adriantc

the vouchers are vaild 18 months. I really don't understand what you mean when you say you are in the wrong hemisphere. I'm from Romania and it took a little more then 3 weeks for the products to get here, so they ship basicly anywhere....No one says to drop adsense, but you can make something extra ... you only have to put it on 3 pages

I just received the voucher for May (they changed the payday from the 20th of the month to the 1st)... Just bought a book about the Decline and Fall of The Roman Empire

I'm going to start working on a new project that I have been thinking about. I have a programming contest in my highschool in february next year (I have won this year's edition) and I hope this new project will be my masterpierce. That is why I want to start working early.Well it is going to be an encoding software (for text.. txt, doc, only... nothing too fancy). I have a lot of functions in my mind that I would like to see implemented into the software. That's why I need some help from somebody who knows more then I do. There are three things I need help with. First of all you should know I use Delphi 2006...1. The first problem is related to printing a document. Lets say have a delphi.txt file and I want to print it. How can it be done? If you can and you have patience please explain step by step.2. Second problem.... I was thinking about making a webupdate module. Do you have any ideas on how I can do that, on how I can make it download a file update.exe and run it! I'm open to any other suggestions.3. Is there any way I can run another software from my program (for example I want to run C:/Program Files/Mozilla Firefox/firefox.exe)? If I can how do I do it? Also is there any way to access the internet right from my project form (for example the user clicks a button and some information loads right in the software... no browser open or anything... for example a check version module... click a button, the software will use the internet to determine if you have the latest versions and it will give you a messege).Well thanks for your help in advance!

That is a well put problem... I have read it all and I find it to be very interesting. Of course your analysis is general, many more factors can influence the outcome but you have expressed what is important. As I have said earlier in a very small group anarchy can work, even for a limited time. But is you take a large group, even the population of a city or a neighborhood and place them on a small territory (so they will need to interact in order to survive) we will see that laws must be in place, someone must rule them. Small population - small odds that something goes wrong. You can imagine the relationships between ten people, but what about ten thousand people. Too many unknows. Too many things that might not work as it should.So if you consider guverment evil (I don't), it is a necessary evil. Just like in a pack of wolves someone must lead in order to make the pack an efficient one. Separate elements are weak (the pack of wolves would die), put them work together and they will be strong. That is how civilization was built. If we wouldn't have come together we would have never ruled the planet. So anarchy belongs to the dawn of menkind, not to the future of menkind.

I don't agree with you. Everywhere you go you will find rules, if there are no rules people will do whatever they want. Of course others will act as they do today but not all of us have a strong moral fiber. Even with all the rules and the laws people still kill each other and even with all the civilization there comes a madman who eats his friend. So don't put too much faith in human nature. After all we are only human...

It may seem alike, but I'm sure it is not. I'm sure in the UK when they want to steal some public money they usually do not make it in front of everybody. Well in Romania they simply do not care, just a month or two ago the press discovered that our ex-prim-minister has a dead cousin who left him over 2 million $ and lands worth another 2 million $ + jewellery worth over 400.000$. The sad thing is that he got away with it, well he hasn't actually but the trial is going nowhere since. Anyway... I have seen a TV show yesterday about schools in the Uk. And they wanted to switch the menu of kids from burgers (semiprepared food) to cooked food. Of course the kids didn't like it, but was amazed when I saw that a cook complained that she worked 2 hours extra without getting paid for it. My father which has a 10 times greater responsibility and works 2 hours extra everyday doesn't get half as much as that cook gets. That is the difference, so you can consider yourself lucky. That is why I have said that this upper class must function independently of society. As long as there is no temptation and they have very stong moral values they will be close to incoruptible. He will get paid the midium salary in that country. He will have a car, a regular one so he will not live in luxury. If he wants to get more he only has to do make the economy work better and drive the medium salary up. In my opinion this salary policy should be written in the constitution so they will not, like they do today, vote their own salary. In other words, they will have enough money to live a decent life.. If they want more they will have to work better. Bad decisions... well there isn't much we can do. Since I would give the whole power to a single person there is no room for a second decision. It is the downside of the system. Nothing is perfect, but as I said we can minimize the risk as much as possible. A constitution must exist anyhow. He must have some sort of advisers specialized in different parts of society like economy, history etc. The minister system, or something similer must exist, and people from the same upper class must have that ministers. Like a conclusion... the decision making part must be totaly independent from ordinary people. They mustn't have any direct links with the people so they will not be corruptible. As far as the 911 events I think you are totaly right. Since you are an american it is good to know that Bush's propaganda machine hasn't reached that far. For those of you who can't understand why the war on terrorism took place I suggest you read George Orwell's 1984. The quote from this book which is also at the end of Fahrenheit 911 describes the best the war against terrorism: "It does not matter if the war is not real. For when it is, victory is not possible. The war is not meant to be won, but it is meant to be continuous. A hierarchical society is only possible on the basis of poverty and ignorance, this new version is the past and no different past can ever have existed. In principle the war effort is always planned to keep society on the brink of starvation. The war is waged by the ruling group against its own subjects and its object is not the victory over either Eurasia or east Asia but to keep the very structure of society intact." For those who still believe in Bush and his war... read the book... it will change your perspective! "Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind." - George Orwell

It is somewhat similer to a monachy, but power will not be given thru birth but thru merits. There will be no luxury (like in a monarchy), not the ruler will be considered a god or a father figure (like in communism for example). The ruler will sacrifice his life (considering he will not be married, will not have children or have any religion orientation). Of course it will be a small sacrifice in the benefit of all. It is my opinion that it does not take an extremly inteligent person to be a great ruler, just to have the right virtues, to have the will to do better, things which we rarely see this days. I don't see Adolf Hitler as a great ruler, but as an evil person. He not only killed jews, but he killed them for what they are not for what they did. He did not conquer the world as a noble idea, but simply to rule. The lust for power is not good, so he can't be considered a great ruler. Alexander the Great for example had this idea to unite all people under his rule. He may have been gay and he may have drunk too much, and he may even be a little too ruthless, but he had a higher goal. If you ask me the movie Alexander (not considering the actors and such... simply the historical part) best describes him. A ruler must be ruthless, since not evryone wants to be a part of their empire. If we believe the poison theorie in the case of Alexander we can see that even his own people didn't like to share the glory with others. What I want to say is that people are not so eager to be ruled by someone who is not of their own blood. I think the best policy would be "You are with us and share our glory and weath or you are against us and suffer the consequences. A great ruler can't be a weak one, he must be feared in a certain degree. My friends say I am a communist because I consider all men are equal no matter of the skin color language or religion and because I do not belive in private property ( which I don't remember what ancient philosopher said it is the root of all evil). Some people may need more civilization but all people are born equal. If you ask me the germans would be the most suited to rule since they have the brains and the will to do a good job. After every war they grown a lot. Think only that Germany was ruined after World War 2 and it has now one of the greatest economies. Yeah your right about that... it is my mistake. Democracy is not capitalism, but in the world we live where is democracy there is capitalism. That is the effect of capitalism I think leads sooner or later to socialism. The gap grows larger, most people are more poor and so on. I know that in the US you elect not the person but the ones that choose the persons. My history teacher told me that system is like a fail safe mechanism. As I said a large group of people can easily be manipulated, so to prevent a dictator for controling the people they made this system. So the people can't choose their ruler directly. Isn't that the system you refer to? I haven't given much thought to that, but there must be some sort of system that would not imply a decision of another group of people. As you bring more and more people in the equation the odds are growing exponentialy that something goes bad. A system must be a very objective one and MUST NOT include other people in the decision process. Since we give one the absolute power we must make sure he is no tyrant. We must make sure he uses the power to do good no bad. That is why a small class of people must be built, a class with moral principles far better then ours, a class which values life greater then money. They must learn history so they will not repeat the mistakes of the past. Also the absolute power does not mean lack of freedom. People should be as free as possible, as they are in democracy. What communist didn't understand is that critics are good. Well they didn't want to do good so they didn't want people to critic them. Also religion is to be as free as possible. Religion gives people hope and hope is good. And above all the guverment should not mix in peoples lifes. . As long as you respect the law no one must be afraid of the guverment. The guverment must not wash the brains of the people as the communist did. The guverment should not burn books and rewrite history as the communist did. Culture should be ranked high in guvermnets priorities because it is almoust as important as wealth. Well I am from Romania, a place in Europe where until 1989 communism ruled. We are now a democracy, but we are far from the west. I have recently made a trip thru Europe and I have seen France and Germany and I almoust cried when I saw how far we are from them. There are still people from the old regime in the new one, and they don't want to be "washed" out of the system. If I can describe the way the people are you could visit your poor neighborhood and think that 70% of Romania is like that. All because the ones who rule us think about their own pockets to be as full as they can. I have said that once in a topic, but if I could take over now I would shoot the parliament and the president. Thay have giant houses and cars, giant bank accounts and very weathy relatives. In the parlament they do nothing elese then raise their own salaries. Every month or two they vote to increase their own salaries. They are at work once evry 3 days, and when they are at work they don't do anything. All of this while people are poor, disasters hit every year making damages worth over 1 billion $. They should be ashame of themselves. But they are not and there is nothing we can do. Every 4 years they want our vote and the really sad thing is that we dont have another option. Because they will never let honest people get in a position where their own system is threatened. In 7 months we are due to be a part of the UE, but we are no where close to where they are. Capitalism is bad, but when capitalism is build on the ruins of the old regime it is a nightmare. I have tried to discribe as best as I could why I would want something to be changed. You ust asked me from where I was but I wanted to explain the reasons for why I am so radical. About the song... the lyrics are great. They share my view regarding the 9-11 incident and what happened after. See Fahrenheit 911 for details... I do believe in the conspiracy theory regarding the 9-11 events. Hope you will have the time to read the whole post. I don't usually write so much, but i really believe something must change and I feel the need to express myself.

At least in my country, I don't know if it is the same in your country, but I think it is since in the west the life in prison is much better, one prisoner eats food an entire month worth a minimum salary. So basicly someone who has stolen, raped or killed eats as much as someone works an entire month. Everyone says human rights, well they have lost those when the did what they did. They should be fed with bread and water, they should live in prison without everseeing the light of day and they should for their food. There are a lot of cases where people go to prison because they have a better then home, 3 times a day hot meal for free. I just hate the way they still have rights. They are getting a punishment not having a vacation in prison. Not to mention the killers which can never be put back into society. They should be put to sleep since what they did is beyond repair. Society does not have to feed someone who is no longer a human beeing... 1. I ain't talking about monarchy. Only the fact that you are born in a certain family does not make you a ruler. This is not about divine right. What I want is to have people educated from childhood to be rulers, and to be selected for it. They have to be the best of the best. Corruption has nothing to do with it, since they will have the values needed to be near incorruptible. Corruption is far more widespead in a system which shares power between people because the odds that someone is corruptible are far greater. 2. It is true that I can't name a country that today is functioning great thanks to a single ruler but we should not forget that great empires where built by one single supreme ruler. Alexander the Great, Julius Cesar, Napoleon and so on. There isn't any great country today led by one ruler because there ain't any great ruler, not because the system isn't good. Communism, for example has the worst possible leaders and it fell. Continues argue between sides isn't good at all. I accept the fact that if only one has complete and absolute power the chances that something goes wrong are far greater, but thru a harsh selection the risk can be minimized. If one has all the power decisions will be swift and above the blind disputes in parlaments. And do not think that if you share the power between people it will make a big difference. People are united be the same thing: money... wealth, the greatest value of capitalism. For them and their family, not for all. The ruler that I want would be over this small things, he would think in the benefit of all. He would be like a computer which does not take sides and does not have any interest to do so. You will probably say that is it hard to change a human in so much ways, but someone who has dedicated his entire life to this one goal could be somewhere near that description. 3. That is true. A great ruler must not have any moral problems related to religion or family. The must not see people like he is a muslim, he is a christian and so one. He must see them a people. A small part of a much bigger system. For a system like this to work he must be above all that. He mustn't think that "I have a family at home... shouldn't they live like kings, with gold and weath." He must have only one job... to rule. One man sacrifice is acceptable if the goal is high enough. I could give you a lot of examples (from my country) why democracy isn't working as it should, but since you don't live in my country you won't understand them. But you can believe me that a lot of people are suffering greatly because the people that share power are weak, corrupted and think only for the good of them and their family. Sorry if I have changed the topic... I really didn't know Albert Einstein was an anarchyst. You are true, but I can give you the same example with democracy. Someone said (don't remember who... I already said this in a topic but I will say this once more) that democracy leads invariable to socialism, because democracy makes the gap between poor and rich bigger and bigger so the result is the same... revolution of the poor. Regarding the death penalty... I'm not into religion... I mean I am a christian, but I have my own doubts about the divine nature of god. Anyway that is a different topic. I know about the "only god has the right..." problem, but if we would apply that why would we even put them in jail. Only god has the right to punish them?!? So let them kill 10 people, a 100 or why not 1000 people. They will be punished in the afterlife. I you so sure there is an after-life so you'd risk the life of 1000 people? How can you find putting a killer into jail for life better then the firing squad. Usully when you put someone in jail there is a small chance that someday he can be put back into society. But a killer can never be put back. Why should we spend money on someone who is no longer normal and no longer deserves the right to live. Shouldn't we do something else with that money. Shouldn't we help people that deserve that money rather then spending them on people that killed, stole or raped? And at least this doesn't mean we are going back to the dark ages. dark ages where the normal reaction to the growth of civilization in the roman empire. Action and reaction. There wasn't much they could do to stop the fall. And I should remind you that the church made the dark ages dark, because they have taken science outside the law. They have switched off the light that could lighten the dark ages. They were dark because people stopped to think with their brain and they were led by the church just as the cows are led by the farmer. Dark Ages and the control of the church are long over never to return. I do hope you have the patience to read my post and reply to each subject.

That are some nice words, but lack any substance. Because what he said are only ideas, he said "it would be great if ...". But you can't build something starting with "if". What he said can never be put into practice. A society like he said can never hold more then a few months, even weeks. Well first of all I have to declare myself a strong supporter of any form of guverment and law. If I could change the laws, death penalty would be a lot more common. Law MUST exist and laws MUST be enforced (by any means). Further more I would kill off democracy since I think the people (taken as a whole) do not have the wisdom not the control necessary to guvern themself. They can be (and they have been) easily manipulated. So in order to escape that "To be GOVERNED is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so.", I would create a special class of people grown from infancy with virtues like selfsacrifice and wisdom, with knowledge and inteligence. They should rule the world, in the benefit of all people not of themself. Of course they will not be perfect, but they will be as near to that as possible. They must be as objective and fair as possible and rule with an iron fist Well I was off topic so ... going back to anarchy... Anarchy means lack of guverment and laws. Any guverment is better then no guverment. Just think what would happen when somebody would say there is no law anymore, you can do whatever you want. Do not think people are sweet little angels. We have dark desires coming from our animal origins, but that desires are stoped by the existance of laws and punishment. An anarchyst would say "Rules are made to be broken". It is also true that when you say "don't do that..." people usually do it just for the fun of not obeying. But that are only exceptions. A society has made connections between individuals, break that connections and society as we know it will fall. People can't simply be taken as individuals. We are too many to be taken as individuals. Further more our reactions (as a mass) can easy be read and anticipated. People are a lot more predictable when taken as a whole. What I understand anarchysts want is a society where people would do whatever then want, be whatever they what. Simply thinking about that and multiplying with 6,5 billion people will cause 6,5 billion problems. So anarchy is not good at all. Globalization is the exact same oposite of anarchy... people coming together and, besides some aspects which I will not state now, I think globalization is good since it will allow a much bigger improvment in our life style. Mixing people will, in generations, kill rasism and the problems it generates. This is a dream as old as civilization itself and its sure it can't be realized thru anarchy...

Regarding the wisdom jump... that was exactly what I wanted to say. There comes a time in history when technology surpasses the moral fiber of men. In other words men are not suited to have that technology, don't have the wisdom to use it properly. It may be some sort of mechanism of history.... after each great jump comes a great fall... action and reaction. And history does repeat itself. From antiquity, Alexander the Great and the Roman Empire, to the Dark Ages and finally to the First World War and the Second World War. So menkind is like a highspeed train... when it goes to fast ends up crashing, slowly recovers and start again just to have the very same end. Well we should not forget that we are animals in our origins. For evolution to take place there must be a continuous fight. It is know that war and competition in general are the engines of progress. So killing each other is written in our genes. And since it is written in our genes that means it is something natural. We see it all the time in the animal kingdom... survival of the fittest, the food chain. I don't say "lets embrace war", but we should realize that it is a needed evil. You haven't hijacked this thread and your very right. What you said describes (taking the train example) that moment before the train runs off the rails, the breakpoint. There has been a huge growth after the Second World War, both in population and in technology and we should expect the revers of the coin, some sort of fall. we could take chicken flu as an warning or the war bettwen the west and the est. Maybe I'm pessimistic, but something bad is going to happen in the next 100 years. Edit: I thought more about this... Usually as you go up in the food chain the population gets lower. So if you are at the bottom of the food chain there are lots of individuals (ready to be eaten), because a lot of animals positioned upper in the food chain eat them. As you go up the population gets lower because there are less animals to eat them. In the top of the food chain there are a very limited number of individuals, because since they are the ultimate predator they will eat a lot of individuals positioned lower in the food chain so their population number has to be very small. And since humans are on the top of the food chain it would be normal that we would only be a few. But there is an anomaly, we are a lot of individuals and nature wants to fix that anomaly thru things like disasters and epidemics and things like that. It is like a fail safe system...

Yesterday I should have had a very bad day with a very hard test paper at physics. It seems I was pretty lucky since my teacher forgot the subjects at home. Anyway, as I was having plenty of time to spare I started talking with my deskmate about "what if women ruled the world?". And as I predicted, he said: "There wouldn't be any crime and wars...." (I think that is the general opinion... women are more sensitive, because of their nature as mothers... it is men's nature to have a cold ruthless nature). I admit to be a misogynist (woman hater ... don't know if that is the spellling) so I told him: "War is good, it controls the population growth so the food resources won't be so little compared to the actual needs!". He said "Yeah sure...!". After that we started having an argument... That's is how it usually ends! Going back to the topic of "Population Growth Control Thru Wars, Disasters, etc."... This isn't any new discovery or anything it is as old as the population boom after the industrial revolution. I don't remember exactly, but I think it was made by an english scientist in the 19th century (I searched for his name, but I just couldn't find him... if you do find his name please share it with me, 10x). What he said was pretty simple... War, hunger, natural disasters and epidemics are needed in order to control the population growth. It may seem weird to say War is a needed thing!, but if you really think about it is not such an absurd idea. As you are aware the food resources are not even close to what is needed for over 6 billion people. A very big population growth will result in a fall of civilization as we know it. Overpopulation is a serious problem. So war and epidemics are a needed thing in order to keep the population in some limits. But I also think there is a grater explination to this theorie. Taking Second World War as an example it is clear that society has growth to a limit set by it's old moral standards. People, and I think that is why we are superior to animals, have the ability to learn from their mistakes. But something bad has to happen in order to lern from it. In our case it was World War 2, just as what happened at Hiroshima and Nagasaki made us realize the full extent of nuclear power.In the ending I could shorten my opinion to two main ideas. Wars, disasters, epidemics are needed to control population growth, but are also needed to give society wisdom to jump to the next level. So what do you think? Is this theorie a valid one? If not why?

It sounds good but the situation ain't that pink. First of all because you won't receive even nearly as much paid to click emails as they advertise. If you will receive one per day you can consider yourself happy and lucky. But on the daily basis you will receive an paid to click once every two or three days. Second - even if they advertise that they give you 20 cents per read email, the payout minimum is so high that is will take years of reading emails just to reach the payout minimum. I've seen with my eyes websites advertising that they give a 100$ for every read email, but the payout minimum was 100000$. Even if they promise just 10 cents per email a simple calculation will show you that there isn't any way they will be able to pay you. Let's say that a website like this has 1000 members (some have much more) and a email is worth 10 cents. Considering the fact that if you want to buy some advertising you buy an email or multiple emails to all members that means an ad pack should cost 1000*0,1$ = 100$. But on most websites an ad pack like this is 10$. So you see there is no way they can afford to pay you. And that is why they have to put that high payout minimum. So a few (if none) people do really get to be paid.As a conclusion: Don't waste your time, it is not worth it!

I don't think there is a superior religion. As a non-believer (christian orthodox by birth) I am sure there isn't a very big difference between the 2 main religions: Christianity and Islam. History made the dfference between those two. In Europe Christianity lived throught what we call the Dark Ages and I think that period made Christianity much more mature religion. They changed their view from "Earth is the center of the Universe" and kill anybody who says different to "Maybe the evolution theory is true?!?". Meanwhile in the far east nothing changed everything remained and still is like it was in the 14th century. But there is no way you can say a religion is better. Yeah the Christian world is far more richer then the Islamic world, but that is not entirely because of religion. History is the main player. If we were born in Africa we would have still starved like people do right now.So basicly what I want to say: There is no superior religion; and if you think deeply you'll realise that the difference between them is not that great. They have the same objective: give people hope and enforce some rules (and as a personal opinion... the sum of that two ultimately leads to control of the people; fact seen in the dark ages)

I am also a non-believer. I don't question the fact that there was a men called Jesus, I just question his divine nature. For this topic I remembered a quote from Marx (I know he isn't the most popular figure, but he really does have a point): Religion is the opium of the people Of course what Marx and communism didn't understand is that people do need religion, but not for the divine reason, for a more earthly reason. They need hope, they need something to believe in. Hope makes people get throught the worst circumstances. They rejected religion and of course the result is well known. On the other hand too much believe is as good, maybe even worst, then not believing. That is I think the difference between Christianity and Islam... too little believe and too much believe. My history teacher once told me the reason why Christianity has spread so fast throught the Roman Empire and I think he was right. The new religion was far better the their old one and not because it was real, but because it made people wait for a reward in an afterlife, not in their life as the old religion. As I seeit religion is a method of control even if it is called Christianity or Islam.

For your first question: in the offer you'll only see 1,67ghz dual-core CPU. That means that every core of the two runs at 1,67ghz. For your second question: Forthe long run I would go for the 2ghz dual-core one. The future means multitasking and you must be prepared for it. Not to mention the differeence of 200mhz between the CPU's can easy be achived by overclocking (you'll probably freeek out when you'll here thhis term but 200mhz won't increase the temperature very much). Well I can't agree with you Inspiron. Yeah on the outside you won't see a difference between a single core CPU and a dual-core CPU, but on the inside there is a very big difference. There are 2 different CPUs. It does not simulate. There is a technology that simulates 2 CPUs (or 4 CPUs on the dual core ones) but that is called Hyper-Threading and it only comes with Intel Pentium 4 CPUs. So the dual core CPUs do have 2 separte CPUs inside. They even have their own cache memory. The only thing they have in common is the memory controller. But the human brain example is very good until you say "In dual-core processor, its just only 1 processor". No there are 2 processors even thought on the outside it only looks like one.

Well I can't speak in the name of Dz9CO_92, but I can tell you why I belive in the rational explination. Since the dawn of menkind, we are afraid of the unknown. We still are despite of the level of civilization we have reached. The meaning of dreams are only a way of the mind to control what we can't understand. In our case... the future. That is why people still go to witches. They are afraid of the future and what it may bring to us and they try to control it. A lot of people are still fooled by a cristal globe you know. Maybe someday when we will know more about ourself we will be able to embrace the unknown rather then beeing afraid of it. Still we are only human... I just remembered one thing I saw on Discovery Channel last month. They were speaking about how the apes have evolved to become humans. And one possible explination would be that dreams made them smarter. They said that dreaming can only happen when you feel safe and that is why only an animal on the top of the food chain could have become smarter. You have to admit it is an interesting theory...

It sounds easy when you say it and that, indeed, is the general idea. But someone calculated that for teleporting only a cell it would be required to store and transmit millions and millions of terabytes of information, which is still beyond what we can do. Not to mention the fact that there is no device for the process of mapping the human body and reforming it. Still the idea sounds great and turism would really benefit from it... Maybe in 50 years, who knows?

Yesterday I've posted in the vent a reply on a topic regarding alarm clocks. And as I was typing my reply I started thinking that lately I dreamed a lot of weird stuff. So I said ... why not ask fellow members what (weird) dreams they had lately. And since we are on the subject... do you belive this dreams have a hidden meaning (see poll)?Before I get started... I think it would be best that you first type your reply (if you intend to reply) and then read other posts. Why? So that you are not influenced by other opinions.As I said I had a lot of weird dreams lately. I am a men of science, not of faith so I really don't belive that there is a hidden message in dreams. The scientific explination goes like this... the part of the brain that is responsible with rational thinking shuts down when we sleep and that means there is nothing to stop us from dreaming weird stuff. Of course you may have a drifferent opinion...Here goes one of my weirdest dreams ever... I was at home (I live in a flat) when I saw that the flat in front of my own who bombed by aliens (). I told my mother that the aliens are invading us and that we should run. I tried to run in my room, but when I got there my room was just a big hole in the wall. So I jumped out and ran as fast as I could. As I ran I saw people just stareing as my flat was destroyed and other playing with fireworks. I remember even seeing a news bulletin (that looked so real) saying that we are not alone in the universe. So I ran and entered in a courtyard where some travestites ( - hope that is the right spelling) paying bascketball and I told them that they are crazy for playing games while the aliens are invading us. They told me that the aliens have gone and that I should return to my home, after which I woke up.I don't know why lately there is a pattern in my dreams... something happens and I always jump off the windows (if you wondering.... I live on the first floor). When I was little used to dream that I gone naked to school or that I would fall off a round stair. Do you have any patterns (fears) in your dreams?

I have heard a case a couple of weeks ago about two lesbians who used the sperm bank to make a baby. But just after one of them delivered the baby they split up and belive it or not it sued the men who donated the sperm to the sperm bank. And belive it or not she won! And now the men has to pay a monthly small fortune for beeing the biological father of the baby he didn't even know. I simply can't see who a relationship between the same sex can work.

adriantc.ro[_-A-_]gmail[_-D-_]comI have 100 invites left. I'd be glad to share all of them with you. Just send an email at the above email adress.GMail Invites Left: 80 (last update 28.04.2006)

If you ask me your dream is quite weird. But I can't say I don't have weird dreams...About the alarm clock... I think the best way to end your alarm clock problems it to start waking up by yourself. I don't sleep over 7 a.m. and not because I have an alarm clock to wake me up it has just become a habit. When I was lilttle I was helped by the fact that everyday I had to wake up pretty early to go to school. Plus that in weekendscartoons started at 7 a.m. so I had to wake up early to catch the cartoons. And now I simply can't sleep longer then 7 or 7:30 am. Even at New Year when I stood up until 4 a.m. I got up around 8 a.m.I'm sure that if you really have something important to do in the morning you will be able to wake up without the annoying alarm clock.

Well I am 19" Philips 190S5 bought an year ago. I remember when I first installed it that compared to my old 17" CRT it seemed so huge. It looked like it took a hundred years just to cross the screen with the pointer . It doesn't have any great stuff, it is quite balanced. The weak point I think is the fact that colors seem to fade it you don't look at it exactly right (yeah I know thta is the weak point of every LCD). Even if is has a 10ms response time that is no problem o me. I played games with enought frames per second to exced the response time and I didn't have any quality problems with it. And above all I like the design...

I could say I am an old member of Xisto.com (I've been a member for over an year) and I can say Xisto RULZ. I've tried many free hosting "companies" before finding out about Xisto, but I'm sure Xisto is the best. In this year with Xisto I'm grown from a small personal website (made in Publisher ) to a professional looking, php script based, mysql driven website. Well I can't belive that I have just replyed to a mysql topic in the forum. Yeah so in this year and 2 months I learned quite a lot (and yes the best way to learn is to discover yourself thru trial and error) and Xisto has its part in it.Also during the year I've been a member of Xisto.com I've seen a lot of changes in Xisto, most of them positive (like the ever growing number of members... which I consider a good thing as long as the admin can keep up the good work). But there are some I don't like. And since I visit the forum pretty often the main problem I have is with the threads. I have just realised that (once again) the topics have been reorganized. Now gaming, for example, is in a different part of the forum. Yeah changes are needed since more members mean more posts and more crowded, but I've got used to the way the forum was. I'm pretty open to new things as long as they don't come once every month. I hope you don't intend to change the skin of the forum some time soon... You have to understand that since there are a lot of members it is pretty hard for us to adjust to big changes, so it would be better if you chould open a mass poll to ask the members their opinion about any big changes. I hope you won't be mad on me for this opinion, it's not extremly important, but with this huge member base very detail counts.Live long and prosper, Xisto. Hope that next year I'll be areound here posting a new topic.

I'm n ot an expert in MySQL, but the answer is pretty simple. It orders it that way because of the way the variables in the table are. If, for example you choose varchar(x) it will give you: 1 2 23 3 456 7 9 98 instead of: 1 2 3 7 9 23 98 456That is because it takes in consideration the first letter of the word (number in our case). If they happen to match the difference it made by the second letter. If that also happens to match it check the third ... and so on. And since 1<2<3<4<5<6<7<8<9<0 (in ASCII code) you understand why it orders them in that way (why 3 for example is bigger then 23).If you want to order them as you want: 1 2 3 7 9 23 ... you just have to change the type from varchar(x) or whatever char value are you using to int(x) (int comes from integer). Since int means only numbers it doesn't care about the first letter and takes the hole number and order them. So there is no need to change the code, just change the type.Hope you understand...

This is an update to my last post...Well I downloaded and (tried) to install Windows Vixta (x86). Once again, just after the install process has ended and before the first boot I got a BSOD. Just like with the last (x64) version there was no way I could run it for more then a minute or so. It seems it has Microsoft written all over it... After searching all over the internet for people experiencing the same problems with me it seems there is a pattern for this problems. Most of the people (99%) can install and run Windows normally (or at least as you would expect for a beta release), but there is a small group of people that have a AMD CPU and share the same problems. That is the element that seems to be the root of the problem.Still there is no valid explination for why the november build worked just fine... ...Guess I'll have to wait until the end of the year to finaaly check Vista...