dasmeaty

Hard choice between one and two, but the barely-readable text ruined it for number one, along with the fact that number two had a lot more blending. My vote is Saint_Michael.

A likely story... this man was bribed *points to signature*.?

Ok that's good to know Mahesh2k, Now does anyone know about Advertising how can I make my blog as big as can be, I mean I am posting up to date content that is happening now such as "iPad" etc how do I get a blog popular. If you can tell this is really my first "proper" blog.

Search engine optimization, you want to get high enough on a search engine for certain keywords and then the traffic comes in. Take a look at http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/ to get a good idea of how Google ranks pages (Watered down), you will see it's mostly about the way the keyword is arranged on your site and it has some explanation as to how to improve this.

Coincidence is illogical: it has nothing to follow from; it has no beginning, only an end (conclusion). It is a word stated merely for convenience, to "fill" the gap in knowledge that the person does not seek to fill with any (the) proper alternative.

Coincidence by nature of the word itself has a beginning, how can something coincide if it has no beginning only a conclusion, surely that with which it coincides with is where it began.

While theoretically both the egg and chicken may occur (and at the same timethough this may be less likely to happen), the reason why the question of what came first is asked is due to intuition. Intuition expects there to be only one outcome, but the theory, in due time, allows for both. The word paradox need not always deal with contradiction.

So any unkown is a paradox by your standards? Intuition expects that with any unkown there is more than one possibility and one outcome. As with the chicken or the egg question, there has been only one outcome just many possibilities.

There are only a certain amount of options to choose from the position you place yourself in, that includes admitting that the chicken has no predecessor. It is not me trying to enforce anything upon you. You don't have to like the options you have, but since you replied against all but one, that leaves you with trying to figure out which came first. And as i previously mentioned, as far as i am concerned, that will merely entail the egg, regardless of what the theory theoretically allows.

This is where I have a problem with your logic, you are saying there are so few options and that I must choose them. Why? Because you thought them up? There are infinite possibilities and to say that these are all the options and that they all entail the egg coming first is very myopic.

If they are obviously the same creatures, then it would be obvious that they are all (i.e. all the Adelie penguins) capable of flight (though the distance may be short) but are at least choosing not to. What is the reason why we say "they can't fly"? Body and wing structure? Or because we still haven't seen them fly?

Because we have seen them try to fly and be incapable, because we have tested their flight abilities and they have been incapable. Whether you like it or not these penguins have been categorised as the same species of penguin. Some humans are bald, some can walk some can't, but you consider them all to be humans no? Are we not the same species despite our differences? Under the same logic as the penguin how would we know we are the same species? According to you are we not all obviously a different type of creature?

Then it wasn't that you were curious. Curiosity seeks a definite answer.

No I was curiousn as to see people's opinions, who are you to say whether I am curious or not and what my curiousity is about?

If i were basing my "thesis" on the existence of a higher power, i would have included it in my statement. And what did i say it did? I am uncertain what you are referring to, so i cannot properly answer your questions. Nevertheless, faith is merely what we have not yet seen, not what we don't have evidence for. Faith therefore can be logical. You said above that you are not looking for a definite answer (though that is counter-intuitive) and you say there is no such thing as a definite answer. That would mean everything you consider a fact is practically a belief, for there would be no way to justify anything. The questions here, therefore, can be returned to you. In which case, your arguments have all been brought down by yourself.

I am sorry I made an assumption, as you talked about admitting that there was definetely no predecessor to the chicken, talking to God and the bible quotes in your signature I took for granted that you are a religious man and that you therefore believe in a God or the God to be more specific and as a result believed in creationism. I apologise you should never assume, I should of asked, so do you believe in creationism? If so my comments still apply, if not I apologise.
It is I who said you don't need justification, you are the one who said it was necessary not I. I believe that the answers we choose are the answers that best explain something, that are the most likely. This contradicts nothing I have said. Infact I merely asked whether you think belief is enough to justify something, it is you who is saying it isn't. I believe that curiousity is justification enough to ask a question the fact that you don't does not make me contradict myself.

I agree that faith is logical, but I see faith in a higher power illogical yet I think you are fully justified to believe in a higher power if you so wish. I feel that with so much evidence to so many theories to go against these and deny them all for something which is merely the word of mouth to be illogical, but if you wish to believe in this higher power instead then you may do so as nothing is certain, there is only the likely and the unlikely.

Im afraid I have to agree with anwii, .info just isn't that well known to the general public. The domains I would recommend sticking to are .com (For all purposes), .net or .org (If you really must use a name that is taken by .com, but remember that whoever owns the .com will likely steal your traffic) and .co.uk (Why? Because I'm British).These are what I would call the TTLD the Top top level domains, .info just isn't used enough to be memorable and I wouldn't be surprised if your traffic tries Digitalwinkinfo.com or similar names. Think about it this way, say you forget the name of a domain thats .net but you can't remember for sure. I will always try .com, .net and .org and if its none of them let google find it for me, .info doesn't even cross my mind.How many people access google through google.info?I don't mean to be harsh in anyway, I just think that it wasn't the smartest decision to rush into purchasing a name with .info. I would of looked at altering the name personally.

So you do believe in a higher power, which is probably why you believe that everything has a reason. I don't believe in a higher power and believe that everything just is a coincidence. There is little point arguing this any further if you are the religious type as you are likely to hold to your beliefs as I hold to mine that there is not a God.

I meant to write 'You may make reason with it to see why it is important to you', I didn't actually mean to chat to the weather I meant that you may give it a reason but it does not make it have a purpose it just so happens that it's behaviour benefits something.

From here on you can choose to admit that the theory of evolution entails a paradox

I fail to see how it entails a paradox, there is no contradiction they are merely different possible happenings and do not contradict each other.

admit that there was no predecessor to the chicken

What makes you say there was no predecessor to the chicken? You are providing no reason for there not being a predecessor to the chicken yet asking me to admit there was none.

or take the easy way out and avoid ever asking the question again.

That was unnecessary.

i highly doubt it would be reasonable to label a penguin that flies as the same kind of creature as those that can't fly, for they are obviously not the same creatures

On the contrary, they function very much the same as penguins, look like penguins and live where penguins live, they are even the same species of penguin. Most penguins including most of the Adelie penguins can't fly, yet some can as recently shown. They are quite obviously the same creatures.

When dealing with possibilities, you may end up with no definite answer.

Yep, I'm not after a definite answer, a definite answer isn't possible there is no definite answer to anything, everything is a theory that we deem to be correct as it appears to be. I am merely after theories and discussion.

What would make the chicken any different?

I admitted earlier that I did not think about the fact that an chicken could of evolved from an egg laying creature and if it did then the egg would of came before it.

In order to state that anything is right or wrong, you'll require justification. Justification is objective, not subjective. If it were subjective, there would be no way to properly conclude something; reason and logic would be tossed out the window. What needs justification? Anything that wants to be taken seriously.

You are basing your thesis on the existence of a higher power, and that higher power doing what you said it did in my opinion this is nether logical nor justifiable beyond the fact it is your belief. How do you justify pure faith? Is it logical? Or do you do it just because you believe it and is that justification enough for you?

I'm gonna start us off this week, haven't made a siggy in a looooooong time.

 

 

I think I followed the rules

Eyes are from one of those big-eyed monkey thingys, the mouth is from a big cat, I don't know which so I'm just gonna say a leopard.

Eyes is close unless you meant this animal... but its quite memorable. Yep mouth is from a big cat but noth a leopard, although the upper lip (Kinda faint) is from somewhere else.

android animals voioce translator and now name change ? hmm, google is getting good at april fool jokes. what was that last time ? toilet internet access. that was lame though..but people are falling for that android translator app.. Lol.

I bet some fool spent ages trying to download this for his iphone so he could speak to his cat. Not me though, I wouldn't do that.

Muchias Gracias for the warm welcome guys

hey gorgie! welcome to Xisto! hahaa i thought i would post in your introduction page/post since im finding myself posting on everything you have created..
really interest posts.. that arent (i am sorry everyone reading this) completely boring and geeky or nerdy

Ha ha thanks, I try to hard.

Not being able to figure out a reason for something does not imply that it has no reason. And, yeah, suggesting a reason also doesn't mean that the suggested reason is truly the reason for it. But the reason for something always entails a why; and the process of something always entails a how. You can't ask what is the reason for something without receiving an answer that can be given to why; and you can't ask for the process without receiving an answer that can be given to how.

Do you believe in a higher power do you think the whether chooses to snow for a reason? You may reason with it to find why it is important to you but not why it does what it does it just does unless you believe a higher power gave it reason or it has the ability to reason for itself.

 

By the theory of evolution it has to be the predecessor that laid the egg, to which the chicken came out of. (Following from gisellebebegirl, don't evolutionists state from dinosaur to bird?) However, there has never been a case where a species gave birth to a species other than its own kind. The only way that would happen is if two incompatible creatures mated with each other and by chance alone was the incompatibility disregarded in the process (to where the newborn actually made it out alive and lived a long life?though it may have no one to mate with).

Nowhere does evolution state this, according to the rules of evolution it is both possible for the chicken to have been born out of an egg (albeit a slow change from one creature to another) or for it to have been born without a shell and developed eg laying abilities.

 

 

Your example doesn't relate or follow from what i mentioned. If a penguin has always been known to be incapable of flying, then why would we consider any bird of flight to be a penguin? Because of natural selection? That's non-sequitur. Why do chickens lay eggs? Because they were born with that capability.

So you are saying penguins never flew, as a fact? Some penguins have been found to be able to fly in recent years, the years not so long before this we considered penguins unable to fly. Chickens have always been known to lay eggs yet how long have we known chickens? Yes chickens might of always laid eggs, but to rule out the possibility of the past on the present is foolish.

 

Curiosity does kill cats. Consider, would you ask a question that shouldn't be asked just because you believe curiosity is self-justifying? Would you ask someone, "Why are you so stupid?" I certainly hope not. How about a question where the answer is obvious? Does curiosity justify the question then? Curiosity does not come out of nowhere, it is a by-product of an external inspirer (though this inspirer need not be conscious). And whether or not this external inspirer itself justifies curiosity is up to the inspirer itself.

Where curiosity comes from is irrelevant, it does not need external justification what makes a man or woman want to discover the unkown? Curiosity, what externally justifies this curiosity when what his curiosity is based on is unkown? His justification is that his discovery may exist, his curiosity as to whether it does. Even so what does internally or externally inspired curiosity have to do with the question?

 

As to asking the question, does the fact that it is rude or ill-mannered unjustify it? If you are curious and stupid enough to ask a stupid person a question in search of a reasonable answer then you are completely justified in doing. What is seen as normal, abnormal, civil or uncivil by others does not mean to say that the question is wrong.

 

If you know the answer to a question and ask it then it may not be justified by curiosity (Teachers do this all the time out of curiosity to see how a pupil responds). My point is that Curiosity justifies a question not that Curiosity is the justification of all questions. I was curious so therefore I asked, there is no deeper reason or justification I need to ask a question.

 

While we are on the matter justification is a human ideal, what is to say that anything needs justification?

Update: That's meant to be a scar in his eye if you can't tell, I might remove it.Anyway if anyone can guess which animal certain parts of him come from then you win bragging rights (Whiskers and nose not from any animal).

Okay thanks guys, as long as its not just me my mind is at ease. I hope whatever it is it's fixed soon.

On my first day of being signed up my first six posts translated into 80 MyCents... Now nothing is being added, perhaps my posts are plain awful but I think something is wrong, it has been over 24 hours since most of my posts and they just aren't updating...Could this be a result of the Xisto update?

The reason for anything deals with why. I was not referring to the question you bring up for how; i was referring to your statement that mentions about the reason for the universe. And i did retrieve and have understood what was mentioned by you. But the process undergone to bring an egg into this world is seen with any egg-laying creature of this world, so how it was given birth is explainablethe possibility of it coming into existence is therefore just as equal to the possibility of a chicken.

Reason needs no why, there is not always a purpose to an action it just is what it is. If we all descend from bacteria, and no known bacteria lays eggs then the ability to lay eggs must be an adaption, possibly not by the chicken but by its predesesccor. How does something evolve into an egg? It must be the offspring of something.

Chickens have always been known to lay eggs. If it is the case that they mutated into egg-laying creatures, then you will have to question what kind of chicken you are talking about. In which case you will therefore come to realize that your position really does not conclude the chicken coming first but the egg. So in order to even be able to conclude that the chicken came first, you would have to drop adaption (through natural selection).

That does not conclude the egg coming first in any way. Penguins have always been known to have wings, yet very few can fly, why would they have wings if they couldn't fly? Probably because of natural selection. Why do chickens lay eggs? Probably because over time they adapted.

For this case, i was referring to the one concerning the one in the topic title. And curiosity is not justified in its own right but requires external justification, which is what the question would be justified with in asking.

Says who? And what external justification? This doesn't make sense, curiosity alone justifies the asking of a question; If you wish to know something you ask it.

I will say this however it is entirely possible that a chicken descended from an egg laying creature which I didn't think about in my first post.

Answer to your first question, I do this.Answer to your second question, I accomplished the image in question.It's not finished I just havent decided what eyes to give it, and I assure you its not bald... something that is covered in hair cannot be classified as bald.

The question is not why, it is how. You misunderstood me, I was referring to the chances of the universe being created and then an egg just popping into existence after not as two seperate entities. The major difference is despite the universes creation being wholely unlikely we can explain to an extent how it happened, the same can not be said for the random creation of an egg.My point being that it is far far far more likely that a chicken is an adaption and so is its egg laying as part of natural selection, than it is for it or an egg to have randomly popped into existence.Which question do you refer to as to having no basis? Curiosity is a basis for any question.

If you can't see a chicken just popping into existence, then neither can you see this universe just popping into existence, in which case you would have no where to start concerning life in general.

That is just not true, the means of which we think the universe came into existence do not apply to the chicken. There is reason behind the creation of the universe, and we are pretty sure that chickens were not around from the start of the universe. The chances of the universe being created were very small, the chances that chickens were later created from nothing on our planet makes it infinitely times more small. You cannot explain the random appearance of a chicken with the big bang theory, you can explain the random creation of a universe.

Now Xisto is blocked from my college for containing profanity... or more specifically 'sutra'.- also have mycents broke? I'm not recieving anymore.

Lets bring some economics to the debate forum, the question is simple do you lean towards a more Keynesian or a Monetarist view or different views for different situations?Especially with the global economic state what is your view, do you believe the Government should spend spend spend to boost aggregate demand for a relatively short run increase in consumption, but to what cost?Or do you take the Monetarist (More specifically Friedman) view that the Government should encourage saving (without applying inflationary pressure) to keep price levels and monetary supply stable and allow the economy to run its coare points where urse.Of course these are two very simplified ideals, you could talk about many things such as the Monetarist long run aggregate supply curve versus the keynesian one or whos theory of unemployment and national output is best.Lets just see who we think was more on the right track.One point to acknowledge is that economics is not an exact science and there are times where the data supports nether Keynes nor the Monetarist view, and other times where it supports Keynes solely or Monetarist solely. Nether can be considered correct, yet both are accepted views.

Hey... this is the high grade! My point was that I don't believe chickens popped into existence from nowhere they would have evolved from bacteria and as a result of natural selection the egg laying chickens would have dominated.However how does something evolve into an egg? It can't according to the current laws of natural selection, so for the egg to come first it must have just entered into existence.My reason is short as I have all these thoughts but they aren't so easy to articulate.

Awww hey lil fella

...

 

I don't really see why anyone would have trouble with this question, as if a chicken or an egg popping into existence is impossible. The question should be tackled by considering which one would actually survive if either-or were to pop into existence on the earth. In that case, the chicken would have come first.

What would make the chicken any different?

I do not think the chicken popped into existence, I believe it is an adaption and that part of it's adaption was to lay eggs. There is still good chance for an egg to survive depending on its location.

Thanks for the reply and the time to put these code snippets. I will start toying with these and see what I can put in the backend, the main aim is to get it to work with the member levels in drupal as I hope to assign certain uploaders to have unmanaged uploading and for my usual members to have all content reviewed before it is published... this is indeed a start and I thank you.Although I will not be using actual youtube videos as the content of the site is more adult orientated, but the youtube part is easily modified.Like I said my knowledge of PHP is limited, I can piece together a script that I can see to an extent but I don't have the confidence to write from scratch

Okay my aim is to provide youtube style streaming, except I don't want to use videos uploaded to the site I want to stream videos from user submitted urls.I am pretty certain I will be using a modified Drupal as my backend (My knowledge of PHP is limited and my starting budget is nil so creating my own system or hiring a coder is out of the question, I want to build this up slowly).My questions are does anyone know some good starting ideas for achieving this, I watched an interesting seminar called Drutube off google explaining what nodes and adjustments can be made to create youtube style video hosting in drupal but that relies on user uploads and since I want to keep my bandwidth as low as possible I wish to play these from external urls.Is it legal for me to display invideo ads on videos that users have submitted to the site despite having limited control on whether they are copyrighted or not?Does anyone know any basic packages for working out advert income per page and being able to split this up and offer a percentage to a user? (Similar to the one on Xisto for inforum ads but I'm guessing that it is inhouse coded?)Is there anyway to protect the original video urls (Such as rmtp) but on the videos that are linked externally and not managed by myself without spending large amounts of money and is this legal?I have an idea for how to achieve this, but I'm always open to better suggestions.Thanks any answers to any of these questions will help me out greatly.

The issue with your question is that you want a sure solution to making money online, but making money online is the same as being offline, you need a product that people will want at a competitive price or to be better than your competitors or to have something original.

The biggest money makers are big companies that can offer services better than others, Google is top for its speeds, ease of use and useability. At the same time the boy who set up the Million dollar homepage made his million dollars through originality and offering pure advertisement on a site thats original and works off people's curiosity.

What must come before a steady source of income is traffic, you need people to know your brand and you need dedicated visitors, once the traffic comes word of mouth begins and depending on the quality of your traffic your site will recieve higher rankings in most search engines, once you have traffic you can begin to make real money of adverts or your products.

Heres some miscellaneous ideas that people already use: Buying laptop keyboards and selling individual keys at $5-$7 a piece since people who lose theirs won't want to replace the keyboard but can't buy specific keys, take something you are knowledgable about and create tutorials (Possibly video) host them and use advertising revenue, (Not sure if this is allowed) earn $99 worth of mycents and offer reseller hosting of the unlimited plan (Remember unlimited just means there is no cap, doesn't truly mean infinite so you may want to cap your reseller plans).

My best advice, sit down with a piece of paper write what you are good at, what you like from the internet and how someone could make you revisit their site or give up your hard earned cash, get some initial ideas do your research (google is your friend) and see what the competition is offering and for what price and then ask yourself could you offer better or could you beat their price. Do it.

Take Xisto for example, They manage to offer hosting in return for your activity by you being active you increase the quality of the traffic and the amount of data and keywords that Xisto will rank in making it more appealing to potential users and by offering shares of profits for fulfilling certain tasks it uses the group mentality and the idea that the more you put into it the more you make and the more they make from advertising revenue. It is well executed and original and obviously works or you and I would not be here.