projectGREEN

Haha, I'd agree with that one. Not just that, but sometimes it gets a bit...overworked, and goes into like suicidal-Mac mode. The fan starts whirring louder than the music, the programs start to mutiny, and then the dreaded rainbow spinning circle attacks. A lot of times, my Macbook is either on my desk, or on top of its case (its case being on top of my lap), so I don't notice its rapidly increasing temperature until it does the whole suicide mode routine.It's still super useful when I'm traveling though, it's just right for me!

What specifically are you searching for that would lead you to generate location-based results?I live in Pennsylvania, and unless I search for something and type in a specific location after it, it comes up with results from anywhere in the world. One thing I'd recommend trying is registering for a google account (if you haven't done so already). It's free, and you don't need to change your email address or anything, but I believe when you sign up it asks for your location, which is where you could imput the correct one. If you already have an account, I'd recommend first checking that you have your location set correctly, and then, if it is, sign out of your account and try searching when you're not logged in. If these ideas don't work, it might be something funny with your IP address, or a completely different issue.

Personally, I don't believe in horoscopes, and I don't know anyone who does, I just read them if they are in magazines or something for personal entertainment. There is a process behind generating them, loosely based on the stars' and constellations' location at a certain time of year, but they are all different because a majority of it is based on the writer's whim. In the past when I've read my horoscope, sometimes I've been able to draw a connection (a pretty loose one, at that) with some part of the horoscope, but other times it's been completely random. Most of it is just superstition, and messing with psychology, and I have nothing against those who do believe in horoscopes, but if you see a connection to your life, it's almost definitely because it's an extremely broad definition which has a high chance of somehow encapsulating some aspect of just about anyone's life.

My family has five Macs (two of them are mine!), of varying types and ages. Going way back (unfortunately we don't use it anymore, though it still works and we boot it up for fun sometimes) to our first Mac, it's from 1996. I can't remember what model it is right now (this way before the iMac and all) but it's monitor was about a foot deep, and it's hard drive was huge! No internet on that one, but my brother and I used to love to play games and write stories on it. Then a few Macs in between, but we don't have any of those anymore. We've got a PowerMac G4 from 2002, as well as a PowerMac G5 from 2005. I don't feel like looking up all the stats for them, but I know the G5 (mine) is something like 2.3GHz, 512 MB RAM. Also an iMac from 2005, the white one, which we thought was super cool because it was the first one with the hard drive inside the monitor. Similar stats to the G4 on that one. Finally, right now I'm on my Macbook, which I love, from January this year. 2.2 GHz Intel Core Duo, 1 GB 667 MHz DDR2 SDRAM. It's wonderful.

Hi everyone, I'm Sarah. I'm figuring this all out now, but I think I have the forum down. I'm from the US, I'm 15 (young, I know, but I do know quite a bit about HTML and Java programming, which is partially why I'm creating a website). I recently got the idea to create ProjectGREEN (generating renewable energy everyone needs), and I'm working on developing it more now. This website (when it's up) will be for ProjectGREEN. Nice to meet y'all!

What I believe is different than what I think is true. Personally, I believe in God and heaven, etc., because I like to, and because I do. When I think about it in a non-religious context, however, the only thing that makes sense to me is that there is none of that, we just die and that's it. I rarely think about the second option, however, because the first is just much more pleasant to think of.

I can do all six, usually in about a minute or so. There are many, many people who can solve it. Just about anyone could solve a Rubik's cube, if they learned the specific technique necessary to solve it. There is only one way, not matter how it is scrambled. If you try to do it by guessing, you have such a miniscule chance of solving it, something like one in 79 billion or something, I don't remember the exact number. The correct way to solve it uses three different layers; the first two don't require any algorithm memorization, but the third requires quite a bit. People can complete a cube in a short time because they combine the first two layers and then remember a great amount of algorithms for the third, so that no matter how it is set up at the beginning they require the shortest combination of moves to complete it. I can do the first two layer combination, and I know all the basic algorithms for the third, plus a few shortcuts, which is how I can get it down to about a minute.There are also 4x4x4 and 5x5x5 cubes sold commercially, and much bigger, though those are rare to find. I have no experience solving a 5x5x5, but I can do the 4x4x4 in about 8 minutes. It's solved the same way as a normal one, but there are a bunch of steps before you get to that point. Have fun.

I actually did a presentation on this topic a few years ago. Personally, though I find cloning to be a very interesting and potentially useful (in some aspects) tool, using it to create the perfect human is just not ethical. The main issue that I take with using cloning to modify humans, in any way, good or bad, is that there is so much potential to abuse that power. Not only would we be eliminating diversity and rendering ourselves outdated, but if the cloning tools and process got in the hands of the wrong person/people, it could theoretically be used to create a group, or, dare I say army, of genetically superior clones, who could in turn be easily persuaded (especially if that, too, was stressed in their DNA) to fight or advocate for the negative cause of their creators. Admittedly, it's not like they would be robots, they are still able to make their own decisions, but with enough altering it is highly possible that you could almost completely eliminate feelings of guilt, etc., that keep most humans in line.Whether you believe in God or evolution, cloning would be interfering with the natural development process of the human race, and we have no idea what the effects of that would be in the long term. With many people with very similar genes (something that cloning could be used to select for), the spread of disease could be disastrous and incredibly difficult to control. I believe that if we can draw a fine line between using the process of cloning to create medical treatments or aides and/or discovering more information about the human genome, versus using cloning to physically create humans, then that first option would be permissible. Cloning has considerable potential to aid doctors in developing new methods for organ transplant, nervous system regeneration, and other important medical advances. It can also help the medical world to better understand genetic diseases, miscarriages, and birth defects. If cloning was used solely for those purposes, it could be very successful, but using it to alter humans is just not right. All in all, I think we have other interesting medical technologies which could be used for some of the aforementioned purposes of cloning, and in all cases I would experiment first with those. If used, cloning for the purpose of human alteration, even if it would be improvement, should not be permitted as it is not ethical, but smaller-scale cloning for other medical purposes (listed above) could be permissible.