adriantc

I couldn't believe when I read this... just after reading the article I was finally convinced. Microsoft has done some awful things in the name of security in Vista. Everybody acclaims the user account protection, but I really find it annoying (that's why it is the first thing I deactivate when I install Vista). This heavy protection does not have to be implemented in the OS, but in the minds of the users to educate them not to use dangerous software. For what is worth I didn't have any major problems with Windows Xp even when it didn't have any Service Pack. I have used Linux a while and it has the same account protection system but it's much less annoying. It's ok to implement such a system in a server OS, but in an OS designed for desktop? What is Microsoft thinking?About the new protection... They better deactivate it fast... I haven't had any problems with it (in fact this was the first time I heard about it), but think about being a user who just spend a few hundred dollars on the OS and another few bucks on some software that who simply refuse to work because of this "protection".My programming teacher at school always tells us to design the software as if the user does the stupidest things possible... But it's much easier to tell people not to open weird emails with unknown attachments then implement such an "advanced" security feature which does exactly what a virus is supposed to do... spy on the user and not let him do his job.The guys working on Linux should concentrate on user-friendliness because Vista is a BIG chance given to Linux!

That's one interesting theory... We all could be in the Matrix right now, just thinking we post in this forum while we sit in a soup full of nutriments. Or better yet, the world might be a computer software designed to replicate life, just like in the movie "The 13th Floor". It presents the same theory. People make a computer software that simulates life and the in process they discover that themselves are only raws of 0 and 1 in another computer software. A world in another and in another and another one... just like a Matruska.I don't believe in that theory for one simple reason... why would someone that makes a game (or software) to simulate life input such a theory in our minds. Just because we consider this impossible theory is the proof that we are not apart of such a game.Still, it would be great to have the superpowers Neo has in the Matrix Mr. Anderson, welcome back! We missed you! ...

In my opinion homosexuality is a wrong thing. Not for any religious claims, but strictly for social and moral causes. I am just argued with a friend about this yesterday and I did some research on this subjec to find out if he is right in defending gay rights. First of all many of those who defend gay rights think that being gay is genetic. This theory is called "Born that way" (if you want to find out more about it CLICK HERE). Most research (made by true scientists, even from the gay community) has show that there is NO such thing as a "gay gene". Indeed there are links that point out to genes, but most researchers believe that being gay has to do with both genes, social and psychical factors. In other words there is no such thing ad I WAS BORN THAT WAY!. Homosexuality may be considered similar to a disease. Some people are genetically more vulnerable to it. I also heard that some consider homosexuality a normal thing. Their explanation would be something like this. In the animal kingdom homosexuality is a known fact. If animals do it and we are an evolved type of animal shouldn't homosexuality be considered natural as well. This theory is also based on false facts. First of all homosexuality in the animal kingdom is not a rule, but an anomaly. Homosexuality in animals is not linked to instinct. Furthermore homosexuality in animal kingdom has more to do with other instincts like dominance. In other words this is one way that animals show a contender who is the boss. So homosexuality is also not normal in animals. Not to mention that evolution tries to kill those traits that are not usefully, homosexuality being one of them since it does not produce any offsprings. As a personal opinion I think society is trying to excuse itself for it's inability to fight homosexuality by making it genetic. Society has a lot of impact on young kids. Family is also extremely important. Although there isn't any research to prove that a kid from a homosexual family will become homosexual himself, it is certain that will have some repercussions on his character. So I think society must understand that is has part of the guilt for this situation. I am strongly against homosexuality because it's rewrites all values that mankind has. I'm not saying extreme action must be taken, but I do support the idea that gay couples should not have legal status. Furthermore society must tolerate, but not accept them. It is not natural for them to be that way... It is easy to tolerate one thing when you don't want to see the repercussions. Only imagine what it would happen if everyone would be gay, or a gay majority, would you like to have two fathers??? If you want to read more on this topic I suggest visiting http://www.narth.com/

I on the Google side on this one... The internet is all about sharing, bringing people together... YouTube does just that. Internet is all about Wikipedia and YouTube and nobody should have the right to take that. I think Google didn't do a bad deal when buying YouTube, what Google did is called an investment in the future of the Internet. Soon enough everybody will have broadband internet connections and sharing media will be an even larger thing then it is today. Companies like the Viacom or RIAA are on the loosing side because they cannot just pool the plug of the Internet. The Internet is now owned by Viacom or RIAA or, as some suggested, the USA it is owned by the everyone whether they are from the USA, Europe or Asia. And besides it's not like anyone will watch a full movie in the awful resolution of the YouTube. So Google should fight on... I am sure it will eventually win!

I can't believe it... come on... the president has discovered the cure for AIDS. If that doesn't smell fishy I don't know what does!? Hope is good as long as it is not false hope. He should take steps to prevent people from getting AIDS instead of making such claims. The UN should do something about Africa, about the ongoing hunger and civil war. If I were in the position to do something about it I would send peace keeping forces all over Africa to finally enforce some law and order.Coming back to the topic I think somewhere in some top secret medical facility a cure for AIDS has been found. They may have discovered it a long time ago. Yeah I'm one of those who believe in the conspiracy theory. Why wouldn't they release the cure... That's easy... because in the capitalistic world we live in a person with AIDS takes much more medicines then if they would take one or two and they would be cured. You may not believe it, but companies who produce medicines have a lot of money, power and influence. Why give to the people a one time drug when they can take drugs for a lifetime filling the pockets of a fat totally selfish owner. Plus think Africa as a giant market for the big pharmaceutical corporations. Even if they don't have a cure I'm sure their not really doing their best to find it because as long as AIDS will be people will need medicines to ease their suffering. And they can only benefit financially from this situation. Yeah it's a mean capitalistic world.

I think you are wrong... Animals don't have feelings (or at least not as we have), but they still have some rights. As much as I think machines will be our doom I think they must have certain rights. Not to mention the fact that having no feelings whatsoever means a machine has a perfect judgment without any subjective thinking. There are lot of jobs in the world that require this no-feeling policy Let's say in a couple of years medicine will be able to create a fully functional, total independent heart. If you implant it into a human he is no longer a human, but half human half machine with most important part of the body (besides the brain) non-organic. Does that make him less human, wouldn't he have the same rights as the rest of mankind? I'm sure in 100 years (if we don't destroy ourself by global warming or war, or being destroyed by an asteroid) we will have many parts of our organic bodies replaced by machines. Today a better hand, tomorrow a better eye and so on. We will no longer be just human... we will be some sort of cyborg. And that is not SF it will happen sooner or later!

There is no fast way to take over the world. Even taking over a country requires someone to be in the right time and in the right place. Like Hitler (which is considered the world's biggest public speaker) and the nazi party or the communists. Certain conditions must be met for the change of power.And if there is any way anyone could take over the world in his own lifetime he MUST have lots and lots of money. Today's world is all about the money, the green stuff makes the world go around.So the basic condition for taking over the world is having mountains of money, just like Bill Gates has (by the way... with 50 billion dollars he could buy half of Africa).The second thing you must have in order to take over the world is an idea. Since I and I'm sure you too don't have our own personal army, someone must have a brilliant idea for rulling the world.And the troubles don't end once you take over the world... A political system must be put in place, hopefully one that does not include tiranny, a cult of personality or any other evil you may find in the political systems of the communists for example.Above all that someone must make sure he holds on to power since he will make a lot of enemies. A long civil war is something you wouldn't like to be remembered by.Well returning to the real world... no one will ever rule the entire world. Some (far more brilliant then you and me will ever be) like Alexander the Great has already tried to atke over the world by force and discovered that people don't like beeing ruled by a foreigner. So rulling the world in from of the cameras is out of the question.The only way someone could rule the world today is from the shadows, by controling the world's economy. Or maybe when the globalization process will end people will not be so afraid of foreign rule. I gues time will tell...

That is very interesting... I will look into it!When I was young (not that I'm very old now... barely 19 years old ) I was able to control my dreams. I used to dream I could teleport somehow and I could control wherever I wanted to go.Beside that I was able to realise that it was only a dream. That doesn't happen anymore. Guess we loose that ability with time.I think it is better that way since during the night the brain should rest and not stay awake...

I have released a new version with some bug fixes... There is one known (not yet fixed) bug concerning the hotkey feature which does not work when the window is not active. Other then that be sure to tell me any bug(s) you may find... Help me please... 10x,

You don't even have to uninstall the old version... Firefox tells you that a new version is ready and if you want to update. It downloads the update and the next time you run Firefox it does the update. Very fast, no troubles or complications like with Internet Explorer (or with Windows... WGA really kills what fun was left in updating ).I have read in a computer magazine that last year Internet Explorer users were in danger from all kinds of viruses, spyware, etc. over 250 days, while Mozilla Firefox users were in danger for only 60 days. The fact that Firefox is free really helps bug finding. While Internet Explorer and Microsoft relays on this own staff to find and report bugs, Firefox has a wide community of users which find, report and fix bugs very fast.I'm just sorry that Firefox 2 still doesn't support my language (only v1.5 does). And it's the ONLY language in the list ...

Also if you have any comments or features you may like be sure to post them here...PS: The stable release should have a much small installer so you can use a floppy disk...

I have a nice software which has been in development for 3 months and I'm almost ready to launch a stable release. That is why I need someone to test my software for bugs. Please test it as much as you can, do whatever you can to crash it, but remember what you did so you may tell me... The software is freeware (open-source) and it is very useful for students, secretaries... Project homepage Download You can post bugs in this topic, send me a PM or post in the bugs section on the homepage of the project. I cannot reward you with anything else then my gratitude and a mention in the thanks section of my software!

There are of course a lot of connections in the Bible, but none is based on a fact that can be proven (referring of course to the creation theory). You have to start from one true statement and then using (true) connections get to what you want. So connections without a basic truth means nothing... I have to admit I haven't read the Bible... Maybe someday I will so I can better understand the other side of the problem... In part you are right... History does repeat itself, but that doesn't mean that there isn't anything new in the world. I do realize that the evolution theory is never going to be totally proven because it's simply too massive to prove. We do not see air, but we know it is there; same thing with the evolution theory. As I have said in other posts religion is good as long as it has it's measure. Too much and we end up in the Dark Ages... Faith and hope are the basic needs of mankind. Above all MUST be reason...

No that is not logical. Why? Because you did not look for an answer. Logic means making connections... Starting from one thing and getting to another by relation (true statements). Cat eats bird. Dog eats cat --> Dog eats bird (stupid as that example may look like it is an example of logic).Your statement "God created [this]," is not logical because it is not supported by any other (true) statement. It is, as I have said, an easy answer to a very difficult question! Yes, that was my point. There can't be a personal memory of evolution... not like the personal memory of our own life. Evolution does not mean we recall memories (even though it might be the case) but we recall traits. What we recall from our ancestors are traits and basic experiences not individual memories. In other words we can't have a collective memory at a conscious level, rather we have some past experience it an unconscious level. We call that instinct... So yes our ancestors not only give us their traits, but also some of their experience!

I should point out before I continue that I am also an atheist so my post should be considered as MY point of view (an atheists point of view). Two days ago in the biology class we discussed this theories and a new one (!?). My desk mate is a Christian who believes in the creation theory. He just doesn't give up no matter how much I try... In my own language there is a saying, don't know if there is one in English, but it is something like this: Believe and don't search (with the meaning of wonder, ask questions, etc.) (some say this is written in the Bible). I really cannot see how anyone could think the evolution theory is not valid. There are tons of evidence that point out to it. Besides there is NOTHING that points out to the creation theory. In fact there isn't much in the Bible that can be scientifically proven. Logically most things in the Bible don't even make sense. There is something that troubles my atheist mind... Gottfried Leibniz created in 1714 the "Principle of sufficient reason" (prime mover theory): Basically what he said (and others before him) is that if everything is a reaction to an action then the very first action, the very first link in the chain is God. If every other theory is illogical this one really makes sense. Think about it...My biology teacher also told me that there is a new theory regarding evolution. It turns what we know upside down. According to this theory men is not an evolved ape, but the ape is an evolved men. As hard as that may seem (I totally disagree with this theory, although men is by far the worst and the best of all animal kingdom) there is something that makes sense in it. Speech may not be an evolution, but an involution, men may have developed speech because he could no longer use body language. And considering what men does to this planet this theory seems at least possible. One more theory to think about... There was a time when people would have taken for granted how men was born, how the Earth and the Universe was. I hope that time has passed, questions must be raised and answered with the use of science. Nothing must be taken for granted, everything must be researched and if possible proven scientifically. We should remember the ones that still believe men was created rather then evolved that this is the age of reason not of blind faith! EDIT Drawings, computer simulations and statements are more then we can say about the creation theory. Is there any proof (even logic) to support it? No there isn't... The way I see it the creation theory was an easy answer to a difficult question that 2000 or 3000 years ago could not be answered. If you would take someone from the first century AD and show him a TV he would say it is a miracle and blame it on God because he simply wouldn't bother with finding another answer. Notice from truefusion: Quoted the "prime mover theory". You quote my text, but not an offsite's text? Next time will result as a warning. You're a hosted member; you should know what belongs in QUOTE bbcodes by now.

I think YouTube deserves the huge amount of money Google paid on it. It's not about the programming part behind YouTube, but the idea the YouTube brand. Even behind Google there isn't so much programming, but the brand is important... There are lots and lots of search engines, but nowhere as famous as Google. When you say Google you say Internet. On the Internet you get lots on lots of alternatives, the Internet is free. So the brand is really really important, because the brand gives them the edge in front of the competition. Returning to YouTube... The idea was terrific... maybe it uses a lot of bandwidth and it requires a lot of servers, but it does the thing the Internet was built for... TO SHARE INFORMATION (KNOWLEDGE) FREELY. Google did not pay for the programming but it paid for the idea, for the brand... This is how the capitalist world works!

bla, bla, bla... You do realize that he is only promoting Vista with this email. I don't know what is happening to the world after the release of Vista, but everywhere I go I, every website I visit I hear how good Vista is, how many thing you can do with it... Seems like a lot of people got their brain washed or something. That can be explained when you hear that Microsoft has invested 500.000.000 $ (yeah that is 1/2 billion $) in promoting Vista. No matter what people say I will still remain with XP for at least a year. Come on... You think he is such a great programmer?!?.... He just had the idea... he is not programming anymore.... He just comes with ideas- we could do that and that- there are a lot of people that do the programming part and I'm sure he is not one of them. Or if he is, he does it only for the fun of it.

Since this is my first post under the new look of Xisto I'd like to express my delight on the way the forum is set up. Change is and was inevitable since Xisto has grown so much since I registered more then 2 years ago. Back then Xisto barely had 4000 members and now it has over 27000 members and over 280000 posts. It feels good to know I have been with Xisto since almost it's beginning. Thank you Xisto for 2 great years! Now going to the topic... I have stated my opinion regarding this subject in many posts (when you are such an old member you tend to repeat certain stuff... ). Nevertheless I will state it again. I think men has NEVER set foot on the moon. Not that it couldn't do it today, but it simply hasn't done it when everybody (or almost everybody) thinks he did. With today's technology that is well within our grasp, but back in the '60 I think that was far beyond what was available in the moment. The reason for such a huge hoax (the biggest in history) is easy to understand. The Cold War at it's peak, the USSR and the USA fighting for supremacy both on Earth and in the outer space. After getting beaten the first time (since the USSR has managed to put the first man on the orbit) the USA said: if we can't do it why not fake it. And so it was... It is said that it is much easier to make a lot of people believe something that is not real then making only a small group of people to believe the same thing. Everybody stood in front of their television sets and couldn't even imagine that what they saw was not real. The neighbor saw the same image, his friends saw the same image.... and so everyone believed. But there are things left unanswered like why the flag flapped, or why there are shadows pointing in different directions. Or how come the USA pulled it all the way to the moon even though they had 5 times less space experience then the Russians. There are things that tell us that what people saw was not real. It was, as Neil Armstrong said, a big step for mankind, but it was a big step in the deserts of Nevada not on the moon. Even if the moon landings will turn someday to be a hoax people will still not believe... they will not want to believe that they were fooled. Many people refuse to even analyze the conspiracy theories because they simply do not want to think at the implications...

You've only tried to answer a small part of the question... What will happen with the cars when the oil runs out? But I'm sure there will be far greater problems then having a car on oil when there is no oil left in the world. Everything we have today is made (at least partially) out of oil...Everything that has plastic in it, even food it made out of oil. I think you only need the fingers from one hand to count the parts of industry that don't need oil to function. Things will change when we will run out of oil... And it's not only cars, even the most basic stuff will have to change... So cars maybe just the beginning, our whole life style will have to change, to adapt to a world without oil. I've heard that in 40 years will run of out of oil... That may happen even faster. I think it will be a disaster for world's economy specially for the countries that relay on oil as their main source of income. Richer countries like Dubai have realized that when the oil runs out they will have a serious money trouble... That is why some of them are turning their eyes on tourism. Anyway the oil problem is far larger then we can possibly imagine. Fuel Cell cars, hybrid cars are very possible. But you can't power a whole industry on electricity alone... Electricity simple does not provide enough power to keep machines running and that is not because you can't produce so much power but because you can't transport that much in an effective way. Besides even if an effective alternative to oil is found, a few decades will pass before the whole industry will be able to adapt and make the switch. Not to mention the money that will have to be invested... So you see our life will be so much different when the oil runs out. I'm afraid it won't be a very peaceful transition from a oil based global economy to something else. Tides will turn for those countries that ruled the world by controlling the oil flow... like the USA. Just a few days ago Bush said in it's speech that America needs to double it's oil reserve. I'm sure the crisis will end with a new world order. The world, in my opinion, is going to have a very wild ride once the oil runs out.

I was wondering what happened... yesterday my account was active (although I'm sure I only had a few hosting credits left). Today when I visited the forum I had -16 and something... I was scared at first because I didn't know what happened... Well I agree with you... It's not my fault I replied to a topic that someone considers spam. I hope you'll rethink this measure because it will create havoc... One way or another... YOU'RE STILL THE BEST Xisto! A happy (2 year old) member,

I was arguing with my desk mate about this problem a few weeks ago. He believes in the creation theory and I believe in the evolution theory. He also asked me... "If everything evolves and we are just an evolved ape, why are there apes on this planet; why aren't all apes humans... why didn't all apes evolve into humans or at least something better." In that moment I couldn't give him a rational explanation. But after thinking about it I found one. Here it is. Lets take evolution theory for granted... Life evolves? But why does it? Because it needs to adapt to an ever changing environment even if that may mean a new predator, an ice age or something else. In other words species need evolution in order to survive, it is a requirement, not a voluntary thing. Darwin noticed that a few individuals (I mean a lot of individuals... a small number compared to the specie) that have been cut off geographically from the rest of the species evolve differently. And there are lots and lots of examples for this phenomenon... not any large evolutionary steps but very little ones like the change of colors to adapt to the new enviroment or even the change in behavior. What I want to point out is that something might have happened that triggered the evolutionary leap. A group of primitive apes, a few million years ago might have left Africa by chance and in the process of adapting to their new environment ended up after millions and millions of years being human. Other apes may not have head that opportunity and remained more or less unchanged. Even today it is easy to see this... Africa is still very much undeveloped compared to the modern standards. They still fight in a endless civil war... So basically my theory for your question is that evolution needs something that turns it on, just like fire needs gas to burn. And that something are conditions... very rare, special conditions... that is why there are still apes in the world, that is why even though apes exist for more then men does they are not as bright as we are... Our ancestor might just have been much much more lucky then theirs...

Your creation theory seems possible (although I'm sure that someone has thought about it before), but still doesn't answer the big question.Your Creation Theory isn't much of a creation, but of development. It does not answer how the Universe was created, but it explains how it works. Your theory does not explain how matter came to be and there isn't any easy way out of this problem... matter didn't just appear out of nothing.I don't believe in God or in the classical creation theory (God made all things out of thin air). I do believe in evolution, I believe that humans weren't created, but evolved from something else.Science pretty much explained more or less everything until it comes to the birth of the Universe. The problem is that you can't say... "The Universe has always been there!"... Where did matter came from? We know, maybe not in detail, but at least the basics of the way the Universe works. What we don't know is how it came to be...But I'm sure that someday mankind will have enough knowledge to explain the birth of the Universe. That day may not come soon, but will surely come. 100 years ago we were only wondering what is space, what is the Universe. Knowledge, in my opinion, is just like the Universe...infinite. We will always learn, but we will never know everything!

I think the United States of America are 50 years away from loosing their position as world leader. Maybe things will change even faster. I'm also pretty sure that nobody will shoot down another countries satellites, because I'm also sure that there are nuclear satellites on the orbit... shadows of the Cold War.I predict that when the inevitable happens, when the United States of America will no longer be able to control the world there shall be a new world war, which will end with the establishment of a new world order (if we are to survive a new world war). There are a few countries in the world that would like the control of the world and have the potential to do it... China is just one of them.Returning to the topic... The USA isn't the only country that depends on satellites... the whole world does. That is why I believe it will never get that far to destroy each others satellites. As in the Cold War, the threat of doing so may discourage the other party.And as someone said... Space isn't US property, it is the property of mankind. The USA have no right to monopolize space as if it is their own backyard.

It may seem like a lot for guys like you and me, but considering how large Ford is... of course they aren't happy about it, but it's not like they are going to close the shop any time soon.Looking deeply into this "problem" I don't things will improve. The Asian market is very cheap and produces quality cars. After what is happening with Ford it seems the second car producer in the States will be Toyota Motor.

I'm not saying that the Japanese scientists don't know what they are doing... maybe the ship that their designing is really good. What I meant by "experience" is the problems they'll have to resolve in space. It's one thing to put a man on earth's orbit, but to put a men on the moon is quite a different challenge. That is experience... You should remember that there were 10 Apollo missions before the landing (if of course there was one). I didn't want to go into this so I wouldn't change the topic of this post, but I simply can help on commenting this... Don't know if you've heard (i just found out by mistake) but it seems that last year NASA managed to loose the famous Apollo 11 footage (http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/) which might have stopped this conspiracy theories. How could they loose something so important for NASA, for mankind. There is a lot of stuff that doesn't add up (flags flap, multiple shadow, etc). Besides NASA and the USA HAD to pull this off no matter what because the USSR where the first to put a men in orbit. There is a motive and some proof... that makes it no a theorie, but a possibility however remote that may be.