rayzoredge

You can also use Torrent Finder. It's a torrent site metacrawler for 172 sites.

It's not a stupid question... I had no clue about anything on how rings "worked" or what I had to get. (I thought beforehand that you bought an engagement ring and "re-used" it for your wedding ring. The only extent that this would be true is if you had a wedding set where you "added on" a secondary piece to complete the wedding ring... so I was way off. )You do not have to buy engagement rings for yourself and your lucky one... only for the girl. In some circumstances, some guys opt to buy a promise ring that they wear themselves to show that they are taken. It's not really something you need to do... I'm happily engaged and I don't have a promise ring for myself.Then again, things might be different between cultures... I'm only speaking for myself and what I see as the norm in the U.S.

I thought that IPCop WAS open source and free... You need to install it to a separate PC dedicated to be your Internet gateway. As far as I would know, you can't install software onto a router (unless you're flashing a router-specific UI/software like Tomato or something like that).

Welcome to the forums, 101.You definitely can learn a lot on Xisto's forums if you are willing to sift through the many conversations and threads on this site for the meat of discussions. There are a LOT of talented, knowledgeable, and smart users here and usually you can get some good feedback from a variety of sources, whether they are newbies or regulars alike.If you are here for hosting, please read and understand the rules, restrictions, and the myCent concept. If you're not here for hosting, abide by the rules and common sense. In a nutshell: provoke interesting discussion, contribute your piece, no profanity, and supported arguments are welcome.

Good first point... it's relative to having issues with the Internet. (Personally, the only times that the Internet has been down for me were due to problems on the end-user: me.) Good second point... it makes sense to throw out scheduled downtime, but do you find out about downtime when you fire up WoW and find out that the servers are down for some unknown reason, or do you really check up on when you're allowed to play the game when YOU want to? I'm sure the majority of people actually find out the hard way: firing up WoW only to find out that they can't play the game they purchased RIGHT NOW because of server downtime or because they have to wait anywhere from minutes to hours to even a day of downloading patches. (I attribute these supposedly-exaggerated times to the larger patches like 3.0.9 → 3.1.0, 3.0.1 → 3.0.2, and 2.4.3 → 3.0.1, which out of the three, 2.4.3 → 3.0.1 took out a full day out of my trial when I was giving World of Warcraft a try.) And in all reality, there should, for the most part, never be a queue or a waiting time to play due to heavy usage of the servers. If there are truly 11 million players of World of Warcraft, and if they are all paying Blizzard $15/mo, that's more than enough money per month to warrant a purchase of ample server power to support their gamer base, one would think.

That was a perfectly good explanation. I can see how sometimes downloading a program from the Internet for Linux can be a pain in the butt... and all of us that have been through the "What the heck is make?" route can attest to that. And then there is the command line, which a trained monkey can do, but in this world of convenience and laziness on the end-user, the idea of typing in a command line can be preposterously excessive. You can either go through a ton of prompts with Windows but having the ease of clicking through the EULA and terms and conditions that we never read, or go through the CLI, or find out that finding and installing programs using Add/Remove in Ubuntu is pretty darn easy.

I didn't know about the literal "Ignore User" feature of Xisto. Thanks for pointing that out. However, in this thread, jlhaslip makes a good point here: I probably would benefit mostly from blocking a user and completely throwing all of his posts out the window. However, with jlhaslip's point, what if Ash-Bash (in this case) actually posts something interesting or useful, or even a suggestion that changes the way I think about something? (I'm not saying he will, but I'm not saying he won't either.) And, since I'm a normal Internet person and after clicking Ignore User that one time, who's to say I even keep tabs to see if Ash-Bash has improved? And if he has, I would be missing out on insight on a subject topic from another perspective... something I come to Xisto for in the first place. It's really a stupid argument, but I'm just pointing out the possibilities and the merit of jlhaslip's post. Maybe Ash-Bash can be the next SM. Maybe not.

Nobody does unless legal action is pursued. I was just pointing that out because of the ridiculous legalese that we have to abide with so that publishers and game companies can avoid lawsuits or even strengthen their positions on potential lawsuits against the end-user. But the main focus of that point was that even though you bought the game, it's stupid that you can't even play it WHEN you want to because of server downtime or end-user complications or whatnot. Compare and contrast to Joe Schmoe who can turn on his PC or game console and play a local, offline game of Bioshock, Diablo II, Battlefield 2, Call of Duty 4, or whatever else you can name off the top of your head, regardless of Internet connectivity, server issues, etc.

I actually JUST addressed this sort of thing in another thread within The Vent... Ash-Bash isn't the only person on Xisto that's "spamming" (or should I term it frequently-posting?). It's actually why I even posted it in the first place. Policing the forums only involves spam patrol and reporting other rule violations... I don't see where you can report a post as being irrelevant, since in a number of threads I've read have a violating post followed by reminders on quality posting. Quality posting is ENCOURAGED on Xisto, but I don't think it's a requirement, which kind of kills off a sort of mandate on quality posting... I can understand that some people who first join Xisto misunderstand or just don't understand the point of Xisto, myCents, or even foruming in general, but if you've been here a while, there really isn't much of an excuse to still be posting poor contributions to the forum. See my vent thread above... I don't really want to repeat myself here. (Plus, 1 point for shameless self-advertisement!)

Granted, we have new people that are introduced to Xisto every day. Granted, some of those people don't read the rules right away (*raises hand*). But if you're here, swayed with the incentive of earning credits for free hosting, you probably have been on the Internet before, which probably means that you've been on a forum before. Do I dare mention that IF you actually paid attention to how Xisto rewards you with credit for free hosting, you wouldn't be doing what I'm very annoyed with? Who cares about rayzoredge or his pissy rant? Why should we even bother to acknowledge this rant? What the heck is his problem, anyway? The problem here lies in the quality of the forum contents and the members who contribute. I don't know about you, but I hate one-liners that don't contribute anything to a thread. (If it's an intended sarcastic remark or a playful jab that people can find humorous, that's different.) Yes, you are allowed to keep it simple, short, and sweet, but why post something that has no reading worthiness whatsoever? You turn out looking like an idiot and/or immature and/or completely ignorant of the thread's contents, and although I don't expect every member to read the entirety of an 18+ page thread, I do expect members to actually read what the thread is about, and maybe its entirety if the thread hasn't even surpassed the 1-page mark. How hard is it to read? I know we all have ADD and everything, but c'mon! If a thread has enough posts that you honestly apply the TL;DR concept (too long; didn't read), then I think you should not even bother to post, since what you're going to post will be either squabble that contributes nothing to the topic and fill up the forum with garbage posting, or it will be unintelligible, irrelevant, and/or not worth reading and still fill up the forum with garbage posting. And if you're here for the free hosting, you're an idiot or ignorant of how earning credit works here if you're posting one-liners. I've repeated myself, and I'm sure many other members have repeated themselves, that quality > quantity. Quality posts include well-thought arguments for or against the original poster (OP), an actual detailed sharing of experience, or a good tidbit of information that people will find USEFUL. Sure, you can make 100 one-liner posts and earn the same amount as a single post that clearly informs, entertains, and/or is relevant to the subject at hand, but you look like an idiot doing it and contribute nothing to Xisto or any other forums that you happen to participate with. So, rayzoredge, instead of complaining about this crap, why don't you let us know what we can do to please you and every other whiner on this forum? Sure thing, Anonymous! If you're a new member to this forum, do yourself a favor and at least skim the rules. Understand how the myCent concept works. Realize that quality posting DOES matter here (as opposed to other forums). If you want free web hosting, you're going to have to actually think before you post instead of throwing out some drivel. Drivel earns you a negligible amount of myCents and makes you look stupid, which, if you think about it, makes your opinion not matter when it matters. (As much as I'm an advocate for not caring what other people think, the reality of the matter is that it does apply positively when networking.) Only participate in threads that you have an interest in or that you can contribute to. If someone is asking for help in a thread, CHECK THE TIMESTAMPS before replying. A member who asks about advice on buying a computer probably isn't going to find it useful that you responded to his or her thread three years later, and with the nature of technology, no one's going to care that you can recommend an AGP video card that would completely blow SoAndSo's PCI card out of the water, or even say that NVIDIA rules because ATI sucks. Which brings me to my next tip... If you're putting out an opinion or helping to educate the masses with your wealth of knowledge, don't just stop at "XXX product sucks!" Tell us WHY it sucks and what the alternative actually offers. Give us numbers, features, likes, dislikes, the trend of the market, the real deal, your personal review and opinion, and your experiences. I will be pissed if someone tells me that I suck. I won't be very upset if you could explain why I suck. And I think that I would see your post as positive if you could tell me that I suck, why I suck, and HOW I can not suck. Get what I'm saying? If you are starting a topic, don't start a spam topic... start a DISCUSSION. Don't just throw out a poll like "What do you like better, apples or oranges?" and expect great conversation. Start out your post with something more like "What do you like better, apples or oranges? WHY?" That magic word will give you a thread that's much more captivating than a thread full of responses like "apples," "oranges," "who cares... pears rule because everything else drools." That's what I've got. Throw in your own thoughts... do you agree with me? Does this drive you nuts too? Do you think that Xisto should have a mandatory summary of rules and a brief explanation of how the myCents concept works before newbies are set loose on the forum to drive me (and anyone else) crazy with "stupid" posts? Note: I already have people that I regard with the greatest respect and then there are those that I don't care for solely because of their posting... but that doesn't mean that I'm going to go and point fingers. Please refrain from pointing anyone out in here unless it's me. I always welcome constructive criticism or outward finger-pointing of hypocrisy (because I am a hypocrite at times, I'm sure), in which case I will crawl into my virtual corner, sob a bit, then come back stronger because I will then be in the know. Edit: Go figure. I spout out with quality posting and I missed some typos. Or is it typoes? Firefox says the former.

@jaychant: I never pointed out that global warming never existed. I placed emphasis on the fact that people have blown the issue of global warming out of proportion. As I've pointed out in another thread that discussed global warming, I'm glad that people, whether they're just jumping onto the bandwagon of "going green" or actually are more environmentally-aware, are actually attempting to make a difference. (And even though companies are feeding off of the general public and their desire to follow the latest trend by introducing "green" products, at least it helps spread more awareness that makes somewhat of a difference.) I actually hate it when people absolutely deny global warming and actually do things like pollute in defiance, and I hate it when people go off and spout about how the polar bears are drowning because all the ice caps are melting. Both extremes are retarded, in my opinion.Another strike you have against your global warming gig is that you watched a video and announce it as a support. I suppose that watching Loose Change and Michael Moore's videos proves that 9/11 was a conspiracy and that Columbine was preventable and both incidents can be blamed on someone or some people. As much as I applaud a different perspective and the effort in seeing other possibilities other than what the media loves to feed us, I believe nothing. It's like politics: you're just accepting an explanation for the unexplained and running off with it. (With politics, you hear the "good" stuff and then spout your crap about why the other side is dumb.) I can only spout off the positive thinking behind Shawn Hannity's conservatism because I've only really been exposed to that, and it makes sense. However, I don't classify myself as a conservative because I do like what the other side thinks too on some issues.@buxgoddess: I wouldn't blame you if you actually directed your post against me, because in all reality, a lot of what I post is somewhat relevant to the topic and a direct contribution of what I know and what I can share towards it. But the reason why I would post anything like that is to be able to have a discussion to see what other people would think. Take jaychant's global warming kick for example. I didn't know his/her stand on it until I made an example of it in my post. Now everyone is presented with WHY jaychant believes that global warming exists to the extent that he/she believes it is. (Everyone also knows that I'm full of crap. ) Even though I may or may not post rubbish on a forum, I still incite a discussion that reveals both sides of the coin, or even different perspectives. In all reality, most of us ARE full of crap because a lot of us take things and run with it. I try to keep an open mind, but even I'm guilty of a lot of things that I've learned in my life and that I am stubborn in my ways with.And if you didn't indirectly target me with that post, cool. @rpgsearcherz: The sole purpose is to polish a turd as much as you can, show the shiny side of it, and get as much attention as you can so that you can spread the word and use your followers to assist you in your cause.There really isn't a perfect thing in life that we can approach. Everything is going to have a hidden dark side. (That's what cynicism is for. ) Like I pointed out above, I'm glad that people are paying attention to global warming. However, some people are pushing their beliefs on to others, which I hate. Are the ice caps melting? Sure. Are they refreezing? Oops... no one wanted to mention that fact. Hasn't the Earth had a history of a steady climb in temperature? Who's to say that behavior isn't normal, and that no matter what we do, we can't make a drastic difference? Who actually knows if we can? Does anyone really know anything, or do we just read our textbooks and run with the "fact" that gravity pulls everything down at 9.8 meters per second squared? (Have you proven that to yourself yet?)This discussion can jump right into the philosophy of Plato (or Socrates, I can't remember), where no one really knows anything, and how we're dooming ourselves to just assume that what has been recorded is true, doomed to regurgitate everything in our history books and our science experiments instead of experiencing things for ourselves. But then again... who's to say that I even know what I'm talking about? One thing's for sure: I don't know anything except for what I've personally experienced, and what I interpret from it is true to me and no one else. You can take what I've said and run with it, which would prove one of my points that I've lain out here, or you can take it, chew on it for a bit, and form your own little idea about the topic at hand.

I was speaking strictly from a software perspective, although the changes will be involving an upgrade in hardware (a replacement server). My question still lies in any performance gain by going from 32-bit to 64-bit for basic server tasks... and I would hardly imagine that Exchange serving, file serving, and any other basic stuff would crush a system with 32-bit limitations and leave 64-bit an obvious performance-related upgrade (to not include the future-proofing factor). It's just a general wondering whether server-based basic tasks do require a 64-bit operating system to run efficiently. That's a great point, I think. You would think that 64-bit operating systems would be immune to 32-bit malware, but in my head, I'm thinking that malware could only affect the OS if you actually literally allowed for it to run, and if so, I wouldn't think that it would affect the targeted system as it would a native 32-bit system, since the code was maliciously designed for a 32-bit system (unless it was malware that involves an installation of false anti-virus software, which would run in 32-bit emulation). I could be wrong though... it probably wouldn't be able to implement the same hazards as if it were in a 32-bit environment, and even if it did, they wouldn't work in the same fashion, unless you [or the code] gave exclusive emulation to every bit of the Trojan/spyware/malware.

I think something that we're missing here is the fact that Microsoft has been repeatedly attacked with antitrust accusations, since Microsoft has bundled Internet Explorer, amongst other programs, with every single release of Windows. This, in turn, gives Internet Explorer a huge market share by default and it doesn't pave much ground for any other browsers ready to compete. The whole nature of competition is to innovate and keep everyone in check to constantly improve their programs to compete against one another, and if Microsoft reigns as the operating system with the most market share and consumer usage, Internet Explorer will ship and be utilize by the majority of customers "who don't know any better." If Windows 7 includes any other software suites other than its own, it would be to its benefit in the PR realm of things, which I'm sure Microsoft is very keen on keeping satisfied. We already associate Microsoft as the bad guy of the IT realm, as we are stuck with using it for exclusives like DirectX, programs exclusively for the Windows platform, etc. If Microsoft provides alternatives from the get-go, even if it made Internet Explorer the default option for your browser anyway, M$ will still get PR points for actually "allowing" for an alternative to be included in its software distribution. I don't know from the business aspect of things if public relations offer more to the company than potentially advertising another rival company, but then again, look at the criticism of the PC vs. Mac ads.

Servers were down for hours last night.I was talking to my buddy about how often servers go down, and even if it's for an hour, I think it's absolutely frustrating to not be able to play a game that you continuously pay for WHEN you want to play it. (In contrast, since the servers were down and my girlfriend couldn't play WoW, I got on and played C&C:RA3 for a couple of hours... something that I could do NOW then.)I also was just thinking about the irony of how the terms and conditions are stated for games that you buy nowadays. In the agreement, it states that you own the license to USE the program and play the game, but it never states that you actually own the game itself. With that agreement, it's kind of ironic that you can't even do what you're entitled to do in the agreement that the game publisher put out.I brought up the fact that there were a few cases where errors on Blizzard's end caused end-users to not be able to play World of Warcraft and that they were reimbursed for their lost time with additional game time to their accounts. Apparently, they don't do this very often... and I highly doubt that anyone will be reimbursed for their time for the server downtime that occurred last night.How many of you still love this game, sitting at your desks wondering when the servers would get back up and running so that you can play World of Warcraft, a game that you bought the license to use and play it but couldn't because of things that the hosting company did? It just doesn't make any sense to me.

Beryl is what now is Compiz/Fusion: your desktop effects for Ubuntu. Also, for OP: You can WINE uTorrent, or just use kTorrent as ironchicken has pointed out.

Politics are full of people that talk about a whole bunch of crap that they know nothing about. That's why I hate dealing with politics, even though it's something that everyone should be aware of. Let's take our current president for example. A ton of people voted for Obama for a ton of various reasons, not a heck of a lot which seemed to be valid. Some people voted for him because he was black. Some people voted for him because he "promised change and hope." Hope. A majority of us voted for "hope." And "change." What president gets elected into office and doesn't change a d*mn thing? Wouldn't that defeat the purpose? More on the president gig: I'm usually stuck listening to the Shawn Hannity show on talk radio because my best friend and co-worker is big on conservative politics, always blaming things on stupid liberals and such. And you know what? Some of the stupid crap that we deal with now is most likely to be blamed on who he announces as liberal idiots. Just the other day, I heard that they wanted to get rid of Columbus Day weekend and just call it Fall Weekend. Why? Because some idiot thought that it was offensive that we celebrate the person who found America, who happens to be Geonese/Spanish. It was a race issue. C'mon! Anyway, one of the things that I found profoundly idiotic on the Shawn Hannity show is one of his features. Shawn goes out into the street every now and then and asks a random person on the street a series of questions. And, with no real exaggeration, this is usually what ensues: Shawn: "Hi there! How's it going! You look like a fine American... what's your name?" Person: "Hi... name's Joe." Shawn: "All right, Joe... would be all right if I asked you a few questions?" Joe: "Sure." Shawn: "What do you think of our current president... umm... er... what's his name?" Joe: "Obama." Shawn: "And who's the vice president now?" Joe: "Uh... umm... I can't remember." Shawn: "I think his first name is Joe... Joe... Joe something..." Joe: "Oh! Biden. Joe Biden." Shawn: "Yeah, that guy. You think that both of those guys are doing a good job so far?" Joe: "Yeah." Shawn: "All right... hey Joe, have you ever heard of the G-20 Summit?" Joe: "The what?" Shawn: "Nevermind... anyway, what do you think about universal healthcare?" Joe: "I think it would be a great idea. Everyone needs healthcare. It would be a good thing." Shawn: "Agreed! And what about homes? Homes are a good thing to provide to those who need them, yes?" Joe: "Yep. I think that everyone should be entitled to the basic amenities... room, shower, board, all that good stuff." Shawn: "Especially those who need it and can't afford it, right?" Joe: "Yep." Shawn: "And you believe that everyone should be entitled to that?" Joe: "Yep." Shawn: "Cool! So we've got basic needs... and everyone needs a job, right? And the transportation to get to work, right?" Joe: "Of course." Shawn: "So universal transportation! We should provide universal transportation for everyone who can't afford a car." Joe: "Umm... sure. But only to those who really need it." Shawn: "Yep... yep. So Joe, who's going to pay for all of this?" Joe: "Pay for what?" Shawn: "All of this. The universal health care, the transportation, the basic room and board... all that good stuff?" Joe: "The government." Shawn: "Really? How does the government get all of that money to fund this stuff?" Joe: "Uh... the taxpayers." *ding* Shawn: "Ah. Yes. Us. Hey Joe... 'From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.' Those that can work should provide for those who can't. Do you agree with that?" Joe: "Uh... sure. I guess that all of what we were just saying kind of sums that up." Shawn: "Cool. Do you know who said that quote?" Joe: "No." Shawn: "Karl Marx said that once. Are you a Marxist, Joe." Joe: "No... no, no." Shawn: "But Joe, all of what you agreed to follows under socialism: for everyone to be provided for, for the better to take care of the worst, for the worker to provide for those who can't work." Joe: "..." I've listened to a handful of these street conversations and that's really how it goes. Sure, the conversation scheme is biased because he usually picks on younger folk that don't know any better (like me), but then again, a majority of Obama's supporters were younger folk... because Obama was smart and tapped into an audience that usually wasn't big on politics. It was genius, really, to sway an entire age group of people by announcing a campaign of "hope" and "change..." because, hey, who wouldn't want that? Plus, McCain was too old. Yep. I've heard that one too. Let's not forget the single-issue voters who vote for candidates on the basis of whether they are anti- or pro-choice, whether they are for global warming or not... OH! Let's talk about global warming! The ice caps are melting. Polar bears are drowning. Things are getting hotter. We need green solutions. By the way, New Hampshire just suffered an ice storm a few months ago. It's also still cold up here. A lot of people are going to say that global warming exists and we can help slow it down or stop it. Apparently, we as a species are able to spew out enough emissions to make a difference to the ozone layer... and apparently, if we choke these emissions and be more environmental-friendly, we can make a huge difference... nevermind the fact that when a volcano erupts, it spews more carbon dioxide and other gaseous pollutants than all of the cars in the world can emit. Which is a fact, you know. A fact that someone already "proved" wrong. The Wilkins ice shelf was actually in the news when a chunk of it collapsed due to a weakening... which, you guessed it, was due to global warming. Of course, no one knew afterwards that the Wilkins shelf actually refroze several times. That makes sense with the presence of nunataks... presented in this article. Isn't global warming defined as the gradual warming of the earth due to greenhouse gases? Why are there nunataks being formed by the melting and refreezing of ice formations? Also, no one blames the fact that there was seismic activity in the area of the Wilkins Sound. Surely, a couple of earthquakes could NOT have contributed to the polar bears breaking off from their natural habitat to float off and die in the cold, lonely ocean. - I am one of these people who have no idea what they're talking about that OP would love to hate. That's because I'm one of billions of people who believe what they read, misinterpret what they see, and are misinformed. It's all about generating a buzz about an idea. Maybe I can convince enough people that a zombie infestation IS coming. After all, we already have a survival guide.

@rpgsearcherz: It would have to be due to low RAM because I read that the way Vista works (and one of the reasons why it seems to be so much of a resource hog) is because a set amount of RAM is allocated to EACH open window in Explorer for one reason or another, whether it's minimized or not. (Windows 7 addresses this issue by only allocating memory for open, visible Explorer windows. I don't know what XP does.) Also, Vista seems to always be doing something with your RAM, so what it thinks is idle will be used by background tasks such as indexing. Checking your RAM (and CPU) usage using a widget is pretty ineffective because the widget itself takes up quite an amount just by doing what it does. Also, if you wanted to take the words of the tester who benchmarked all three operating systems, to include Vista SP1 and Vista RTM, the results would indicate that Windows 7 trumps just about every measure for transferring files, to exclude moving 100MB of data (which XP is apparently faster in doing) and moving 2.5GB of data under load (which Vista was better at). (Those results were on a Pentium dual core system; the AMD system still had Windows 7 shining on top of the others with those same tasks... so those results may be hardware-determined.) Keep in mind that Vista is supposed to be slow within initial usage, but as time goes on and as programs are Super-Prefetched, items are indexed, and the OS "learns" what you do and how frequently you do it, Vista shoudl gradually become viable. Also, just to note: SP2 is due out this month, and although it doesn't give us anything earth-shattering (or at least to the average consumer, since SP2 offers native Blu-Ray support and other things), it does contain some bug fixes that should finally bring Vista to be a decent operating system.

Couldn't find Tramposch's benchmark thread in an efficient manner, so I'm going to selfishly and shamelessly post in my own thread here. Windows 7 Benchmarks against Windows XP SP3 and Vista RTM and SP1 Quick and dirty comparison between XP, Vista, and 7 I can't believe it took this long for me to accidentally stumble upon benchmarks to see how Windows 7 rates. Oh well. Edit: Here's a more recent benchmark comparison (in the quick-and-dirty fashion).

Thanks for the tip. Again, informative and useful posting. My personal usage of Opera (both Opera 10a and Opera 9.64) resulted in massive CPU-hogging by Opera... it was insane and completely unacceptable, ranging from 60% up to 98% of my CPU potential. I don't know what it was doing and why it was doing what it was doing, but I know that GMail was a tab I always kept up (as I like to keep an eye on my e-mail and use it for the AIM protocol). It's funny how with Opera, my memory usage (using my incorrect way of checking using Task Manager) halves the usage that Firefox normally takes, but the CPU usage skyrockets, and with Firefox, the CPU sticks around 15% to 50% during activity. (I'm watching it right now as I type.) I know the computer I'm on isn't exactly spectacular when it comes to specifications (2.2GHz P4, 1GB RAM), but then again, no browser (with reasonable usage) should be making your computer crawl that badly... which puts an ironic spin on the title of this thread for me. Addendum: To sum up what I forgot to add, people seem to be very happy with Opera under Linux. I know for sure that I'm not the only Windows person here using Opera... or am I?

Thanks Z. Your post clears up a heck of a lot of concepts that I was probably interpreting incorrectly. So in your first bit, what you're saying about applications is that they "always" address ~4GB of memory, constrained to the physical memory at hand? I suppose that if I tried to attempt a task that took ~4GB of memory, and I only had ~2GB, the application would work with the first 2GB chunk for the task at hand and after swapping is done and the data was process for that first half, the second 2GB chunk would go through, become swapped and processed, and then those two chunks will be assembled together (or go through any other additional processing) to create the resulting data? (I guess another example of how this works in my head is if I ran an image through a filter, Photoshop would work with as much image data as possible - let's say the top half of the image - process it, then continue by repeating the process with any remaining data?) In the case of a 32-bit system, applications would be slower after reaching the ~4GB limitation because then the program would have to access virtual memory (page file from the hard disk), correct? If that's the case, I can see how the limitation of being able to address no more than ~4GB would be a tremendous performance hit for memory-heavy programs... but then again, outside of CAD, heavy audio/video processing, or any other memory-heavy programs (such as the latest games), I don't see anyone who would benefit from 64-bit capability. Again, playing with this first bit, our company is thinking of moving from a 32-bit version of Microsoft Small Business Server 2003 to a 64-bit version. I am not familiar with the specifics, but with this concept that we've discussed, would a 64-bit operating system on the server even matter with basic tasks such as serving e-mail, hosting files, working with files on the server, etc.? (In the case of working with files, isn't a temporary version of the file created locally, which then taxes the local client with anything you do to the file before saving it back onto the server?) If I don't work at NASA, should I even be excited over any possible performance gains of a new server intended on serving e-mail and files? You captured what I was trying to say with my slot concept... I was trying to simplify it for clarity, but apparently I confused instead. Your explanation works, as I assume that the memory call would be the 8/16/32/64-bit data clusters I was referring to when putting them into the registers (my slots).

Prioritizing bandwidth can only be controlled by the router with OUTBOUND traffic, as I've stated... which means that if your HTTP request makes it out before her computer can send out a request to YouTube to watch a video, and if your server responds before YouTube does, THEN your web page will START to be served before her video stream starts. (This does not necessarily mean that your web page will load up first before her stream starts.) In order to do this, you would have to look for an option relative to traffic shaping and follow your router's interface instructions or look up information on your router on how to prioritize outbound traffic. As far as converting an old PC to an Internet gateway/firewall appliance, I'm not sure if you can actually prioritize incoming packets, but one of IPCop's features is to cache frequently-accessed data (images, web pages) and have you access that from your client instead of requesting for redundant data, which can bring up images and whatnot very quickly. (Opera has a feature that does this exact thing using Turbo, where it caches images and other data to allow for you to load up pages much quicker on, let's say, a dial-up connection.)

I think that the view of things are kind of skewed with lack of information or even mention of the security of other alternatives. I can see how Linux didn't receive much mention as the main focus would be on the two operating systems that most consumers use (Windows and OSX), but at the same time, wouldn't businesses and enthusiasts benefit from more information and news from Pwn2Own about Linux? I don't think it's fair that Charlie Miller dismissed Linux because "grandma couldn't run it." I'm a little tech-savvy so I could do things like compile and make programs under Ubuntu, make hardware work with Ubuntu, and do a number of things from the CLI (something that Grandma probably can't do), but out of the box pre-installed on a Netbook or some other scenario of the sort, I'm sure that anyone can operate user-friendly distributions of Linux just as they would with OSX or Windows. And really, doesn't it take a bit of tech knowledge to work around ANY of the operating systems? I hear that OSX has a ton of power under the hood, but all of it is buried in menus and hidden tools and whatnot that you would have to learn, so how does that contrast with Windows offering the CLI, Control Panel, registry and services, and with Linux and the command line? I liked Opera a heck of a lot when I used it, and I'm hearing more about it (but that's because I pay attention moreso to news about it now). I've heard of all of the major browsers and am aware of their consumer share in usage, so I suppose it's not surprising to know that Opera doesn't have as much press. (Why do you think Google's Chrome is already out and known moreso?) Internet Explorer comes with every system; Firefox grew with enthusiasts pushing the features and the awareness of "the better browser;" Chrome belongs to Google; and Safari comes with OSX. I think Opera is in the same boat as Firefox was years ago... it will only be some time before people become more aware of Opera.

I would like to bump this as this is a point of interest for me also.Right off the top of my head, I can only think of A+, Microsoft certification, and... well, there was another notable one, but of course I forgot. I having a bit of tech-savviness recognize some certificates on a glance, but, using that statement, what would be good, FREE alternatives that are recognizable? I don't know of any personally, and I would think that you would have to actually have to pay to attend courses to EARN certificates in that fashion; otherwise, the field would possibly be inundated with that particular certification, and to me, having a well-known, hard-to-get certification would be a good thing, but I hear that even the A+ is something of child's play compared to what's out there.

I definitely had to switch back to Firefox... all because of GMail.Opera was usable, but with multitasking, it wasn't much argument when I was watching my CPU usage rise astronomically and, consequently, slow the crap out of whatever I would be doing at the moment. Until Opera can fix the issues it has with GMail, I'm going to have to suffer with Firefox's memory problem.There is no one winning browser... there's always a catch. I still give kudos to Opera, though, and I highly recommend it.

I was just reading about how the power grid has and is moving on to being a "smart" infrastructure where it can be accessed remotely by workers via the Internet. Think about that for a second. It's a wonder how frightfully easily the power grid for the United States can be hacked into and toyed with. A lot of our electrical systems are automated by computers and software, and apparently the software themselves are not very secure as anyone can hack into the grid and insert malicious code or even take complete control of it. What doesn't make any sense is why we are moving it from a private network onto a globally-accessible network. The world wide web is a clear indication by name that it would be a bad idea to move from a controlled environment to one that any Joe Schmoe can access... and given the adage that security is just a deterrent and only slows down perpetual attackers, anyone with the knowledge and skill can hack into the power grid and toy with it at will. Since the world can't even control the propagation of a worm that affects Windows machines that Microsoft even threw out a patch for back in October, how the heck is the U.S. going to keep control of its own power grid and keep it safe from outside, unauthorized access? This is proof here that we as a country are again being arrogant in the fact that we are not fallible. The attacks on September 11th proved us wrong with our physical security. And again, proven now, we are waking up to the crude reality that we are still not ready on an electronic security level. (School of hard knocks... because, apparently, no one learns the easy way.) I'm sure savvy hackers within the nation now are tweaking their own "smart" meters to lower their electricity bills.