webintern

I am not familiar with the particular Carrefour stores in the Nederlands or Belgie. But in the other countries where I have seen them, I would say that some can be compared to a Wal-Mart with a grocery section, akin to a more mainstream Costco or Sam's Club. And as far as I can recall Wal-Mart was positioning itself to sell budget computers (although it has been ages since I last stepped into a store). If I am not mistaken, some of these were to be based on the Linspire operating system, which is a derivative of Linux.

It's an interesting concept, Vyoma. I believe such a collaboration of high-quality websites would market well as a group to potential advertisers.I am nevertheless curious about one point: the fair division of advertising-generated revenue. I understand when you said that site A with 60% of the traffic would earn 60% of the total income, and so forth. On the other hand, how would you fairly divide the income while taking into account the possibility for fraud? Site A can "artificially" increase its traffic through dubious means. If the overall income for the group is proportionate to the amount of traffic received (e.g., 1000 hits for Site A equals $1 and 500 hits for Site B equals fifty cents that the advertisers must pay), then this is not a problem. Site B is not penalized for Site A's inflated numbers. But if you charge a flat fee, then Site A's "artificially" increased traffic would mean that it would get a larger percentage of that flat fee (e.g., 1000 hits for Site A equals 2/3 of flat fee and 500 hits for Site B equals 1/3 of flat fee. Alternatively, 5000 fake hits for Site A equals 91% of flat fee and 500 legitimate hits for Site B equals a mere 9% of the flat fee).By the way, I am not suggesting that your future partners will try to deceive you or engage in questionable practices. I am simply curious what mechanisms you plan to put in place to protect each member of the group from potential fraud. In any case, I wish you the best with your website and future advertising plans.

I must hand it to Google. They have some very smart people working for them. Who would ever conceive of the idea of having people do for free what normally would be the work of paid individuals or a better program algorithm?* Now, that is marketing genius. No doubt, there is a certain degree of altruism (help others be able to better find target images) and selfishness (improve the image search engine for my own use). But, I have so far not seen Yahoo or Microsoft capitalize on the free labor of the masses to develop and advertise their commercial products.*By the way, I was not literally asking who invented the idea for Google.

There are many HTML editors, but not too many WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get) editors. If you are unfarmiliar with HTML, I would suggest sticking with the WYSIWYG editors. Some examples (as were mentioned by wutske) include the following: Word, FrontPage, and Dreamweaver. Others to consider are FirstPage and N|Vu. Of course, as with any type of product, there are advantages and disadvantages to each one.I agree that Microsoft Word and FrontPage traditionally generate poorly-constructed and Microsoft-centric HTML code. I nevertheless heard that the newest version of FrontPage strays from the monopolistic behavior of its predecessors, and it creates much cleaner HTML code. So, FrontPage can be a consideration. This costs though. I used Dreamweaver at a company sometime ago. I love the software. But, it costs, too, so I do not have it.For freeware, you should strongly consider FirstPage and N|vu. FirstPage is predominantly an HTML-only editor, but the newest version has some WYSIWYG features in it. I downloaded it and tried it at one point, but I think the poor responsiveness of the user-interface frustrated me. Somehow the cursor was sooo slow to react. The speed issue is a known bug, but I cannot recall whether anybody has really addressed it. This was unfortunate, because the software seemed to have a rich set of features and held much promise. Unfortunately, the poor usability led me to delete it.I have also tried N|Vu. It is fast, responsive, and writes HTML well. It was originally supported by the company that produces Linspire (formerly known as "Lindows" before the Microsoft lawsuit). It can produce decent web pages. But compared to FirstPage, N|Vu has fewer features and does not seem adapted for fancy DHTML/CSS/AJAX sites. If you want to create quick web pages, this is the product that will suit your needs well. As a side note, it is still at version 1 due to stopped development. So, in a way, it does not have space to grow.If you have the time, I would recommend investing some energy into learning HTML and related coding formats. They are very straightforward, and you gain the knowledge to completely control the look-and-feel of your web pages. As mentioned earlier, there is not lack of plain HTML editors, some with great features. In any case, good luck with all your work.

It is interesting how we have now gotten so used to gigabyte-sized e-mail inboxes. The original message was posted less than a year ago, and the user was concerned about only having 2 MEGABYTES (WOW) of e-mail disk space. We have certainly gone quite far. On the other hand, I thought the mega-size inboxes were already available much earlier than when the original message was posted (October 2005).In any case, the competition between Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo has certainly benefited the consumers, because it has forced innovation and the delivery of more features. It would be interesting to see where we find ourselves one year from now.

Statistically, I have seen many more computer newbies purchase Windows-based computers. Their decisions was, however, not based on the simplicity of Windows (which, unfortunately, is actually rather cumbersome to use for the beginner), but based on the relative price and market share of the Windows and Intel match-up (before AMD came into the picture). But from the few people I have seen purchase Macintoshes, I must admit that for the begininner, the MacOS is far more intuitive and easier to learn than the Microsoft Windows family. As a bonus, it is more elegant and appears more gorgeous to the eye. I wouldn't mind getting one myself.Although I say that the MacOS has a relatively easier user-interface to navigate, I am a stronger proponent of purchasing Windows-based systems. Be forewarned that my reasons for such are largely irrational, but more based on personal preference. I view Windows as being more configurable and accompanied by an immensely wider selection of software. It is also more complicated to use, which requries a better understanding (although not much) of computers to work through issues. This may be a good or a bad aspect of the operating system. Moreover, I feel psychologically more comfortable wiping out Windows from an AMD/Intel computer and installing Linux or whatever than doing the same to an Apple computer. If I invest in expensive Apple hardware and software, I cannot get myself to remove either one.Sorry for the verbose commentaries, but in short, I think you should select an operating system (Windows or Mac) based on your personal preference. I would, however, shy away from Linux as a beginner. Leave the Linux as your next or third operating system, as you become more adept with the concept of user interfaces and more comfortable with manipulating diverse forms of software.

A lot has already been said about the topic, and, unfortunately, I was not able to read every entry. There is no doubt that genetic technology can and will evolve to allow manipulation of human genes. Despite critics and ethicists (of whom I am one) who warn us against interfering with basic human nature, human inquisitiveness and our uncanny ability to rationalize against any form of morality will inevitably lead to the human race applying genetic engineering on itself. Society norms and values will catch up, regardless of how strong the opposition is during the inception of the first human clone or genetically-engineered baby.So the question is not IF, but WHEN will we begin to genetically engineer ourselves. Consequently, our ability to create X-Men depends on which mutant powers are within the realm--or even the edge--of possibility. Some possibilities include chameleon-like mutants, mutants who derive their energy via photosynthesis, or mutants with eagle eyes and wings. Less likely possibilities, on the other hand, are those that have not yet been effected by biophysics. For example, how will one conceptually create a mutant to control the weather patterns? How would one be able to become invisible or walk through walls? Controlling others' minds?On the other hand, we must also remain alert that all far-fetched and fantastic ideas are not necessarily beyond the grasp of reality. The cavemen could not ever imagine, not in a million years, of these so-called liquid crystal displays that produce images and change colors based on the user's will. Even the greatest philosophers of the Renaissance era may not have been able to remotely conjure the idea of invisible beams that transmit energy to objects floating thousands of miles away. In short, anything is potentially possible. But, we do not know what is or what is not.

I currently use box.net which only offers a paltry 1 GB with their free service. I have so far only used it to transport files between computers (instead of constantly carrying a USB thumbdrive) and have therefore not found much need for more disk space.I am thinking though that I should also use an online service to back up my important data (yes, I am living on the edge). In case my Dell laptop catches on fire with its exploding battery adaptor or my home crumbles in flames, at least my data are secure elsewhere.I am still leery though of online storage services. How do I know my data are secure from prying eyes? I don't have anything THAT confidential, but I would nonetheless prefer to keep my data to myself. Does anybody know of any controversy surrounding AOL or XDrive vis-a-vis privacy issues?As a side note about MediaMax ... max download of 1 GB per month will require 25 months (2 years and 1 month) to download 25 GB! If you backup your hard drive there, you're out of luck when little sister accidentally formats it.

I appreciate the advice. I will contact Microscopic Earthling about the potential error, since Opaque seems to be flooded with work.As a side note, I am impressed by the responsiveness of the online community. I feel the credit system for free hosting that is dependent on quality posting is a great idea. It helps develop a community of serious and knowledgeable contributors. That is also why I chose Xisto over Xisto (by the way, I am not ragging on Xisto or demeaning any of its members at all. Both forums just cater to different personalities and interests).

I may have missed something somewhere. I signed up for a regular hosting package, which I thought had 150 MB disk space. But when I worked on CPanel for the first time today, I noticed that my quota had 20 MB. I went back to my original hosting application and did see that I had requested package #2. I also had >30 points when I applied.Is there a temporary transition of 20 MB before an account is upgraded to 150 MB (like with Hotmail)? Or, was this a mistake? Any responses to shed some light on this confusing matter would be most helpful.

Speaking about Windows Vista and XP, I trust that Microsoft will have significant differences between versions. The switch from Windows 3.1 to 95 was fairly dramatic, and the transition from Windows 98 or ME to XP was even greater. With each additional version, the operating system becomes more robust, user-friendly, and beautiful. (As a disclaimer, let me emphasize that I am not saying that Windows is the ideal operating system. I am merely speaking of the evolution of this particular product).On the other hand, I was not jumping off my seat to download the Vista release candidates, nor will I immediately migrate to the final product when it comes out. As is with the Windows tradition, Vista promises to be even bulkier, more resource intensive, and power hungry than its earlier counterparts. Moreover, the price does not fit into my current budget. Finally, although I have tried and deleted Linux in the past, I plan on giving it another shot sometime in the future to decrease my dependence on Microsoft. I can't back my statements with statistics, but I am under the impression that the Windows monopoly is progressively losing its grip. Linux is becoming a viable alternative for the masses--not just computer geeks.

One major problem with wikis is the potential for vandalism. Just as Arbitrary mentioned, a wiki can be edited by anyone, and this would include the less scrupulous individuals as well. Moreover, the more popular a wiki is, the more exposed it is to vandalism. On the other hand, the larger its user base, the more "fact checking" (term not technically accurate) or "monitoring" occurs among the users. So when Stephen Colbert blatantly placed misinformation into Wikipedia while on air, it did not take long for the errors to be removed.I would be interested in setting up a wiki, but would prefer to limit the entries to a few trusted editors. But does that essentially contradict the concept of wikis? Will the project no longer be a wiki, but something else?Anyway, I would be interested to know whether anybody on Xisto has been able to install a wiki other than tikiwiki and phpwiki. I am particuarly interested in MediaWiki, the engine used by Wikipedia.

I have never used the Norton suite of software, so I cannot comment on it. I have, however, used McAfee Anti-Virus Professional, Firewall and related products. The software took over my entire system (figuratively speaking, of course) and dramatically slowed it down. Moreover, any small "incorrect" change or installation caused my network connections to break. It binds the network protocols to its filters. While traveling abroad several years ago, my Internet connection suddenly stopped working. I investigated the DNS settings, the TCP/IP config, the ISP, the modem, the cable, the whatever. Since I did not have a copy of my McAfee disks, I was afraid to uninstall it and expose my unprotected computer to the Internet. After many futile and frustrating attempts, I uninstalled the McAfee software and the network connections suddenly worked. I am not your grandma on the Internet and have experience setting up different firewalls. McAfee, in my opinion, was just too bulky and unstable. I have since switched to AVG and Kerio, and am glad of this decision. My system runs much more smoothly and I haven't had a hiccup with my network connections for the past few years.User experience may vary.

I think it would be a great idea if enough willing volunteers contribute to the effort. I don't think new information necessarily needs to be created, but old information dispersed throughout this forum can be categorized in an easy-to-navigate format on a wiki. IMHO, the forums already include a wealth of information. If you need to know something related to hosting here, creating a website, etc., the technical details are listed _somewhere_. However, the problem is that sifting through the individual forum subtopics or doing searches can be quite cumbersome.I remember when I first came to Xisto. I did not know the hosting policies, etc., so I searched high and low for answers. Unfortunate to say, they are not immediately visible or easy to find. I do not know, but perhaps, a centralized area of information (again, speaking about the wiki) may reduce the number of hosting applicants with 0 posts. Or, maybe not. In any case, I can imagine the wiki to be a useful addition.

I can't believe it ... I wrote a long treatise on the advantages and disadvantages of each type of fuel. The forum then hiccups on me, and I lost everything. :~(Well, I'll just provided an abbreviated version of what I wrote earlier. I'm too tired and lazy to recapitulate every point I made. In brief, I said that it would be great to have alternative types of fuels and sources. Our dependence on Mideast and foreign oil has driven us to warmongering, price gouging, and purse snatching (okay, I exaggerate on the last one, but it rhymed with everything else). The current form of gasoline also has a negative impact on global warming. These two topics are reserved for another discussion.With regards to hydrogen fuel, I have also heard that a risk involved is potential for explosions in motor vehicle collisions. Considering how motor vehicle accidents account for one of the leading causes of death among teenagers, the statistics already prove that the rate of accidents cannot be ignored. Moreover, these numbers do not include major accidents that do not lead to death. In such cases, an explosion from the unstable hydrogen gases may instead lead to multiple fatalities. The risks are not negligible.As for corn-based fuels, I hear they can be a cleaner alternative to current gasolines. It diminishes our reliance on foreign oil. Another advantage is that the government can hopefully reappropriate money originally slated for farm subsidies to other important sectors in dire need of funding ... such as our ailing education in the United States (that is a whole other discussion as well). Unfortunately, corn-derived ethanol supposedly requires a huge investment of energy to produce. The net energy consumption will rival that of traditional gasoline. Moreover, the ethanol burns less efficiently than oil, which may result in either a larger gas tank (weight contributes to less fuel efficiency) or smaller driving radius (less convenience). The latter two are relatively trivial reasons, but they are nevertheless thoughts to consider.I am a strong proponent (internally, not proactively) for alternative fuels. The benefits are numerous, but is the automotive industry ready for it? Can fuel stations accept the onerous cost to convert? Is society ready to accept an initially less convenient form of fuel? Or, are the big oil tycoons ready to give up their black gold?

I appreciate your curiosity and interest in this subject matter. Unfortunately, based on similar posts made by you, they seem like homework questions that you request to be answered by the community. I will give you the benefit of the doubt, but otherwise, you should at least make a diligent effort in first researching this topic on your own prior to seeking help from others. Anyway, in response to the question about fatty acids, they undergo beta oxidation in the mitochondria where they are subsequently converted to acetyl-CoA molecules. The number of FADH2 and NADH generated depends on the length of the fatty acid chain. You may want to look up beta-oxidation on a search engine for details. That is, you can find as much or as little information you want about it. I have a background in biochemistry, so I can continue writing, but it would serve little purpose if it is either too complex or simplistic to you. As for the long-chain fatty acids, they are transported into the mitochondrial matrix via the carnitine cycle. The fatty acid is first activated into a fatty acyl-CoA form. The fatty acyl molecule is then attached to the carnitine protein. The fatty-acyl-carnitine complex is transported into the mitochondria via the carnitine acylcarnitine translocase protein. Once inside the mitochondrial matrix, the fatty acyl molecule is detached from carnitine, reactivated into the fatty acyl-CoA form, and undergoes beta oxidation. The question specifically asks about long-chain fatty acids, and so it is presented as such. Interestingly, medium-chain fatty acids do no require the carnitine transport system. That is why people with an inborn defect in the carnitine system can be treated through strict dietary measures. I hope this helps.

Steve Irwin was a great guy to watch. Not only did he add to the suspense in his dangerous activities, he had a great sense of humor and child-like enthusiasm. I think these qualities were key factors in making him wildly successful (excuse the pun) worldwide. He tried to make the acts more astonishing and daring, such as when he brought his 4-month old (I can't remember the age) son into the arena.Although it is a sad moment that he was killed while filming, it was not entirely unexpected. It is nevertheless ironic that he was killed by a stingray (which, by the way, is very rare) than a crocodile.

I know I am unearthing a thread older than a year old, but I have a question similar to the one above. I am looking for a content management system where logged users can co-edit different pages ... a "wiki" of sorts.I noticed in another post that Xisto supports phpWiki and TikiWiki. I went to opensourcecms.com and played around with the two and was disappointed by the results. I am not saying that they are bad, but they do not fit with my particular needs. phpWiki is not customizable. TikiWiki is feature-rich, but there are a few quirks I do not like. I am not too fond of the wiki-style of defining new pages where two words (e.g., "Ferrari" and "Maranello") have to be contracted into one word (i.e., "FerrariMaranello").I have been playing around with MediaWiki and it may fit my needs. Since Microscopic^Earthling mentioned MediaWiki, does it mean that Xisto supports it?

Maybe I am missing or misinterpreting something here. Is the announcement about GMail just implementing an anti-virus scanner or about it using it to filter files to be sent out? If it is the former, then I am rather surprised that Google had not built this into their system any earlier. This is practically a de facto feature of any major e-mail service. If, on the other hand, the announcement was about the latter, then I applaud their efforts to minimize the spread of viruses.Sending files via e-mail can be a conscious (malicious hacker) or unknown (spyware, unknowingly infected file) event. In either case, the file should not be transmitted to other users. Now for whatever reason, if the user really wanted to give the virus-infected file to a willing friend, then there are file sharing services that the sender can use. But how often are people willing to receive files with viruses in them?On a different note, GMail was penetrated by spammers a number of months ago. Even for e-mail addresses I never publicized, I had junk mail in them. So, I suppose it would be great if GMail beefs up its anti-spam technology. Spam mail can be so annoying.

Mark420, they are all good designs, so I see why it can be difficult to choose one over the other. I will give my comments on each one with a short explanation of my likes and dislikes, then tell you which is my favorite.Banner 1 - this one is clean and elegant. The color choices are good. I also like the orange shadow which works well with the rest of the color scheme.Banner 2 - creative use of multiple colors. The title stands out and is fairly easy to read. The use of a whit faded border is also good.Banner 3 - good dark background, but the red in some of your letters makes them less visible. The stars blend in with the letters as well. This one is hard to read.Banner 4 - creative use of letters with a grungy feel. It is, however, hard to read.Banner 5 - plain lettering, but that is sometimes what is needed to draw the attention. The font is nice, but the letters are too close to each other, so it is hard to read. Spreading them out may help.Banner 6 - as mentioned about banner 5, the font is good but the letter spacing is less favorable. This is more interesting to look at than banner 5 as well, but I wonder how it would look when inserted with the rest of the web page.Banner 7 - different than the previous designs. This looks too cartoony to me.If you haven't guessed yet from my comments, I prefer banners 1 and 2. Good luck in choosing a banner, and keep us updated.

When applying the Pythagorean theorem on a right triangle, you must first define your variables. In the case of your ladder question, ( a ) is the distance between the foot of the ladder and the wall, ( b ) is the height between the ground and the top of the ladder, and ( c ) is the length of the ladder. Remember that ( c ) is the longest side of the triangle (or the one that is at an incline).So . . . in your question, a = 1.8 and b = unknown and c = 3.a^2 + b^2 = c^21.8^2 + b^2 = 3^23.24 + b^2 = 9b^2 = 9 - 3.24 = 5.76b is the square root of 5.76 or 2.4.Does that sound more reasonable? You had the question down from a conceptual standpoint. It was only an issue of assigning variables. I hope this helps. If you have any more questions, feel free to ask or PM me.

I use both Firefox and Opera, so I cannot be considered a zealot for any particular browser. The only one I disdain is the infamous Internet Explorer.I really like the speed of Opera, its user interface, its responsiveness, its memory management (i.e., no memory leak as found in Firefox), its inclusion of innovative features, etc. On the other hand, I must confess that I use Firefox more often than Opera for several reasons. This is more a practical choice, than a passioned desire to join the band of Firefox fans. My most compelling reason to use Firefox is extensibility. There are millions (okay, I exaggerate) of extensions out there that allow me to customize Firefox into a highly efficient tool that suits my particular needs. Among a host of others, these include extensions that modify the way websites are presented, interact with Notebook or del.icio.us, write blogs, tweak Google, etc. And for all the features mentioned in the posts above, an extension can provide Firefox with that capability. I looked through the Opera Widgets and was largely unimpressed.The best of both worlds would be the Opera browser with extensibility as broad and deep as Firefox. I love both browsers, but Firefox currently edges slightly above Opera for me.

Chesso, you are right that this math problem applies the Pythagorean theorem. You are also right that the length of the ladder must be the longest of all three sides. The problem I found in your statement above was in the use of the formula. You were very close.The formula is a2 + b2 = c2 (or h2 + g2 = r2) and NOT h2 - g2 = r2. The longest side of the right triangle is c. As for your answer with the ladder, the height from the ground to the top edge is indeed 2.4 meters.

Such an invention, if proven true, could certainly contradict the current laws of physics. Then again, in practically any field of science, these laws are never necessarily absolute. Exceptions to Newton's laws were subsequently demonstrated with quantum mechanics.But, I am first a skeptic who requires good evidence or strong circumstantial support to persuade me. As a mere opinion, I call this a bluff. With my experience during the Internet boom and bust, I am well aware of exaggerated claims without substance. There are scam artists everywhere and those willing to risk their integrity or reputation for 15 minutes of fame.Let us, for the fun of it, hypothetically say this technology exists. Yes, it will revolutionize the paradigm of physics as we see it. I do not know about the practical extent of the implications on our daily lives. We already have a clean and rich source of energy through nuclear power. Granted, we can only extract a practical maximum of 70% of the energy it produces, but if you think of efficiency as (output - input / input), then nuclear energy theoretically produces >100% efficiency. The energy does not come from thin air; it simply applies the famous E=mc^2. In any case, it still has not resolved the energy problems we have and our dependence on foreign oil. The same question goes for this supposed breakthrough technology: how much of an effect would it truly have on the common folk?

Microsoft has inarguably a dominance on the operating system market. Most people do NOT buy Windows because it is 1) easy, 2) beautiful, 3) elegant, 4) functional, 5) well-designed, 6) cool, or 7) [insert your favorite adjective]. I myself would be more than happy to relinquish my chains to the Microsoftopoly. I would just as happy--or even more--working on the Mac or Linux/BSD platforms. Unfortunately, software compatibility and availability become important factors in my choice to stick with Windows XP (I have explained my reasons in other threads).I have to disagree that Windows is too easy to use and that it makes people "dumb". Understandably, it is relatively more intuitive than Linux, but there are many subtleties that we take for granted after having learned to use the computer. At one point or another, we too were beginners. Being more experienced with computers, even some members now claim that Linux is easy to use, yet others may disagree. Having helped several complete novices begin using computers, Windows--and even Macs--can appear quite daunting.I agree that Microsoft has many very questionable business practices. It did not get a bad reputation for being powerful, but it remained powerful by doing bad things.