government. As for money for weapons and ammunition, don't try to apply today's standards of warfare to wars 250 years ago. Our soldiers were farmers, their weapons were their own muskets and they made their own shot. They developed guerilla tactics in order to defeat the more disciplined British army. The kind of central planning among the colonies that would be the basis for a desire to profit from the war didn't exist yet. In fact, the major business centers of Boston and New York were the first to fall to British hands. Some interesting historical reading: The US Constitution and the Federalist Papers: http://www.law.emory.edu/FEDERAL/ Common Sense by Thomas Paine (the document that started the quest for independence (it predated the Declaration of Independence by 5 months) - excellent reading even today): http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/m...sense/text.html