MajesticTreeFrog

similarly, using the IE engine leaves you open to exploits. All of those abilities you mention are also in FF.

hardware requirements are somewhat light. Basically, old hardware is rather well known, so drivers exist. A 386 would do just fine, and that's not just old, thats ancient. As you a guide, I am not much of a linux person, I don't know. However, seeing as how linux is an OS designed for networking, I doubt it will be difficult to find. One thing I might suggest is something like mandrake(easy to use). Not sure how fast mandrake is though. You probably want something like debian or slackware.

Is Xisto running slow for anyone? Getting database errors? Just curious.

Its just that music has been getting increasingly bad since the end of the ninteys. Not just metal, all of it. Or at least, the music on the RADIO has gotten worse. Good music(even metal) still exists, it has just gotten harder to find.

MMORPG stands for Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game. Basically, it is the style of game a la Everquest, WoW, Shadowbane, and so on. In these games, unlike other computer RPGs, there is no 'plot'. Instead, things are player driven. There are alse quests: missions NPCs give the player to do for experience, loot, reputation, or other such rewards that generally make the character more powerfull.[opinion]Now, the main point of these gamse strikes me as a sort of socialized hampster wheel for people to waste time on. Sort of like getting stoned and hanging out, only less introspective, and over the internet.[/opinion]

only a few don't. Mainly ones that only want IE. For instance, the website to blue cross blue shield(a health insurance company) only lets you sign up using IE. Because they are annoying like that.

actually, that will later be a paid feature, so don't get used to it.

KDE doesn't strike me as a 'modern' GUI. Because it is terrible in its design. If you use anything, use gnome, or something else entirely.

I suppose this is as good a time as any to post my 'religious experience'.I had taken a philosophy of religion course in college, and found it interesting. In response, I began to study religious philosophy outside of that covered by the course(which was christian apologetics).So, I began to check out other religion's philosophies. So, I began studying the Tao and Buddhism. The Tao was interesting, but that was about all. Buddism was also interesting, but seemed to have more depth(though its hard as hell to find good books, by my definition). I ended up having unanswered questions about karma and rebirth, which were particularly prone to conflicting reports. Not only did my sources fail to agree about such things as what exactly these things were/meant, but also how important they were, and even their place in the philosophy at all.So I decided to go to an authority. As it happens, I live down the road from the largest Theravada monastery in NC. So, I picked a day I was free, got in my car, and went down the road.When I arrived I saw a monk busy stacking wood outside the monastery. He was, from a distance, a middleaged oriental man, with the darker skin of southeast asia.I went up to talk to him, and he stopped and turned at my approach.I remember very little clearly after this point. What I do remember is the almost physical power of the man's presence. The word 'serene' is....inadequate. I am normally a very direct, forcefull person, but I must admit that I have basically no memory of the man's face, which I presume means I was unable to easily look him in the eye, being so humbled. As I talked with him, my consciousness began to adjust to the monk, and I became able to comprehend another, less obvious aspect of the man's presence. People speak of 'compassion', or 'love', and I know what both of these things are. However, they once again do not do a true justice to my sensation. Put most simply, I felt that the man in front of me would, though he had met me only minutes before, give his life to aid me. A better word might be 'selflessness', and this was indeed how he reacted to me. My problems were his, and all things were the same as himself.I went away that day with my original questions only partially answered(apparently even monks don't agree on those matters of doctrine). However, those questions paled in comparison to the questions I now had.Does this mean I am a buddhist? No. As I mentioned in a previous post, doubt is a powerful adversary.some of my questions about karma and rebirth have been answered, but the only interpretations that can survive doubt to any extent do not match the 'traditional' interpretations of scripture(which can be pretty off base by any reading, the extent depends heavily on the form of buddhism involved). There are other issues as well. How much of my experience was partially my own creation? I have met other monks, and they have not affected me so, nor has that monk on other occassions(though they are still some of the nicest people, if not THE nicest, I have ever met). Also, there is a difference between the monk and his creed. Just because one monk can have such an affect does not mean that their religion made them this way, it may very well be something specific to that person. And so on and so forth.So, much later I have a large set of knowledge of buddhism, some of which has survived doubt, and some of which has not. In this case, it is the more important, 'core' ideas(the 4 noble truths) which have survived better than the less core ideas(karma, rebirth) and most of the mahayana doctrinal interpretations.

Oh, sucks to be you then. Wait till after the 11th of January. Apple is going to start selling 499$ mac . Then spend $100 bucks to upgrade to final cut express. This way you not only get a new computer but also nice software for the same price as the adobe premier solution.

Ilunath's view makes sense to me, though it is clear that he has not had much experience outside of western religions(though I could be wrong). That being said, his criticism of all religions only to the extent that a religion attempts to give factual answers to things(such as the beginning of the world, its formation, or even what creatures eat) as opposed to giving answers to our emotional and philosophical problems, eg 'should I lie?', 'how do I know what I should do', 'how should I respond to problems?', etc...The problem as I see it for western religions is that the answers they give to the moral problems rest on believing in their answers to factual questions. Thus, when evidence arises that threatens those factual answers, it seem the whole thing, including ideas of morality, will go down with the ship, and nobody wants to hear that. Instead of worrying about whether or not god exists or not, what creationists and atheists must do is end this dependence. Find a communal interpretation that is acceptable to both sides.For instance, may I suggest the following answer to the creation/evolution debate:A divine, all knowing being may be expected to create the world in the most efficient way possible. Thus, instead of worrying about the details, this being sets up it's creation to work without it's constant supervision(I assume dieties have better things to do than mess with annoying details) Thus, in a single act, the being, in its infinite knowledge, sets the stage for creation to handle itself. As any engineer knows, setting up a system to be so self maintaining is much harder than setting up a system that is not. Therefore, it should surprise no one that the univese exists in such a way.So, evolutionists who believe that the world was sort of 'self made' can consider themselves correct. Creationists may ALSO consider themselves correct.

You think the internet is uncontrolled? It isn't, its like the wild west. There is control, but it is distant and spotty, but it is getting stronger all the time, in an attempt to handle the outlaws.

I doubt anyone was hurt by your comments, certainly not myself. But if you do not wish to talk about these things, then that is your choice. I just don't want you to feel bad or anything, because there is no reason for you to.

You forgot VLC, which is my favorite vid player.

So, I am curious, what do the people here hold as religious faiths? And, at least as importantly, why do you believe it? Please be specific, as pbolduc has noted, there a thousands of forms of chrisitanity, and there are similar variations(though usually not so extreme) in most(all?) religions.Also, please no posts of the sort 'because its true!!!'. We know you think that(at least to some extent) because you are an adherent. Tell why you think it is true, and at least try to back it up a bit. Finally, don't post unless you are willing to open up your views to criticism. I am not saying I will do so(though it is very possible that I will question them), but be aware that any such posting opens you to criticism, and be prepared for that.So, what do you believe, and why?

Lol, good job missing the point. I don't know if that is my fault or yours. And no, I don't believe, which is partially the point. Try reading more closely, perhaps to the end.

For me, that title will likely remain in the hands of the ancient Ultima Underworld 1. At the time, it was the game that most engrossed me. It both entertained me and TRULY put me in a different place, long before myst or any other such game came close to doing so again. Indeed, long after I had retired the venerable 386 I first played it on, I played it again, using a program to compensate for speed differences, an a pentium 2, in the early days of quake 3. And you know what? It was still great, ancient graphics and all.

Thanks for the compliment pete. I wish to make a distinction that will probably be usefull, and that is the difference in underlying viewpoints that I think you and I hold. These differences are very basic I think, so I would like to sketch out what I see as their source.You strike me, perhaps wrongly, as a man brought up in a religious household. I do not mean religious in the devout way, but instead religious in the sense that God was paid at least some minimum of lip service. Further, like most everyone in this entire country, you were raised around other children from a similar background. In this environment, the existence of a God, specifically the Christian God, is a basic assumption, lying unquestoned. A stone beneath the river of life, unnoticed at the time but constant in its presence and influence. Like I said, I may be wrong, but for the moment I hope you will grant that this is at the very least a not uncommon state of affairs, that I wish to contrast with my own.My origins were not so standard, if any upbringing may be called standard. My mother and father agreed not to say anything of religion of any sort to me until I was, in their mind, old enough to 'decide for himself'. They did this originally as a form of compromise, as my father was an atheist and my mother was (at the time) mildly christian. In this way I came up not only agnostic, but rather ignorant of the entire question of who or what was the source of the world around me. I was, more than any agnostic or atheist could hope to ever be, free of any pre-conceived notions about the supernatural and religious. Moreover, I was brought up in California which at the time was already a melting pot of cultures. This environment made people rather shy of speaking of religious conviction, and so the 'big question' remained an area of absolute ignorance to my mind. On top of it all, my parents were rather adept at keeping me occupied at other pursuits of intellect outside of the 'big questions'. All the 'little questions' I had about any sort of thing were answered by my parents with an avalanche of books, a tendency shown in the continual existance of a large(and often overflowing) bookshelf in every room of my parent's house to this day.But here is the thing, sometimes these books contradicted each other. One book, from one year, would say something completely(or at least importantly) different from a book printed a different year, or even the same year but by a different author.Asked about these discrepencies, my parents pointed out that people have different perspectives, and furthermore that what was thought to be known at one point in time may instead have been completely off base. This idea was not a new one, as I had often noticed how adults would tell me one thing, only to contradict themselves later. Or worse, some would tell me that 'I shouldn't be so nosy' or 'kids shouldn't be asking such questions' or some other similar form of informational rejection that I gradually came to understand really meant 'I don't like answering questions all the time' or 'I don't know the answer, so why should you?'. And in all this, very early, there arose the seed of doubt. Not the existential doubt that plagues many an overpaid and underfed artist, nor the incredulous feeling experienced by someone who has been offered the deed to the Eiffel tower. No, this doubt was much simpler and subtle, possessed of the realization that the truth of any answer to any question was never so solid as others made it out to be. Rather, truth was really a sort of communal agreement that everyone more or less agreed to in order to get things done(without going into particulars, because that makes things harder). At the same time, it is impossible not to notice that some things are pretty well agreed upon. Indeed, some things are in little if any contention by anyone. But here again you see, doubt must exist. As history teachers love to tell their students, everyone(or close enough) used to think the world was flat. So, what does that leave to stand on that can be truly be called 'truth', in any sort of absolute, dependable way?Very little really. Truth is never really known, outside of purely logical truths. But even those rest on the truth of other propositions, and we know where that leads. So, the next step is to make a 'most reasonable' or at least 'most practical' guess at the truth.How does one reach this 'most reasonable guess'? By observing the world, and trying to figure it out as best we can, with doubt always watching over ones shoulder.So, back to the beginning of this post(and the point). The difference between perspectives is that when you talk with people like myself(and I suspect hashbang as well), is that for you, there is truth. It lies like that stone under the river, constant and unchanging. For us, it is not so clear. We are all to aware that the stone is being worn by the flow, and that it is only our all to brief perpective that makes it seem to stand unchanged. We do not debate that truth exists, simply that any ABSOLUTE knowledge of it is denied to us. We make do with trying to approximate it with many observations of what it appears to be.Furthermore, even knowledge of the sort, 'but I know it in my heart that this is true' falls prey to doubt. How often have we had feelings of that sort, but been wrong? "I know Sally took my candy pop! I just do." Only to find out that it was simply misplaced. Perhaps a religious feeling is much stronger, or even somehow different, but they cannot subsist to us unaided, as they must survive the baleful eye of doubt.I say this knowingly. I have had what people usually refer to as a 'religious experience'(though not a christian one). Yet despite that, as moved as I was, at the same time I stood unmoved, the sword of doubt preventing even powerfull emotions to gain much foothold, until such time as I could find good reason to have it step aside(which, to an extent, I later did. But that is a story for a different post). So, whenever you wish to convince me, or hashbang, or anyone like us, remember: you are wasting your time convincing us, the one you must convince is doubt.And doubt is a cunning, ruthless, and fearless foe, whose power is strong, and whose heart is unmoveable.(written once again partly as writing practice, criticism of both the point, as well as the writing's style, cadence, etc... are welcome and apppreciated)

What I find strange is the need for us to have a purpose. It seems that whenever a conversation of this sort happens, that idea comes up. I personally don't think that there is a 'purpose' in the sense being used here. There is no 'grand design' which would supply such a purpose. To some, this seems very pessimistic, possibly fatalistic. It took me a long time to understand why people saw it that way. The reason is that, for them, this world has a purpose(The arrogant ones will tell you what it is, the others will claim ignorance, other than this deep intuitive belief that such a purpose exists, whatever it may be). To claim that the universe is purposeless is to declare to them that the universe has spun out of control, gone insane somehow, been unglued.But that is only because to them, such a view is to say that the universe has LOST its purpose, where what I really mean is that I don't think it ever had one to begin with. No purpose has been lost, nothing has gone insane nor come unglued. Rather, the complex interweave of the universe strikes me as unguided, a sort of happy accident of litterally cosmic proportions.And once again, for similar reasons, this strikes many as horrible pessimism, or perhaps youthful rebellion against a christian upbringing(which is impossible since I never had one). But to me it is the opposite: It is the most optimistic view anyone could hold.Why? Because that means I am lucky simply to live. To be an accident of this sort is to already be more lucky than the weekly lottery winner. It means that whatever problems are faced by humanity are problems that are human in scale: no plan or design exists to crush our hopes nor foil our dreams. The problems that exist are solveable on THIS plane of existence, no matter how hard they seem. But it also inspires a sense of duty, of responsibility. If I, my friends, indeed the entire world is but a happy accident, then no one may reasonably expect for it to happen again. And because this is so, not only I but all the other happy accidents on this planet had better take damn good care of it, because its the only one we get. If this is a happy accident, then we should be noble and compassionate and honest and true, because that is the only way to really make it all worth a damn. There may be no purpose, no grand design, no man behind the curtain, but that doesn't mean that we as a species cannot give it a purpose, make a design. But it will require mankind to take off the curtain, stare itself in the eye, and realize that whether or not we agree about such things, WE are responsible for what occurs and for all intents and purposes, WE are the man behind the curtain, may we make ourselves worthy.(ps, I am working on my writing, so tell me how you liked how that read. thx)

HHHhhhmmm..... That means I have a little over two weeks of music on my hard drive.... That said, I doubt anyone buys the larger ipods for only music. I for one want an ipod for use as a portable hard drive/backup.

um, ok.... I am not sure how that directly relates to the discussion... In any case, that is sort of my point. ANY talk of knowing God tends to be an arrogant viewpoint. Io God needed? I am not sure how exactly to answer that question. Needed for what? Morality? I am not a believer, neither are most Buddhists/Taoists/etc. Most atheists and agnostics lead what I consider to be rather moral lives..... So, clearly not(at least by my reconning) For explaining horrible things? I hope not, that seems more suited to devils to me, and I see no reason why there must be a god for there to be devils(and no I don't believe in devils, just to clear that up). So then, please explain what we need god for in this context(ie, none of that salvation stuff, because that is not relevant, not to mention arrogant that you know through whatever source how or why one is 'saved'. If you didn't intend to go there my appologies) As for natural disasters in general, why is it hard conclude that plates move, and that therefore we should do what we can about it and learn from our mistakes with regards to warning systems and such, while of course cleaning up the mess(which is what we are really doing now, I just wonder why others bother to bring god into it)

Thanks hashbang for setting the forum up, cause I have been way too busy with work. Anyway, beyond the good point made by shaldengeki, I always am amazed at the arrogance displayed by religious leaders of any stripe when they declare such events as a 'message' as this usually implies that said leader somehow knows what that god wants, as well as being sort of insulting. As if any being like that couldn't just call everyone on the phone and tell em what's what.

No, programmers arent unionized. It doesn't help that many(or at least almost all the ones I know) are libertarians. My view is that they, as white collar workers, don't want to unionize because that would mean their skills are a commodity instead of being a part of some elite club. Its too bad too, since they could really use a union right now.

you are correct sir, windows help might as well not exhist. The same could be said of 'help' in linux(this doesn't include man pages, because that isn't help so much as the manual)the only thing I have used that actually spent time on the help pages to the extent that they will help you solve just about anything is OS X. But then again thats what you pay your 130$ for.

Frankly, neither of these is the best video editing software. The best(hands down and with a substantial lead) is final cut pro. After that, final cut express, in terms of price/performance.