lasto i glemyr

Alright, I'd have to go with...5. 3D Mark '05--a program that tests your system's gaming capabilities: graphics card, processor, RAM, etc.4. Roxio Easy CD Creator 5--great burning and audio editing program3. Fruity Loops--awesome program in which you can write your own songs2. Notepad--you can do just about anything in Notepad. I particularly use it for programming in HTML, Z80 Assembly, etc.1. Hex Workshop 4.2--the best program ever!! Free for download, and you can hex edit levels and weapons in games like Halo.

Interesting idea...however, I can see some flaws. So far, nothing has been able to generate 100% efficiency or higher, and it appears to be impossible.Basically in your system, you are converting electrical energy into mechanical energy, and then with the generator it is being reconverted into electrical energy through back-EMF. I think that, in perfect conditions, this would yield 100% efficiency. However, perfect conditions are unattainable...forces such as friction and heat loss due to resistance in the wires would lower the efficiency of the machine. Therefore, we end up with less energy than what we started with.Instead, I think that we should try to convert matter into energy, for this actually will generate more output energy than what is input. It is for this reason that, once we perfect it, fusion will be the next big breakthrough in energy...a huge output with little or no environmental consequences.

I remember seeing a special on TV about experiments in robotic prosthetics.In one of the experiments they did, they implanted a wireless chip into a rat that would interface with its brain. The chip was linked to a computer. What they did is they put the rat in a maze and set it loose. At first, the rat was completely lost, but then the man on the computer (somehow) began to feed the rat directions through the implanted chip.So clearly interfacing with the brain is possible, but there are a lot more advances to be made in the field before we see people walking around with a robotic prosthesis.

Funny that you should mention older movies...Indeed, the advances in technology have been incredible, but have the advances in computers really helped the special effects of movies?Looking back 12 years ago to 1993, Jurassic Park was first released. To me, this movie had some of the best special effects, and I think it still does. It seems that in this movie, the visual effects artists created a perfect balance of animatronics and computer graphics.Now, some of the newer movies' special effects are created using computers instead of actual people and animatronics. Sure, this does add a great deal of possibilities to the special effects industry, but you have to admit that some of these computer-generated effects look pretty cheesy (there are some exceptions, of course, like most of The Matrix or The Lord of the Rings trilogies). It seems movie makers are taking the cheap way out...why spend hundreds of thousands on animatronics when you could just do it on a computer and save a lot of money?I'm sure that the technology of computer-generated special effects will improve in the coming years, but for now I think that the movies rely too much on computer graphics.

There is another possible explanation for the inaccurate carbon dating.Scientists believe that, back in the 15th century, the shroud suffered some fire damage, which is why it has the holes and burns in it today. They believe that the fire could easily have deposited some newer carbon atoms on the cloth, thus throwing off the results of the carbon dating tests.

Hex modding the map files of Halo is awesome; the gun combinations you can get are absolutely insane.Try modding to shotgun so that instead of shooting out pellets, it shoots out tank shells or plasma cannons. The result is a gun with so much power that with one shot you can shoot a Warthog from one base in Blood Gulch all the way over to the other.

I don't really think there is much of a risk to Earth by running a fusion reactor on it. There's probably more of a risk by running fission reactors. Firstly, fusion doesn't generate any harmful products, so there's practically no environmental risk there. And secondly, Any amount of power we create on Earth would not screw up the planet. We're getting the fuel from seawater on Earth. Therefore, we would not be screwing up the energy balance of Earth at all due to the Laws of Conservation of Energy and Matter.

Hello all.I was wondering...is there anyone out there who likes Jethro Tull, or has even heard of them? If you do, which songs of theirs do you like?And has anyone ever heard the full, 42-minute version of Thick as a Brick? What do you think?

I hear you, tattoopunk.There used to be an age when music was good and original; that is, back in the 60s and 70s. Back then, bands used to generate quality, original music that is a lost art today.Today, when an original band appears, there are about 15 other bands waiting to copy their style. Not only that, but today, any band can make and sell music, regardless of how talented they are.Back in the golden era of music, albums were developed with clear themes and original, creative cover art that supported those themes. Today, CDs are just a compilation of random songs with random cover art (this is why I like Trans-Siberian Orchestra; their music tells a story and the cover art is relevant). It's just not the same anymore.As for sound quality, I could go either way. CDs are clearer, but there's something about the archaic sound of vinyls that is appealing as well.

My dad has the biggest vinyl collection I have ever seen...probably 500 or more. This includes some of the following:QueenJethro TullJourneyLynyrd SkynyrdLed ZeppelinThe BeatlesThe ClashTrapezeThe WhoTriumviratPink FloydBlodwyn Pigand a whole lot more...

Here are my favorites:Jethro TullQueenLinkin ParkGreen DayWeezerSmash MouthThe Whoand, of course, Trans-Siberian Orchestra

I like rock music, especially classic rock. At the moment, I am listening to "Boulevard of Broken Dreams" by Green Day.I'd have to say my all-time favorite is actually a Jethro Tull song called "The Third Hoorah"...best song ever

I like some of U2's music, particularly "Elevation", "Mysterious Ways", and "Vertigo", though I might not agree with the comment that they're the biggest band in the world today.

Yeah, it's definitely unique, I can say that...yeah, but some of it's pretty good, like the song from Gone in 60 Seconds and "Honey".

Well, if you're looking to keep your card for another two years, it wouldn't hurt to spend a little extra to go with the better card.If you're upgrading from a 32 MB card, you'll be pretty amazed with whatever you get...

I wasn't aware that they had decommissioned enough old Cold War hardware to make a camera like that, knowing the CIA and all those Echelon theories. Anyway, that kind of resolution is ridiculous. If typical image files ever get to be that resolution, they'd have to invent some better method of compression. Anyone with a dial-up connection would be screwed if they didn't...

Yeah, this is true, but one might argue that humans and apes have been evolving over time, and they still are. For example, humans are getting taller as time progresses. The ancient Egyptian males had an average height of something like 4' 11", whereas now it's more like 5'8" or 5'9". Also, the pinky finger and toes are decreasing over time as well. They simply aren't used as much as they used to be, so they are diminishing. As for apes/chimps, you will see that they are very well adapted to their environments; thus, they have no reason to evolve into humans. The obvious point here is the opposable thumb that primates have; they also have opposable big toes so that their feet can grip branches as well. Anyway, they are evolved to survive in their environment, and they don't need to evolve into people. Another interesting blurb: there have been experiments where scientists have tried and somewhat succeeded in teaching sign language to chimpanzees. Scientists speculate that humans began to evolve when complex speech and language was developed. Some of the more extreme thinkers believe that, by teaching a language to chimpanzees, that chimps will also begin evolving into a human-like creature. Thus, they hypothesize that, by teaching language to chimps, that we could witness something similar to the evolution of man some millions of years ago.

Here's something interesting to consider for those who would like to see more wind and solar power used:To utilize wind power, a vast number of windmills must be used. Where are we going to put them? No one wants them where they live, they always talk about "skyline pollution" affecting their view. Even if it is a clean, efficient source, I don't think it is feasible to run countries or even cities off of wind power.As for solar power, the sun's energy is captured using solar cells. If you ever look into the process of creating solar cells, you will find that it is very inefficient. It takes a large amount of fossil fuel to be burned in order to create a solar cell; in fact, burning the fossil fuel directly is more efficient than burning it to make solar cells.Even hydrogen fuel cells aren't efficient. Fossil fuels are burned in order to create a supply of hydrogen.So, aside from wind power and (debatably) fission, fossil fuels are actually some of the most efficient and cleanest energy sources we have.Hence, I do agree that fusion would revolutionize the energy industry; it's clean, it's efficient, and it yields an incredible amount of energy. This will inevitably be the next big breakthrough in energy, because, at the moment, we are stuck in a rut of inefficient and pollutive fuels.

I may not understand this either, but here's my guess.I suppose that this would not have any effect on the electron; however, I can't imagine how this would be feasibly possible. In order for absolutely NO change to be imposed on the electron, the two photons would have to hit at EXACTLY the same moment; even if they strike apart by 1E-10000 seconds, a change would still be imposed.Considering the accuracy that humans are capable of achieving in labs, I would say that Heisenberg's Principle will always be true. But, in theory, I think this could work (as far as I know; I'm no expert).

Anyone see the recent Discovery Channel special on Pompeii?Anyway, if you didn't here's a brief...debrief: In August of AD 79, Mt. Vesuvius in Italy erupted, burying nearby Roman cities such as Pompeii and Herculaneum with as much as 20 feet of ash and pumace. There was complete devastation in a three-mile radius around the volcano.Scientists speculate that Vesuvius erupts with this much force about every 2000 years...so as you can see, they think it could very well happen again soon.The problem is, back in AD 79, there were about 30,000 people in the area; now there are 3.5 million, so the devastation involved with such an eruption could be catastrophic.Here's the dilemma: if scientists predict an eruption and they order an evacuation, this would be costly and people would lose trust in the government's judgement. If they don't evacuate, millions could die.So what do you think of this situation? Or do you have any other info to add?

Yeah, I do like LCDs too, but the last time I really looked into one was about a year or more ago. If the response times have caught up to CRTs, then I would have to say that LCDs are superior in just about every aspect...except price, of course.

Alright, here goes...AMD Athlon 3200+ 2.2 GHz512 MB PC2700(1) 160 GB Western Digital HDD8x DVD+R burner52x CD-R(W) burnerATI Radeon 9800 Pro 128 MB17" CRT, running at 1280 x 1024System is about 9 months old, cost me about $900

Yeah, obviously it's tough to tell if its a fake or the real thing.Apparently the new theory is that Da Vinci created it; they claim this because the image on the shroud actually looks like a self-portrait of Da Vinci.However, I think this is highly unlikely. First of all, it is claimed that the shroud was discovered before Da Vinci's birth. Also, the shroud carbon dates to around 1200 AD or something like that (some speculate that the reason it dates this far away from Christ's supposed death in roughly 32 AD is that it went through a fire and picked up carbon from that which distorted the dating), but this is still before Da Vinci. Some wonder if Da Vinci would have been smart enough to plant old carbon on the shroud.I personally think that he did not create the shroud; I find it hard to swallow that Da Vinci knew about the carbon dating technique hundreds of years before it was discovered.The other thing to consider, if it is a fake, is that it is a pretty elaborate fake. Some moron would have to spend countless hours in its creation just for some massive historical prank. It just seems no one would spend this kind of time to create a fake, and anyone who would is crazy.So either its the real thing, or someone way back in the 1200s needed to get a life.

Sorry if this shows up twice; my Tab key went a little crazy... Anyway, I don't know if any of you have heard about carbon nanotubes, so here's a brief description.Carbon nanotubes were discovered in the early 1990s by researchers at Rice University in Houston, Texas. They are essentially tube-shaped molecules composed of 60 carbon atoms, and they measure about 1 nanometer in length.These nanotubes exhibit some extraordinary properties that could have many uses. For example, they are extremely conductive, such that they are almost superconducting electricity at room temperature. They also emit electrons when a current is applied to them, making them ideal for super-thin TVs and monitors. In fact, researchers think it is possible to build monitors so small that they can be unrolled like a poster and pinned on a wall.Also, scientists have been successful in making logic gates with them, making them ideal for building computer processors. In fact, nanotubes have several advantages over silicon transistors. Firstly, they are smaller. At the moment, Intel's Pentium IV chip contains about 55 billion silicon transistors. A processor of similar size could contain over a trillion nanotubes; more gates equals more power and speed. Secondly, since they are nearly superconductive, they require a lot less power. This means that they could greatly increase the battery life of portable devices.And finally, the tubes can be used to physically hold hydrogen atoms, which makes them useful in the creation of hydrogen fuel cells.The reason they haven't appeared in markets yet is that they are very expensive; they cost up to $500 per gram. However, SouthWest Nano Technologies is beginning to manufacture them, and their price is expected to fall sharply.So, with all this in mind, do you think that carbon nanotubes are revolutionize the computer and electronics world? Will nanotubes destroy the Era of Silicon and make way for an Era of Carbon?

As far as passwords go, mine probably aren't very secure; then again, I don't really need a high level of security, so I just pick passwords that are easy for me to remember.However, a couple of ideas that might be good regarding passwords. One, it is probably a very good idea to pick new passwords periodically. And two, when making the passwords, it might be a good idea to use various languages, if you know any.For example, you could use a mix of English and Spanish or Elvish and Klingon to make a more secure password.