Tuesday, November 11, 2008

New Game : Fallout 3

Finally it released... FALLOUT 3... almost a decade 7 years of waiting....
Fallout 3 Boxshot

as gamespot said....

The Bad

  • The story and characters can feel a bit sterile
  • Combat feels mildly clunky

The Good

  • Freedom to explore what you want, when you want
  • Fantastic, intricate quests can be completed in a variety of satisfying ways
  • VATS combat system results in all sorts of tense and gruesome encounters
  • Outstanding art design makes for a desolate DC
  • Rewarding mixture of excitement and atmospheric exploration.
A lot of games make a big deal out of player choice, but few in recent memory offer so many intricate, meaningful ways of approaching any given situation. You fulfill or dash the spiritual hopes of an idyllic society, side with slavers or their slaves, and decide the fate of more than one city over the course of your postapocalyptic journey through the Washington, DC wasteland. Your actions have far-reaching consequences that affect not just the world around you but also the way you play, and it's this freedom that makes Fallout 3 worth playing--and replaying. It's deep and mesmerizing, and though not as staggeringly broad as the developer's previous games, it's more focused and vividly realized.

This focus is obvious from the first hour of the game, in which character creation and story exposition are beautifully woven together. It's an introduction best experienced on your own rather than described in detail here, but it does set up Fallout 3's framework: It's the year 2277, and you and your father are residents of Vault 101, one of many such constructs that shelter the earth's population from the dangers of postnuclear destruction. When dad escapes the vault without so much as a goodbye, you go off in search of him, only to find yourself snagged in a political and scientific tug of war that lets you change the course of the future. As you make your way through the decaying remnants of the District and its surrounding areas (you'll visit Arlington, Chevy Chase, and other suburban locales), you encounter passive-aggressive ghouls, a bumbling scientist, and an old Fallout friend named Harold who has, well, a lot on his mind. Another highlight is a diminutive collective of Lord of the Flies-esque refugees who reluctantly welcome you into their society, assuming that you play your cards right.

The city is also one of Fallout 3's stars. It's a somber world out there, in which a crumbling Washington Monument stands watch over murky green puddles and lurching beasts called mirelurks. You'll discover new quests and characters while exploring, of course, but traversing the city is rewarding on its own, whether you decide to explore the back rooms of a cola factory or approach the heavily guarded steps of the Capitol building. In fact, though occasional silly asides and amusing dialogue provide some humorous respite, it's more serious than previous Fallout games. It even occasionally feels a bit stiff and sterile, thus diminishing the sense of emotional connection that would give some late-game decisions more poignancy. Additionally, the franchise's black humor is present but not nearly as prevalent, though Fallout 3 is still keenly aware of its roots. The haughty pseudogovernment called the Enclave and the freedom fighters known as the Brotherhood of Steel are still powerful forces, and the main story centers around concepts and objectives that Fallout purists will be familiar with.

Although some of that trademark Bethesda brittleness hangs in the air, the mature dialogue (it's a bit unnerving but wholly authentic the first time you hear 8-year-olds muttering expletives) and pockets of backstory make for a compelling trek. There are more tidbits than you could possibly discover on a single play-through. For example, a skill perk (more on these later) will enable you to extract information from a lady of the evening, information that in turn sheds new light on a few characters--and lets you complete a story quest in an unexpected way. A mission to find a self-realized android may initiate a fascinating look at a futuristic Underground Railroad, but a little side gossiping might let you lie your way to quest completion. There aren't as many quests as you may expect, but their complexity can be astonishing. Just be sure to explore them fully before pushing the story forward: Once it ends, the game is over, which means that you'll need to revert to an earlier saved game if you intend to explore once you finish the main quest.

Thus choices are ruled only by your own sense of propriety and the impending results. For every "bad" decision you make (break into someone's room, sacrifice a soldier to save your own hide), your karma goes down; if you do something "good" (find a home for an orphan, give water to a beggar), your karma goes up. These situations trigger more consequences: Dialogue choices open up, others close off, and your reputation will delight some while antagonizing others. For example, a mutant with a heart of gold will join you as a party member, but only if your karma is high enough, whereas a brigand requires you to be on the heartless side. Even in the last moments of the game, you are making important choices that will be recounted to you during the ending scene, similar to the endings in the previous Fallout games. There are loads of different ending sequences depending on how you completed various quests, and the way they are patched together into a cohesive epilogue is pretty clever.

Fallout 3 remains true to the series’ character development system, using a similar system of attributes, skills, and perks, including the S.P.E.C.I.A.L. system from previous games for your attributes, such as strength, perception, and endurance. From there, you can specialize in a number of skills, from heavy weapons and lock-picking to item repairing and terminal hacking. You will further invest in these skills each time you level, and you'll also choose an additional perk. Perks offer a number of varied enhancements that can be both incredibly helpful and a bit creepy. You could go for the ladykiller perk, which opens up dialogue options with some women and makes others easier to slay. Or the cannibal perk, which lets you feed off of fallen enemies to regain health at the risk of grossing out anyone who glimpses this particularly nasty habit. Not all of them are so dramatic, but they're important aspects of character development that can create fascinating new options.

Although you can play from an odd-looking third-person perspective (your avatar looks like he or she is skating over the terrain), Fallout 3 is best played from a first-person view. Where combat is concerned, you will play much of the game as if it is a first-person shooter, though awkwardly slow movement and camera speeds mean that you'll never confuse it for a true FPS. Armed with any number of ranged and melee weapons, you can bash and shoot attacking dogs and random raiders in a traditional manner. Yet even with its slight clunkiness, combat is satisfying. Shotguns (including the awesome sawed-off variant) have a lot of oomph, plasma rifles leave behind a nice pile of goo, and hammering a mutant's head with the giant and cumbersome supersledge feels momentously brutal. Just be prepared to maintain these implements of death: Weapons and armor will gradually lose effectiveness and need repairing. You can take them to a specialist for fixing, but you can also repair them yourself, as long as you have another of the same item. It's heartbreaking to break a favored weapon while fending off supermutants, but it reinforces the notion that everything you do in Fallout 3, even shooting your laser pistol, has consequences.

These aspects keep Fallout 3 from being a run-and-gun affair, and you shouldn't expect to play it as one. This is because the most satisfying and gory moments of battle are products of the Vault-Tec Assisted Targeting System, or VATS. This system is a throwback to the action-point system of previous Fallout games, in that it lets you pause the action, spend action points by targeting a specific limb on your enemy, and watch the bloody results unfold in slow motion. You aren't guaranteed a hit, though you can see how likely you are to strike any given limb and how much damage your attack might do. But landing a hit in VATS is immensely gratifying: The camera swoops in for a dramatic view, your bullet will zoom toward its target, and your foe's head might burst in a shocking explosion of blood and brains. Or perhaps you will blow his limb completely off, sending an arm flying into the distance--or launch his entire body into oblivion\

read more here at gamespot..


Saturday, November 8, 2008

run for title race..

bit worried abot tonight tough game against Manch Utd... seems like that theres no end trouble for arsenal.. after embarasing 2-1 defeat against stoke city we looked so vulnerable .. plus about this media nonsense fabregas leaving to barcelona next sesason TT_TT.... what the... i cant wait for tonight game....

from official arsenal fc website

At the end of Arsène Wenger’s press conference on Friday, the Arsenal manager was asked outright if he was ‘in denial’ of the difficulties his side were facing right now.This was his response.“Listen,” he said. “Last year Man United won the title with 87 points, we got 83. That’s four points in 38 games. After what we have gone through from March to May, I don't think we can say there is a massive difference. “At the end of last season, everyone was critical but we were unlucky to be knocked out of the Champions League and we were unlucky in the Premier League. It was a good season, if not a satisfying season, because we want to win the title.“But I didn't come to the conclusion that there was a world of difference between Man United and Arsenal.”His team need to demonstrate exactly that at Emirates Stadium on Saturday.Sir Alex Ferguson’s side are only one place and point ahead of Arsenal in the Premier League but the perception of the two teams contrasts wildly right now. While the Manchester United machine has been consistent and focused, Arsenal’s engine has spluttered as much as it has purred.This has come to a head for Wenger’s men in the past 10 days with an acutely disappointing draw with Tottenham, a painful defeat at Stoke and miserly point with Fenerbahce. That is why Saturday’s game is perhaps a pivot in Arsenal’s season. A win could leave them three points off top spot, a defeat would probably see them nine points adrift. “The morale is of course down when we don't win,” said Wenger. “One week ago on Wednesday night we played very well against Tottenham and we didn't win. But it doesn't take away the fact that we played in a very convincing way. Afterwards at Stoke we had a lot of possession but we were not really sharp and I believe it was a hangover [from the Spurs game]. “Against Fenerbahce we dominated and had 70 per cent of possession but we didn't score. If we had scored and forced them to come out we could have scored plenty of goals. “That’s why we have to keep winning, learn from what has happened to us and continue to believe in our strengths.“But now we want to focus on Man United because it is a fantastic opportunity to show how strong we are when everyone is doubting us.”Speaking of doubts, Manuel Almunia (sickness) Bacary Sagna (ankle), Theo Walcott (shoulder), Mikael Silvestre (broken nose) and William Gallas (hamstring) all fall in that category for this game.Emmanuel Adebayor (ankle), Emmanuel Eboue (knee), Robin van Persie (suspended), Tomas Rosicky (hamstring) and Eduardo (broken leg) are definitely out.Because of all that, it is impossible to predict Wenger’s side on Saturday. Because of their relative inconsistency this season, it is also impossible to predict the performance the Arsenal XI will put in.However, a victory any which way would be a huge boost, as much to the media and the fans than the Club itself.“We respect [people’s views] and we respect the press as well,“ he said. “They have opinions. But to achieve things you need to believe in your strengths and these people believe we are weak. That doesn't help us. “The level of expectation is so high and because of that the pressure is very high. “So we have to rise above that and be guided more by what we want to achieve and how we want to play football rather than by people who want immediate perfection.”That however is not necessary on Saturday. Three entirely imperfect points will do just fine.

lets do the best... go gunner ... In ARSENE ,WE TRUST!!!!

Thursday, November 6, 2008

New U.S President.. ,why are we INDONESIAN made such fuzz

yesterday all indonesian tv channel... filled wih report about Obama's celebration.. after became 44th US president... they talk about this about that..... obama this obama that... the even called him "Anak Menteng itu akhirnya jadi presiden!", why the media made such fuzz about obama... i just dont get it ,yes he have lived in indonesia once... AT THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL AGE!!!!!
so what... like he's still remember that old days.... (i dont even remember mine...),and i doubt that his future policy will affect or related with indonesia..... (why bother...???)

now its over... lets see if he can prove what he said earlier.... this guy definitely has something to attract so many attention thorough the globe..

mistry...,charming....,charismatic...,and a smooth talker person... (reminds me of one GOD's angel on the bible) (-_-'')a...

lets see if he's an angel or a devil it self..... time will telll time will telll...

congrats... and do the best Mr.president!!!

PROFILE:
Barack Hussein Obama

politician; lawyer

Personal Information

Born on August 4, 1961, in Honolulu, HI; son of Barack Obama, a Kenyan government economist; raised by mother, a Kansas native; lived with mother in Indonesia as child; raised as teenager in Honolulu by maternal grandparents; married Michelle; children: Malia Ann and Natasha
Education: Columbia University, 1983; Harvard Law School, law degree, magna cum laude, 1991.
Religion: United Church of Christ.

Career

Community organizer, Chicago, 1983-86; civil rights attorney, Chicago, 1991-96; University of Chicago, lecturer, early 1990s-2004; Illinois State Senator, 1996-2005; U.S. Senator, 2005-.

Life's Work

Elected to represent Illinois in the United States Senate in November of 2004, Barack Obama had already become the subject of speculation as to his future on the national political stage. The speculation had grown exponentially in August of that year, when Obama delivered an electrifying keynote address at the Democratic National Convention in Boston. In that speech, Obama used the language of patriotism to frame an appeal to Americans to transcend their divisions. "There's not a black America and white America and Latino America and Asian America; there's the United States of America."

Indeed, Barack Obama's story resonated with the durable narrative of the American melting pot. "Barack is the American dream," Democratic National Committee chairman Terry McAuliffe told Ebony. Obama himself in his convention speech said that "in no other country on earth is my story even possible." Obama was born on August 4, 1961, in Honolulu, Hawaii. He was named after his father Barack, a Kenyan exchange student; the name is an African one and means "blessing" in his father's native Swahili. Obama's mother Ann was a white American born in Kansas who had moved to Honolulu with her parents.

Obama's family unit dissolved when he was two, as his father won a scholarship to Harvard that wasn't large enough to support the whole family and went to Massachusetts alone. After finishing his degree, the elder Obama went home to Kenya and took a job as an economic planner for the country's government. He continued to write letters to his son, and visited him once when he was ten, but his marriage to Obama's mother ended. She married an Indonesian oil company executive, and Obama lived in Indonesia between the ages of six and ten. His half-sister Maya Soetoro-Ng was born in Indonesia and later moved to Honolulu.

Conflicted Identities in Honolulu

Sent back to Hawaii to live with his mother's parents in a small Honolulu apartment, Obama had a tough adolescence. Considered black by the world of which he was learning to be a part, he was nevertheless shaped most directly by the values of his small-town, white, Midwestern-grown immediate family. Later, when he was running for the Senate in the farm belt of downstate Illinois, he found that this Midwestern background worked to his advantage. "I know these people," he told the New Yorker, referring to downstate voters. "The food they serve is the food my grandparents served when I was growing up. Their manners, their sensibility, their sense of right and wrong--it's all totally familiar to me."

As a teenager, though, Obama was a young man with a confused identity. He experimented with marijuana and cocaine, and though he had inherited a quick-study intelligence from his father and won admission to the top-flight Punahou School, his grades were inconsistent and his commitment to bodysurfing and basketball was bigger than his interest in school. One of seven or eight black students at Punahou, he found that whites had low expectations when they met him. "People were satisfied so long as you were courteous and smiled and made no sudden moves," he wrote in his 1995 memoir, Dreams of My Father. "Such a pleasant surprise to find a well-mannered young black man who didn't seem angry."

Inside, Obama was worried about fitting in and was on the way to developing a classic example of W.E.B. DuBois's double consciousness. "I learned to slip back and forth between my black and white worlds," he wrote, "convinced that with a bit of translation on my part the two worlds would eventually cohere." Despite these feelings, Obama's innate charisma began to show itself as he left the Punahou campus to flirt with college-aged women at the nearby University of Hawaii.

That coherence was still hard to find at New York's Columbia University, where Obama transferred as a third-year student. Obama enjoyed New York but found that racial tension infected even "the stalls of Columbia's bathrooms ...," he wrote, "where, no matter how many times the administration tried to paint them over, the walls remained scratched with blunt correspondence between niggers and kikes. It was as if all middle ground had collapsed."

Wrote Letters to Community Organizations

After earning his degree in 1983, however, Obama responded with activist commitment instead of hedonistic escapism. He wrote to community service organizations all over the United States asking what he could do to help, and he signed on with the one group that replied, a church-based Chicago group doing neighborhood work on the city's economically reeling South Side. For three years, Obama was a community organizer--a tough job, but one in which he notched accomplishments ranging from job-training programs to a successful attempt to improve city services at the Altgeld Gardens housing project. The biracial outsider gathered with black Chicagoans at a South Side barbershop that he continued to patronize even after he became famous.

Obama applied to Harvard Law School--"to learn power's currency," he wrote in his autobiography. His academic brilliance flowered fully and propelled him to the presidency of the prestigious Harvard Law Review in 1990, making him the first African American to hold the post, and to a magna cum laude graduation in 1991. One of his teachers was famed litigator Laurence Tribe, who told Time that "I've known Senators, Presidents. I've never known anyone with what seems to me more raw political talent." Back in Chicago for a summer internship, he met his wife Michelle, an attorney and South Side native who was assigned to supervise him. The couple has two daughters, Malia Ann and Natasha (Sasha).

Obama passed up job offers from Chicago's top law firms to practice civil rights law with a small public-interest law office and to lecture at the University of Chicago, holding the latter position until he ran for the U.S. Senate in 2004. He jumped into politics by chairing a voter-registration drive that helped carry Illinois for Democratic presidential candidate Bill Clinton in 1992, and his political ambitions became clearer when he turned down a chance to apply for a tenure-rack University of Chicago professorship. When an Illinois state senate seat in his home South Side district came open in 1996, he ran and was elected. In the Illinois senate Obama was noted for legislation to curb racial profiling and for a bill that mandated the videotaping of police interrogations carried out in death-penalty cases.

Despite his varied background, Obama identified himself as black. "When I'm catching a cab in Manhattan they don't say, there's a mixed-race guy, I'll go pick him up," he pointed out to Ebony writer Joy Bennett Kinnon. "Or if I was an armed robber and they flashed my face on television, they'd have no problem labeling me as a black man. So if that's my identity when something bad happens, then that's my identity when something good happens as well." But when Obama ran for the U.S. House of Representatives in the 2000 Democratic primary against entrenched South-Side congressman Bobby Rush, a former Black Panther, he suffered from a perception that he was an exotic, elite outsider and was trounced by a two-to-one margin.

Triumphed in Crowded Primary

South Side residents (including Rush) rallied around Obama during his next try for higher office, however. Obama jumped into a primary race that pitted him against two formidable opponents (and several others): longtime Chicago politician Dan Hynes, who was favored by the city's vaunted Democratic Party "machine" political organization, and businessman Blair Hull, who spent a $29 million personal war chest on the campaign. Obama put together an unusual coalition of blacks, "lakefront liberal" white Chicago voters, and downstate supporters to win the primary with a convincing outright majority of 53 percent. His victory was partly attributable to a fervent corps of volunteers who worked on his campaign, many inspired by Obama's early and unequivocal opposition to the Iraq war and by other unrepentant liberal positions. "People call it drinking the juice," Obama political director Dan Sherman explained to the New Yorker. "People start drinking the Obama juice. You can't find enough for them to do."

Then came Obama's Democratic National Convention speech, which Time called "one of the best in convention history." The speech really put Obama on the national political radar, and the phone in his South Side home rang nonstop with interview requests in the days after the convention. "I didn't realize that the speech would strike the chord that it did," Obama told Ebony. "I think part of it is that people are hungry for a sense of authenticity. All I was really trying to do was describe what I was hearing on the campaign trail, the stories of the hopes, fears, and struggles of what ordinary people are going through every day."

On the campaign trail Obama shone as he showed an ability to connect with voters across class, racial, and geographic lines. "I just never heard anybody speak like him before," a downstate Democrat told the New Yorker. "It's like he's talking to you, and not to a crowd." One reason Illinois voters reacted to Obama this way was that the candidate, in meeting individual voters one on one, drew effectively on the various dialects of English he had absorbed as a result of his diverse background. Working-class black Chicagoans, highly educated professionals and academics, and small-town business owners all felt that they had encountered one of their own when Obama gave a speech in their neighborhoods.

The Illinois Republican party floundered as its anointed candidate, Jack Ryan, struggled with allegations that he had forced his ex-wife, television actress Jeri Ryan, to visit sex clubs with him against her will. Ryan eventually dropped out of the race and was replace by Alan Keyes, an ultraconservative black radio commentator from Maryland who had previously criticized New York Senator Hillary Clinton for moving to that state solely for the purpose of running for the Senate. Obama won in a landslide, garnering seventy percent of the vote and spending much of his time in the final phases of the campaign stumping for Democratic candidates in neighboring states.

Beginning with the Democratic convention speech, talk began to swirl around Obama suggesting that those who had heard him speak at this early stage in his career had been looking at the man who would become the first African-American president of the U.S. Obama contributed nothing to such speculation, and many of his early statements regarding his intentions for his Senate term focused on the problem of Illinois's declining job base. Yet few could doubt that the state that had produced Abraham Lincoln was now home to another figure able to exert a powerful healing force to the nation's still-gaping racial wounds.

'Power of Choice' by Pastor Jeffrey Rahmat (JPCC)

"Since the tree of knowledge of good and evil introduced by God, man is given the power to choose. God did not force us to love Him with undivided heart, God does not force us to wake up the morning calm before and when we start the activity, etc. Even if people choose to follow God and mengasihiNya, is out of options that make ita own. God gives us' Power of Choice 'or the power to choose, He's such a good God, is not He?

Your choices determines your future

During our lives as human beings in this world, we will be confronted by choices

What you choose now, to determine your future, and also what you select in the past to determine what you are now

Do not want to choose, it is also an option.

There are some things that in deciding to make a choice:

1. Priority

If we prepare one priority, guess what? life, we can misunderstand. Ex .. If we still school [yayaya he's talking to me: P] we must put priority number 1 learn not play and yippee-ray, which is a top priority. If we have to work, when we receive a salary, our main priority, give back what became the property of God.

From the order of our priorities, we can know how to our future

2. Value

We will get something in accordance with the price that we would like to pay. Pastor Jeffrey love risible example, that when we go to a restaurant and read the menu to choose food that we want to eat, we do not choose based on what we would like stomach, but based on, something that is in the right hand, which Rp ... .... , 00 ... if there's fried chicken, what we still want to eat? I .. we choose not based on what we want, but what price we must pay. Right? Every choices we make, will end up with what we value thing, n God really into value, he would like to have our value of His Kingdom:)

3. How to Think

Therefore, we must change the way we think, because it determines pilihan2 us, including the way we think of ourselves [the self-esteem] if we have a low self-esteem, then our lives will be low

4. Input

What you get, what you heard, what you see even from this world, determine choices that we will make, because input determines your output .. we hear a lot of dirty things, things so good, it's out of it is a good .. faith arising from the hearing, therefore if we do not hear from things of God, what faith can arise?

5. Mood

Do not take a decision very mood we are in a mess .. When we want one thing only when the mood we are in a mess, the devil can play around there!


Mazm 37: 8 -> stop angry, hotheaded leave it, get angry! it will only bring on crime

6. Inventories / Availability

If we look again at clothing stores, we are forced to facing the blue color we want it green, but green is exhausted, so we are forced to choose the color blue .. Availability .. Things you want to feel him? because he's the last man standing! hahahahhaa ..

7. Who's there around you?

Proverbs 15: 22 -> the draft fails if there is no consideration, but realized that many advisors ..

Who's there around you? who's advice you hear? [see, that's what DATE / Cell Group are for you]

Proverbs 24: 26 -> only with the planning because you can fight and victory depends on a lot of advisors

Eve to hear more advice to eat demons from the tree of knowledge good and evil from the Lord so that eventually it fell into sin

sometimes we are too busy searching for purpose of God, and not become dependent again the same God, then it should be the Word of God should be the main priority .. Who's in arround You? our lives can change in seconds, depending on whom our friend, who's boyfriend ..

There are people that the service was always a group date to the cell suddenly lost, it can be searched, just changed, because he already has a boyfriend. See? boyfriend whom we greatly affect choices will take us.

so also, people I was into the ministry, can be changed into a ministry .. terngantung onto disekelilingmu ..

Dr.Robb Thompson is, each relationship both mEet bring consequences and negative postif

Romans 16:17-18 -> so I advise you, that ye be vigilant against them, contrary to the teaching you have received, I rupture and temptation, because it Avoid them, such as those people not serve Christ our Lord , But to serve their own stomach and words with their language and their sweet talking, they deceive the people's sincere hearts ..

sincerity of the good, but if simplicity is not equipped with the truth, honesty can be a tool sklent ..

Christianity is not about words, Christianity is about life, it's about action, how you live life ..

The future is a construct built with the Counsel you follow - Dr.Robb Thompson.

Wednesday, November 5, 2008

Triple Booting!!!! Compability issuess...

few days ago I installed some "old-school" program on my WINXP ,but guess what when im trying to execute the program... WTH?? it didnt work... said its only working on win98 environtment.... hell....!!.... changing with "windows compability mode it didnt work either.... guess im stuck...
then comes up idea triple booting my computer.... with DOS,WIN98,WINXP on the same hard drive.....

so heres the procedure... (not to complicated...) guess.....(-_-)a'''


This procedure assumes that Windows XP is installed on drive C:

Drive C: must be FAT16 or FAT32 to be able to install Windows 98 after XP is already installed. The 98/Me installation routine cannot write to an NTFS partition.

You must have a second hard disk or partition formatted for FAT16/32 in order to be able to install Windows 98/Me. Installing 98/Me to the same partition as Windows XP is NOT RECOMMENDED!

I recommend the use of a Windows 98 Startup disk for this procedure.You should ensure that DEBUG.EXE is on your Startup disk.On a 98 Startup disk, created from Add/Remove Programs, its in the EBD.CAB file on the Startup disk. For a 98 Startup disk created from FAT32EBD.EXE its on the floppy

Installing Windows 98

1) Use a Win98 Startup disk (with CD support) to boot your computer.

2) Insert your Win98 CD into the CD Rom drive.

3) At the A: prompt type X:\Win98\Setup.exe where X: is your CD-ROM drive.

4) Proceed with the install. When prompted for the install location, you'll see C:\Windows.000. Choose Other directory and change this to the drive you wish to install 98 to and name the folder Windows (or something else if you prefer).

5) Complete the Win98 install. Allow the computer to boot into Win98.

Repairing the Windows XP Boot Loader

1) Create a Win98 Startup Disk

2) Create a Notepad file with the following entries, exactly as shown:

L 100 2 0 1

N C:\BOOTSECT.DOS

R BX

0

R CX

200

W

Q

3) Save the file to the Win98 Startup Disk as READ.SCR

4) Boot the computer with the Win98 Startup Disk and at the A: prompt type

DEBUG <>

Steps 1 - 4 create the BOOTSECT.DOS file needed to boot Win98.You may need to use the ATTRIB C:\BOOTSECT.DOS -S -H -R command if BOOTSECT.DOS already exists and you get an error when trying to recreate it.

5) Configure your computer to boot from the CD drive. This is done in the BIOS, or your computer may offer the option at startup if it detects a bootable CD.If your computer does not support booting from CD-Rom, you should also be able to boot with a 98 Startup disk, and run WINNT.EXE from the I386 folder of your XP CD.

6) Insert your XP CD and boot from it.

7) You'll see some files being copied, then you'll be presented with a choice of installing or repairing an existing installation. Choose Repair.

8) You'll be asked which XP installation you want to log into. Enter 1. There is usually only

one installation.

9) You'll be prompted for the Administrator password. For Home, the default password is blank, so just hit Enter. For Pro, enter the same password you did during setup for the Administrator account (this is not the same as the password for an Admin level account. It must be the Administrator account password).

10) At the C:\Windows prompt, type FIXBOOT. You'll be prompted to confirm. Do so.

11) When FIXBOOT is finished, remove the XP CD and type EXIT and the machine will reboot.

Reconfigure your computer to boot from the hard drive if necessary.

You will now get the XP Boot loader with your choice of operating system

Monday, October 27, 2008

Darwin Theory = total mistake!!!

great for reading.... well because I'm a religious dude... it might sounds biased... but hell yeah.... you cant deny truth.... credit to http://www.s8int.com/...
====================================================================
Neo-Darwinism: time to reconsider
By Richard Milton

It was the dazzling gains made by science and technology in the nineteenth century through the application of rational analysis that led people to think of applying reason to other fields.Following the brilliant success of reason and method in physics and chemistry -- especially in medicine -- it was natural for science to seek to apply the same analytical tool to the most intractable and complex problems: human society and economic affairs; human psychology; and even the origin and development of life itself. The result was the great mechanistic philosophies of the last century: Marxism, Freudianism and Darwinism.The simplicities and certainties of these systems mirrored the intellectually well-ordered life of Victorian society with its authoritarian values and institutionalised prejudices. Now, a century later, all three systems have run their course, have been measured by history, and have been ultimately found to be inadequate tools of explanation.Unlike Marx and Freud, Darwin himself remains esteemed both as a highly original thinker and as a careful researcher (his study of fossil barnacles remains a text book example for palaeontologists). But the theory that bears his name was transformed in the early years of this century into the mechanistic, reductionist theory of neo-Darwinism: the theory that living creatures are machines whose only goal is genetic replication -- a matter of chemistry and statistics; or, in the words of professor Jacques Monod, director of the Pasteur Institute, a matter only of "chance and necessity". [1]And while the evidence for evolution itself remains persuasive -- especially the homologies that are found in comparative anatomy and molecular biology of many different species -- much of the empirical evidence that was formerly believed to support the neo-Darwinian mechanism of chance mutation coupled with natural selection has melted away like snow on a spring morning, through better observation and more careful analysis.Marxist, Freudian and neo-Darwinist systems of thought ultimately failed for the same reason; that they sought to use mechanistic reductionism to explain and predict systems that we now know are complexity-related, and cannot be explained as the sum of the parts.In the case of neo-Darwinism, it was not the mysteries of the mind or of the economy that were explained. It was the origin of the first single-celled organism in the primeval oceans, and its development into the plant and animal kingdoms of today by a strictly blind process of chance genetic mutation working with natural selection.In the first five decades of this century -- the heyday of the theory -- zoologists, palaeontologists and comparative anatomists assembled the impressive exhibits that generations of school children have seen in Natural History Museums the world over: the evolution of the horse family; the fossils that illustrate the transition from fish to amphibian to reptile to mammal; and the discovery of astonishing extinct species such as "Archaeopteryx", apparently half-reptile, half-bird.Over successive decades, these exhibits have been first disputed, then downgraded, and finally shunted off to obscure museum basements, as further research has shown them to be flawed or misconceived.Anyone educated in a western country in the last forty years will recall being shown a chart of the evolution of the horse from "Eohippus", a small dog-like creature in the Eocene period 50 million years ago, to "Mesohippus", a sheep-sized animal of 30 million years ago, eventually to "Dinohippus", the size of a Shetland pony. This chart was drawn in 1950 by Harvard's professor of palaeontology George Simpson, to accompany his standard text book, "Horses", which encapsulated all the research done by the American Museum of Natural History in the previous half century.Simpson plainly believed that his evidence was incontrovertible because he wrote, 'The history of the horse family is still one of the clearest and most convincing for showing that organisms really have evolved. . . There really is no point nowadays in continuing to collect and to study fossils simply to determine whether or not evolution is a fact.
The question has been decisively answered in the affirmative.' [2]Yet shortly after this affirmation, Simpson admits in passing that the chart he has drawn contains major gaps that he has not included: a gap before "Eohippus" and its unknown ancestors, for example, and another gap after "Eohippus" and before its supposed descendant "Mesohippus". [3] What is it, scientifically, that connects these isolated species on the famous chart if it is not fossil remains? And how could such unconnected examples demonstrate either genetic mutation or natural selection? Even though, today, the bones themselves have been relegated to the basement, the famous chart with its unproven continuity still appears in museum displays and handbooks, text books, encyclopaedias and lectures.The remarkable "Archaeopteryx" also seems at first glance to bear out the neo-Darwinian concept of birds having evolved from small reptiles (the candidate most favoured by neo-Darwinists is a small agile dinosaur called a Coelosaur, and this is the explanation offered by most text books and museums.) Actually, such a descent is impossible because coelosaurs, in common with most other dinosaurs, did not posses collar bones while "Archaeopteryx", like all birds, has a modified collar bone to support its pectoral muscles. [4] Again, how can an isolated fossil, however remarkable, provide evidence of beneficial mutation or natural selection?Neo-Darwinists were quick to claim that modern discoveries of molecular biology supported their theory. They said, for example, that if you analyse the DNA, the genetic blueprint, of plants and animals you find how closely or distantly they are related. That studying DNA sequences enables you to draw up the precise family tree of all living things and show how they are related by common ancestry.This is a very important claim and central to the theory. If true, it would mean that animals neo-Darwinists say are closely related, such as two reptiles, would have greater similarity in their DNA than animals that are not so closely related, such as a reptile and a bird.In 1981, molecular biologists working under Dr Morris Goodman at Ann Arbor University decided to test this hypothesis. They took the alpha haemoglobin DNA of two reptiles -- a snake and a crocodile -- which are said by Darwinists to be closely related, and the haemoglobin DNA of a bird, in this case a farmyard chicken.They found that the two animals who had _least_ DNA sequences in common were the two reptiles, the snake and the crocodile. They had only around 5% of DNA sequences in common -- only one twentieth of their haemoglobin DNA. The two creatures whose DNA was closest were the crocodile and the chicken, where there were 17.5% of sequences in common -- nearly one fifth. The actual DNA similarities were the _reverse_ of that predicted by neo- Darwinism. [5]Even more baffling is the fact that radically different genetic coding can give rise to animals that look outwardly very similar and exhibit similar behavior, while creatures that look and behave completely differently can have much in common genetically. There are, for instance, more than 3,000 species of frogs, all of which look superficially the same. But there is a greater variation of DNA between them than there is between the bat and the blue whale.Further, if neo-Darwinist evolutionary ideas of gradual genetic change were true, then one would expect to find that simple organisms have simple DNA and complex organisms have complex DNA. In some cases, this is true. The simple nematode worm is a favorite subject of laboratory study because its DNA contains a mere 1,000 nucleotide bases. At the other end of the complexity scale, humans have 23 chromosomes which in total contain 3,000 million nucleotide bases.Unfortunately, this promisingly Darwinian progression is contradicted by many counter examples. While human DNA is contained in 23 pairs of chromosomes, the humble goldfish has more than twice as many, at 47. The even humbler garden snail -- not much more than a glob of slime in a shell -- has 27 chromosomes. Some species of rose bush have 56 chromosomes. So the simple fact is that DNA analysis does _not_ confirm neo- Darwinist theory. In the laboratory, DNA analysis falsifies neo- Darwinist theory.An even more damaging blow to the theory was the discovery that the very centerpiece of neo-Darwinism, Darwin's original conception of natural selection, or the survival of the fittest, is fatally flawed. The problem is: how can biologists (or anyone else) tell what characteristics constitute the animal or plant's 'fitness' to survive? How can you tell which are the fit animals and plants? The answer is that the only way to define the fit is by means of a post-hoc rationalization -- the fit must be "those who survived". While the only way to characterize uniquely those who survive is as "the fit". The central proposition of the Darwinian argument turns out to be an empty tautology. C.H. Waddington, professor of biology at Edinburgh University wrote; "Natural selection, which was at first considered as though it were a hypothesis that was in need of experimental or observational confirmation, turns out on closer inspection to be a tautology, a statement of an inevitable although previously unrecognized relation. It states that the fittest individuals in a population (defined as those who leave the most offspring) will leave most offspring. Once the statement is made, its truth is apparent." [6]George Simpson, professor of paleontology at Harvard, sought to restore content to the idea of natural selection by saying; "If genetically red-haired parents have, on average, a large proportion of children than blondes or brunettes, then evolution will be in the direction of red hair. If genetically left-handed people have more children, evolution will be towards left- handedness. The characteristics themselves do not directly matter at all. All that matters is who leaves more descendants over the generations. Natural selection favours fitness only if you define fitness as leaving more descendants. In fact geneticists do define it that way, which maybe confusing to others. To a geneticist, fitness has nothing to do with health, strength, good looks, or anything but effectiveness in breeding."Notice the words; "The characteristics themselves do not directly matter at all." This innocent phrase fatally undermines Darwin's original key conception: that each animal's special physical characteristics are what makes it fit to survive: the giraffe's long neck, the eagle's keen eye, or the cheetah's 60 mile-an-hour sprint.Simpson's reformulation means all this must be dropped: it is not the characteristics that directly matter -- it is the animals' capacity to reproduce themselves. The race is not to the swift, after all, but merely to the prolific. So how can neo-Darwinism explain the enormous diversity of characteristics? Not only are neo-Darwinist ideas falsified by empirical research, but other puzzling and extraordinary findings have come to light in recent decades, suggesting that evolution is not blind but rather is in some unknown way _directed_. The experiments of Cairns at Harvard and Hall at Rochester University suggest that microorganisms can mutate in a way that is beneficial. [8]Experiments with tobacco plants and flax demonstrate genetic change through the effects of fertilizers alone. [9] Experiments with sea squirts and salamanders as long ago as the 1920s appeared to demonstrate the inheritance of acquired characteristics. [10] Moreover, as Sir Fred Hoyle has pointed out, Fossil micro-organisms have been found in meteorites, indicating that life is universal -- not a lucky break in the primeval soup. This view is shared by Sir Francis Crick, co- discoverer of the function of DNA [11]In the light of discoveries of this kind, the received wisdom of neo-Darwinism is no longer received so uncritically. A new generation of biologists is subjecting the theory to the cold light of empirical investigation and finding it inadequate; scientists like Dr Rupert Sheldrake, Dr Brian Goodwin, professor of biology at the Open University and Dr Peter Saunders, professor of mathematics at King's College London.Not surprisingly, the work of this new generation is heresy to the old. When Rupert Sheldrake's book "A New Science of Life" with its revolutionary theory of morphic resonance was published in 1981, the editor of "Nature" magazine, John Maddox, ran an editorial calling for the book to be burned -- a sure sign that Sheldrake is onto something important, many will think. [12, 13] The current mood in biology was summed up recently by Sheldrake as, 'Rather like working in Russia under Brehznev. Many biologists have one set of beliefs at work, their official beliefs, and another set, their real beliefs, which they can speak openly about only among friends. They may treat living things as mechanical in the laboratory but when they go home they don't treat their families as inanimate machines.' It is a strange aspect of science in the twentieth century that while physics has had to submit to the indignity of a principle of uncertainty and physicists have become accustomed to such strange entities as matter-waves and virtual particles, many of their colleagues down the corridor in biology seem not to have noticed the revolution of quantum electrodynamics. As far as many biologists are concerned, matter is made of billiard balls which collide with Newtonian certainty, and they carry on building molecular models out of coloured table-tennis balls. One of the twentieth century's most distinguished scientists and Nobel laureates, physicist Max Planck, observed that; 'A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.'It may be another decade or more before such a new generation grows up and restores intellectual rigour to the study of evolutionary biology
=====================================================================
Richard Milton is a science writer and journalist. He is the author of "The Facts of Life" (Transworld/Corgi, London, 1993) a critical review of neo-Darwinism and "Forbidden Science" (Fourth Estate, London, 1994) a critical analysis of censorship and intolerance in science.References[1] Monod, Jacques, 1972 edn. Chance and Necessity. William Collins. Glasgow.[2] Simpson, George G. 1951. Horses. Oxford University Press.[3] Simpson, George G. 1951. Horses. Oxford University Press.[4] Norman, David. 1985. Encyclopaedia of Dinosaurs. Salamander Books. London.[5] Patterson, Colin, presentation to the American Natural History Museum, 5 November 1981.[6] Waddington, C.H., 1960, Evolutionary Adaptation in Tax Vol. 1, pp 381-402.[7] Simpson, George G. 1964, This View of Life, Harcourt Brace and World. New York.[8] Cairns, J., J. Overbaugh, S. Miller. 1988. The origin of mutants. In Nature 335: 142-145. Hall, Barry G. Sept. 1990. Spontaneous point mutations that occur more often when advantageous than when neutral. In Genetics Vol. 126, pp. 5-16.[9] Durrant, Alan. 1958. Environmental conditioning of flax. in Nature, Vol. 81, p. 928-929. Hill, J. 1965. Environmental induction of heritable changes in Nicotiana rustica. in Nature, Vol. 207, pp. 732-734. Cullis, C.A. 1977. Molecular aspects of the environmental induction of heritable changes in Flax. in Heredity. Vol. 38, p. 129-154.[10] See Koestler, Arthur. 1978. The Case of the Midwife Toad. Hutchinson. London, for an account of the experiments of Paul Kammerer at the Vienna Institute for Experimental Biology 1903-1926.[11] Hoyle, F. 1983. The Intelligent Universe. Michael Joseph. London.See also, Crick, Francis, 1981. Life Itself. Macdonald. London.[12] Sheldrake, Rupert, 1988 edn. A New Science of Life, Paladin London.[13] Nature 1981, Vol. 293, pp 245-246.[14] Milton, Richard, 1993 edn., The Facts of Life: Shattering the myths of Darwinism, Transworld/Corgi, London.[15] Milton, Richard, 1995 edn., Forbidden Science: Exposing the Secrets of Suppressed Research, Fourth Estate, London."Perfectly exact physics is not so very exact, just as holy men are not so very holy."

Saturday, October 18, 2008

a new begining...

yep.. a new semester and a new task (lot...of.... T.T) , well....create a blog... and let my lecturer do their job... reviewing this blog... and gimme some score.... here you go mr.Yanto.... my blog...

dunno what to fill.... but I'll start with.. this nonsense..... ill post something else later... (later when I'm in a good mood...when the sky turn to blue... when sun shines bright.........)

GOD bless...