altimit

Of course they are, sir. You caught the undertone quite fast. I do hope you get your chain letter from your friend. Good luck!

God exists as long as you believe it in. To extend that, anything can exist for you as long as you believe in it. So, who is your god? It is really as simple as that. Whether or not god exists for you or anyone else should be no issue; everyone is entitled to what he or she believes in. What is unfair is taking your belief system in forcing it down other people's throats. Does your god teach you to disrespect other people's beliefs? No matter who your god is, be it the Chriatian god, or if your god is Science, they tell you otherwise. Here then starts the subjective part of this post. I personally believe that whether or not god exists, it should not matter for me. I try to live my life knowing that if I screw up, no deity is there to rescue me from the hole I dug myself into. Believing the someone (or something) is there, watching you, assisting you, and saving you---it is very comforting; but I think that in the end, people can and should only depend on themselves, instead of idling around waiting for happenstance. I prefer to take action. I prefer to take matters in my own hands and do something to fix the problem. It is the same with religion---do we really need religion to be good? Paraphrasing Einstein, wouldn't it be sad if people only do what is right because they are promised a reward after they die? What kind of a society are we in if that was the case? No. I do not believe that. Religion, I think, is only a guide, nothing more. And choosing whether you want to be in a religion or otherwise is just analogous to whether you want someone to guide you and help you get to whatever direction they are going, or you prefer to follow your own moral compass and go your own way.

Hi, Kindly check out this resource. Note that you can losslessly split and concatenate MP3s (much the same way as you can losslessly rotate JPGs in 90-degree increments). Cutting MP3's precisely where a frame ends will result in a clean, lossless cut. I would not recommend blindly concatenating them with generic software though (i.e. cat) since this does not respect the internal format of the files---particularly, file metadata goes at the end of the MP3, and less advanced players might get confused that actual music data (the beginning of the second file) follows the metadata (of the first file), which supposedly should be the end already. Hope that helps.

Hi FirefoxRocks, While I can't help you with locating chain letters (since my spam filter hates them with such an unspeakble fury), what I can do however is point you to a similar resource. As we know, chain letters are those emails the get continuously forwarded. You may opt to send it as-is, or even add, modify, and delete your own pieces of information. As we can see, this is quite a rudimentary form of massive collaborative editing. You must upgrade to next step of this multiplayer notepad game. Try WikiHow, a great collection of credible (?) and undoubtedly useful information in the form of how to's. I even took the time to link you to a search results page of the specific topic you were looking for. Naturally, this was done under the assumption that: You are male You want a girlfriend Have fun!

Hi OpaQue and skedad,If it is alright, I would like to make this suggestion. Instead of having a single threshold value, what can be done is have two thresholds, a low-threshold and high-threshold.The algorithm to decide whether a notification will be sent then, would be to notify if the user falls below the low-threshold. The user is then placed in a specific status, say, "Warning". As long as the user is in this status, the system knows that a notification has already been sent. The "Warning" status is changed to "Normal" only once the user meets the high-threshold.Hence, under this system, assuming that our low-threshold is 10 and our high-threshold is 30. Our user currently is 35, which is still well into the safe zone. It falls to 25, which is still alright (as it has not crossed the low-threshold yet). Once it falls to 9 (which is below the low-threshold of 10), the system sends a notification and the user is flagged as "Warning".Say, the user has read the notification and is working to sort it out and get to the safe zone again. Say, it has risen now to 15 from 9, the user is still under the "Warning" status as it has not met the high-threshold yet. And even it fluctuates below and above 10 (the low-threshold) for a while, the system will no longer annoy the user with multiple notifications since it sees that he already is under the "Warning" status---a notification was already given sometime ago. Only once he reaches 31 is the status changed to "Normal". For the user to receive a notification again would require him to essentially fall from the high-threshold to the low-threshold. This gives him a buffer to work with and smooths out any fluctuations he may introduce into the system.What do you think of this?

Hi, I use Macs, UNIX, and Windows machines on a daily basis as part of my job and my personal life. Each machine has it's strengths and weaknesses, but the general consensus here on this forum is "do not get vista because it is buggy". Contrary to popular belief, Microsoft Windows Vista is a great operating system. As are Macs and UNIX systems; each caters to its specific audience. I can safely assure you that Macs and UNIX systems has its own share of bugs; I do hope you do not get hoodwinked into thinking that they are the "perfect" operating systems because they are not. Yes, other Operating Systems have bugs too. Yes, they experience crashes and slowdowns as well. Yes, they still have gaping holes even up to now. For example, see http://www.tgdaily.com/technology/32596-vista-more-secure-than-xp-mac-os-linux-after-first-180-days-report. While the creator (I believe) is working for the company, there is truth in the data presented. This is backed-up by actual reports by actual people, as well as from my personal experience in working with this machines. What, then, makes Windows seem like a less-than-good Operating System? A very big contributing factor would be its immense popularity and market share. Putting it bluntly, Windows is everywhere. For most parts of the world, it is quite difficult (if not impossible) to look for a place where no system is installed with Windows. With this popularity comes a great price. Since it is everywhere, it is the most easy and viable target for malicious attacks---simply because it is so accessible. Had it been the Macintosh who won the Operating System wars way back then, I would not be surprised if it was under the same attacks (both in terms of software explotation and social mindset) as Windows is in now.

Hi wutske,Yes, that's true, unfortunately. But, a price I personally would be willing to pay for the convenience.What prior companies I have been with do is issue a standard image every quarter or so. While this may not be an option for a casual user, it does solve the problem of outdated installations. Of course, if you find that the software in your image needs a bit of updating, you can opt to do a clean install of the OS as well as the newer version of your applications, and then make a new image out of that.This is incredibly useful if you find yourself needing to restore often. In fact, this was the case I was in before I extensively used virtual machines. By using base images, we were always certain that the environment was clean and was in an expected state prior to testing software for release.

For firewalls, I generally do not accept incoming connections anyway as there's no reason my computer should be answering any attempts from the Internet. Here, a dedicated hardware firewall handles that, along with my router. To filter outbound connections, my usual preference is ZoneLabs' ZoneAlarm. For testing environments though, it's really very beneficial to have virtual machines (such as Virtual PC or VMWare). My set-up at home has virtual machines for all platforms I develop on, in both 32 and 64-bit variants. This makes it very easy to ensure that the software I write functions correctly in a wide array of set-ups.In your case, vdesignlabs, why not have a standard image of your base installation (i.e. Windows, and the softwares you need), and make an image of that (in, say, Norton Ghost)? In that way, when you need to perform a spring cleaning of your box, just backup your data and restore your base image. Very fast and simple, and you get the same clean results every time. The beauty is that you can apply the image to many computers, and you're assured you have the same environment at hand always, with the same programs, the same set-up, and the same customizations that you require.Give it a thought.

I agree that there is no one font that suits all occasions, however, staying away from "Comic Sans MS" is almost always a step forward to choosing the best font, haha. Please, try not to use a font that's both overused and misused.

Hi,What exactly is preventing the server upgrade? Are there technical issues that would make upgrading undesirable?

Hi trinifawk,That really sucks. From my own experience, writing to support online sometimes takes very long; maybe due to the nature of the media itself. Your mail may get put-off, or just sitting there unprocessed.Whenever less-than-par service happens to me, I make it a point to actually call them or appear personally. It almost always guarantees faster service.What do you think?

I see; that's quite interesting. Are you able to ping your server from your coworker's computer? You would need to open a Command Prompt on your coworker's box, and enter: ping xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx Don't forget to replace the "xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx" with your IP address! The result should be something like: E:\>ping 192.168.1.1Pinging 192.168.1.1 with 32 bytes of data:Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=128Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=128Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=128Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=128Ping statistics for 192.168.1.1: Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds: Minimum = 0ms, Maximum = 0ms, Average = 0msE:\> You'll see here that the machine I'm pinging (192.168.1.1) is answering back correctly and there's no problem with the connection. In your case, this should return something similar (most important is the "0% loss" message) as you are in an intranet, and packet loss is a very rare occurence. After this, make sure that if your machine has a firewall active (remember that Windows has a built-in firewall), set it so that incoming connections to your HTTP port (80) is allowed. A quick test to see if it's your firewall that is blocking the connections would be by temporarily turning the firewall off and attempting to access your server from your coworker's PC. Please do update if there's any development.

Hi,I'm very glad you set it up successfully. May you kindly post what exact error you are getting from the other machines? My hunch is that your WAMPserver configured Apache for local access only. Did you put the server online already? This can be done by left clicking the WAMPserver tray icon, then put it online.You may also opt to edit the httpd.conf file to always allow access; look for a line saying "Allow from 127.0.0.1" and kindly change that to "Allow from all". Don't forget to restart the HTTP service!If you're interested, 127.0.0.1 is (like "localhost"), you loopback address. It will always point to the system it is on. "Allow from 127.0.0.1" essentially means, then, to only allow connections from yourself. "all" in "Allow from all" is a special keyword that tells Apache that it's all right to let others access the server.Did that do the trick?

Hi,It looks like you are accessing the files itself, and not via Apache. Remember that with WAMPserver, you now have an actual web server, hence to access it, you use your IP address or machine name (i.e., <http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/; or <http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/;). You may also use <LOCALHOST/> for testing locally, but this address always points to the computer it is on---your coworkers cannot use this to connect to your server.Kindly follow the post-setup instructions for WAMPserver; there should be a section there on how to verify that your installation is successful.Don't lose hope!

Hi,Usually for a home connection, ISPs provide you with their SMTP server for use (instead of your own). This is done to prevent spamming and abuse---by forcing you to use their server, they know precisely what emails you send, how many times during a specific interval.I'll leave it up to you to interpret whether that was a good thing or a bad thing.Either way, you may just use your ISPs SMTP server, or have your server administrator also open up another port (I suggest port 26) and redirect it to port 25. You can then use port 26, which is mostly unblocked.Good luck!