Mordent

*chuckles* Okay, as long as the general consensus is for me to leave them alone I will. :blink:I can't help but feel they make my site pretty messy, though, so do be prepared for me to delete them in a spurt of tidiness in the next few weeks and come crawling back here saying you lot were right all along.

I couldn't find anywhere more relevant to put this, so I decided to go for the miscellaneous forum. I was tempted to put it in to cPanel, but it's not directly related to it. If a mod's got a better suggestion, do feel free to move it. :DFirstly, I should probably make it clear that Xisto is my first host. As such, I have little experience with the structure of a site. Looking at File Manager just now led me to see a stackload of files that I 1) have no idea what they do, and 2) don't remember seeing there when I first started my hosting plan. There's also a few that I vaguely remember being around, but I'm not entirely sure why they're needed. Let me go through what I've got:In the "root" directory:.cpanel (folder).fantasticodata (folder).sqmaildata (folder).trash (folder).cgi-bin (folder)etc (folder)mail (folder)public_ftp (folder)public_html (folder)www (folder.bash_logout.bash_profile.bashrc.contactemail.contactsavetime.lastlogin.mailboxlistI'm pretty sure most of that stuff isn't entirely necessary. Take .sqmaildata, for example. I used the Squirrel Mail thing once while I had a quick look at a test email during the time I was setting up Outlook Express. Do I need to keep it? Will it damage anything if I get rid of it? What about .fantasticodata? Again, I used it a little while ago but haven't touched it since (and don't intend to).I assume .cpanel is vital, but there's a fair amount of stuff in the root directory alone that I'm pretty sure is surplus to requirements. I'm starting to wish I'd made a list when I first got the hosting. :blink:Perhaps someone (ideally someone who definitely knows what's vital and what isn't ) could make such a list? Ideally it would include subfolders, too (so what you get when you first create a hosting account) for the benefit of the rest of us who aren't quite so technically minded. Sure, I'm well on my way to creating a website (locally, I might add), but it's the top-level admin side that I'm not entirely up-to-scratch with.Thanks!EDIT: Hmmm...it seems that the "www" folder is actually a shortcut to "public_html". Also, do I have to have all of these MS FrontPage files lurking everywhere?

The problem with using strange shape batteries is that, by default, they're less versatile. Imagine trying to cram a shoe-sole shaped battery in to your TV remote. Aside from that, I tend to agree. There is a lot of wasted energy out there. The problem is that, sooner or later, fossil fuels will run out and we'll be forced to rely on other methods of generating enough energy to supply the world's ever-growing demand. One thing we have to wonder, though, is whether these shakeable batteries (as well as possibly being more practical) are actually energy efficient. In other words, it will take energy to make the battery (almost certainly more than a normal battery requires) so is the net energy for this addition positive or negative? Let's say it takes the equivalent of...*pulls a number out of a hat*...20,000 shakes to generate the same amount of energy as it would have taken to add the charger element to the battery (regardless of material components). If you shake the battery less than 20,000 times over the course of its life then you'll have spent more energy than the extra energy "available" that you've created. One major physics problem is the law of entropy. In summary for those who don't study physics, nothing is 100% efficient so some energy is wasted. This results in energy "spreading out", so unless energy is put in to a system (from the Sun, for example) we'll eventually just end up with energy turning in to useless forms. Luckily for us, we've got the Sun so we can use that to create energy, either directly or indirectly (growing crops, which feed animals, which we eat, which gives us energy). The important thing to realise here is that, overall, you'd be using more energy either way to convert to the same amount of electrical energy than if you used regular batteries. Let's say that every battery (rechargeable or not) has E J of energy in it at maximum capacity. That energy is used at the same level of efficiency (namely once charged they are, in effect, the same) but they are charged at different levels of efficiency. Once you've used it all, you've used a total of E J of energy. You now have three options, depending on which battery you used and whether you want to (if possible) recharge it or not: 1) Non-rechargeable battery: buy a new one, another E J of energy is available to you, generated at efficiency x. 2) Rechargeable batteries: buy a new one, another E J of energy is available to you, generated at efficiency y. 3) Rechargeable batteries: charge, generating another E J of energy at efficiency z. Using this model (ignoring the idea of energy used going to the shops to buy batteries), we can work out whether it's actually worth buying rechargeable batteries or not. Regular Batteries x = E / energy input Rechargeable Batteries y = E / energy input z = E / manual energy input Looking at that, as E is constant throughout, to make rechargeable batteries worthwhile one (or both) of the following conditions neeed to be met: y > x z > x If y is greater than x, rechargeable batteries are able to be created using less energy than non-rechargeable ones (efficiency-wise), regardless of their ability to charge. If this is the case, there's no need to buy non-rechargeable batteries. If z is greater than x, you can charge rechargeable batteres more efficiently manually than non-rechargeable ones can be charged. If this is the case (assuming y < x, which is likely), there's a point where it becomes worthwhile to use rechargeable batteries over regular ones. This point is determined by the exact values, but the key here is that the less efficient it is to make rechargeable batteries over non-rechargeable ones (charging ignored), the more shaking you'll have to do. It also clearly depends on how efficient the charging process is. Bear in mind that this model is still ignoring wasteful "dead" non-rechargeable batteries. I don't care how efficient they are, eventually you'll run out of material to make them, and have to start breaking apart the old batteries and making new ones out of them (pouring a lot of energy in while doing so). This may be a long term thing, but it still need to be thought about. Anyway, charging the batteries manually may not be as inefficient as you might think. Current power stations are very inefficient, as a lot of the energy used to create electricity is "wasted" as heat. Compared to them, even if it is on a small scale, charging manually (assuming you don't jump up and down to do it, and move the rest of your body as little as possible) is relatively efficient, as there's less stages in it (sort of, it's a bit more complicated than that ). My point is that, overall, you'd probably use less energy in the charging process, but the scale of it means that the time it would take makes it currently non worthwhile. If you don't charge the battery, however, it's still more efficient to get non-rechargeable ones than rechargeable ones. Basically, whether you should bother or not is pretty much entirely dependant on whether you intend to recharge it or not. If you're going on a hiking trek and want to recharge your phone it could be a valid option, but for everyday use putting the time and effort in to shaking it is generally too much hassle. They're almost certainly possible to make but only really useful for the majority of us if we can charge them passively (like in many of the methods I listed in a previous post). While we're on the topic, anyone heard about so called blood batteries? Could be pretty interesting in the future...

Dragula - Rob Zombie, as well as the rest of his Hellbilly Deluxe album.I've got the Matrix soundtrack on my current playlist, so give it a little while and I'll be on to that as well.

As I'll be using Linux pretty much all the time at uni (Windows is an option, as is the MacOS and a few others, but I like the idea of Linux) I've been thinking about making the switch. Bear in mind that I intend to use Linux "from scratch" (namely have a dedicated Linux machine), so I'm not too worried about compatability issues. I know it can do everything I need it to do (and more), so I'm considering switching from Windows earlier rather than later to avoid hassle later on. Any advice on which one to go for? I've read through up to here, and there's so many to choose from. :roll: Ubuntu seems to be the general consensus, so I've got to ask why that's the case. What has it got that the others lack?

You buy 32 packs of water bottles twice a month? Someone here likes their water. :DAnyway, I'm all for the whole eco-friendly/green movement, and it's little things like this that don't inconvenience you (or, in this case, actually make things easier) that I reckon give people a little nudge in the right direction. Sure, you won't make much of a difference, but the fact that you choose to do it puts you in the right mindset to try out other simple changes in habit that help out the environment.Personally, I have a large one litre bottle that keeps me going pretty much all day. Sure, it's a bit big for most uses, but as I can stick it in to my bag at college I don't have to worry about it, and if I need to I can just refill it. Plastic is, as far as I'm aware, one of the great non-biodegradeable products of man. Plastic bags, bottles, food packaging...the list goes on. I'm currently making an effort (and yes, I'm only 17) to do the odd little thing here or there to help the environment out. Why? I've still got the rest of my life to lead, and if we don't reduce mankind's rubbish output I'll end up with a pretty naff place to live when I'm older. :oPersonally, I still think all companies/homes/etc. should be made to conform to a certain level of eco-friendliness. I'm not asking everyone to live like hermits, just do the little things. As an example, along with tax paperwork you could do a rough gauge of power usage. It won't be brilliantly accurate, but if nothing else it'll show energy usage trends, and anyone who starts gobbling up more than their fair share should have to justify it.Just my two pence.

Nice, 32J of energy...you'd have to really want to change the channel to shake it that much. One thing I did think about, what if you had - for want of a better word - slots in your shoes or clothing in to which you could place batteries, so that when you walked or moved they charged up? Sure, the rate of transfer would be even slower, but over a longer period of time with little effort. Thinking along the lines of "portable" charging, could you have clips on the wheels of your bicycle, on to which you could attack the batteries, which would charge them up a lot faster than normal. We know that you cna have dynamos on your bike to power a light on the front, so using the same principle you could quite happily charge up the batteries by shaking them. I think the key here is to have batteries that can be manually recharged, rather than requiring specialist equipment or to buy a new battery. The shaking idea alone wouldn't provide enough energy, but there's probably a good deal of practical ways of using every "wasted" energy to do that for you. Attach it to your dog's collar and watch it charge as he runs about in a field, have a spring that clips to your washing line, letting it bounce (and charge up) in the wind, the ideas are there. Assuming you need to charge it without any clips or whatever, it's still possible as you can just shake it manually. Don't expect to run anything for long, though. Any other ideas?

Mordent's sort of a mixture between Mordan, my previous online alter-ego, and my musical taste. A mordent is a musical term, and as I played the violin when I first heard the word I liked it. Since then, I've slowly moved away from Mordan to Mordent, although I still answer to the former (don't ask "why Mordan?", because I honestly can't remember) as I keep the character from several games with that name. Still, as time goes on Mordan's dying out and Mordent's moving in.I'd be tempted to change to Mordant, but it just doesn't sound as cool to me. Aside from that, Mordent nicely shortens to "Mord".

Not a damned clue. Using the idea of energy, plus a bit of physics, you can see that the amount of energy you'd generate by shaking is minimal: work done = force * distance distance = 0.2 (I'm guessing here, but 20cm sounds about right) force = g * 0.05 (mass of battery: if anyone's got one to hand and can get the mass, that'd be useful. For the sake of argument, I'm assuming 50 grams) work done = 0.05 * 9.81 * 0.2 = 0.0981 J (call it 0.1 J) On the basis that all of the battery is the "charger", you'd get 0.1 J per move of your arm, so 0.2 J per "shake". Again, assuming 100% efficiency, you'll be able to generate 1 J every 5 shakes. Going for 240 shakes per minute (if you can last that long ), you'd manage 48 J. In short, assuming 100% efficiency you'd be able to generate enough power to give a device that ran at 0.8W the equivalent of 1 second of charging for each second of running. Most battery powered devices (I believe - I'm assuming AA standard here) use more than 0.8W (don't quote me on that, I'm merely making an approximate guess. If anyone's got any decent number on that I'm happy to hear them), so you'd have to shake it for longer than you use it. So yeah, I'm not so sure it'd generate enough energy, really. Sure, in an emergency you could sit there and shake it for a few hours, but meh. For things like television remotes, or other low power devices, I guess it wouldn't be so bad. Thoughts?

I say "us" English, as in "us English people". I'm from England. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't American English a slight tweaking of British English? Sure, British English is by no means the first "English" language (as it was based on others), but isn't it the "first" English?

Solar power doesn't require bright sunlight. The more sun there is the better, of course, but any light at all should be able to charge them, although very slowly.

On the basis that my poor old laptop is on its last legs, I won't be getting Bioshock myself any time soon. I've seen the trailers and whatnot, though, and I have to say it looks awesome. For anyone out there who has the game (some mild language in it, just a friendly warning ), check out this comic. It amuses me, especially due to the in-joke.

'tis true. Brits, Americans, Canadians, Australians all speak English, but it's the whole "tomato" thing all over again. It's no wonder people who speak, say, French have a hard time working out how to say words. Still, us English invented the language (well...kind of), so you're all pronouncing it wrong.

In my mind, the only thing IE has over Firefox is the time it takes to open up the browser window. Sure, Firefox hogs a little more memory, but if I've got a web browser open I'm probably not doing anything too strenuous (such as gaming, for example). I love tabbed browsing, and IE only added it in IE 7, as well as the addons (not all of them, just a few). Combine all of that with the fact that it's a community thing, and it's by far the better of the two.

You see, now we have a problem. The first syllable in "character" to me is pronounced "kah", not "car/kar". I'm English, so that could be where the conflict comes in. Again, I can't for the life of me remember what all the accents are, or where they're supposed to go, so I'm going to have to just try and make them as clear as possible:character: kah-ruhk-tercarrot: kah-ruhtchar: charrcaring: kaer-ingcare: kaercar: karrI stuck a few other words in there so you can compare them. The first syllable of "character" is the same as the first syllable of "carrot". The word "char" (as in the shortened version of "character" used in programming) I say as it looks (the same way I say "charcoal"). This "care" thing just doesn't make sense to me at all. It uses the "k" sound, which I can go with, but it neither sounds like a shortened version of "character" (which would be "kah"), and I can't see the "-are" (pronounced like "air", right?) sound becoming involved in this at all.As for "car", it sounds too long to be a "kah" sound, and it's got the 'r' on the end. I have to ask, what about other words that are shortened versions of longer words? File extensions might be interesting.How would you say "filename.doc" to someone? I'd say the extension as it sounds, so "dock". Same with "config.ini" ("config dot in-ee"). What about "readme.txt"? I say "readme dot text", as it flows nicely, even though I hear quite a lot of "readme dot tee ex tee"s out there. Image files are a bit odd, such as "photo.jpg". As that one's a slightly shorter version of ".jpeg" I say "photo dot jay peg". How about "file.gif"? Is it "giff", "jiff" or "jee iye eff"?The only file extension that's a shortened version of a word that describes the actual file I can think of that I say each letter for is ".bmp" ("bee em pee"), as "dot bitmap" just doesn't sound right. ".mp3" is obvious, but what about ".wav"? Is it "dot wave" or "dot wav"? It's strange to think that people who speak the same language but with different accents (Brits and Americans, for example) say the same thing in a different way, so I can imagine it becomes a nightmare if English isn't your first language.

Ah, nice. I've downloaded it and got it working, which is always good. I'm really easily distracted, so by limiting what sites I can view I should be able to get all this damned work done. The nice thing is that I don't have to physically take out my wireless card and go hide it somewhere to make it awkward to get to anymore, and that I can access certain sites whenever I feel like (work related ones) without being tempted to go for a forum-binge. As for how long I spend online, recently I've been at my computer for 12 hours or more pretty much every day, with a vast majority of that spent online doing unproductive things instead of working on something I could probably do offline. Such is the wonder of the internet.

It was sorted in my upgrade from Starter to Standard. Admiteddly (as you said) they're at 99 or 999 or whatever, but I tend to agree with you that 99 e-mail accounts should be enough for most people. :blink:Thanks!

I'd have to say that, after a quick look through Xisto's forums, they're definitely more general. Note that "general" doesn't mean "low quality", it just means there's a broader range of topics for people to talk about that are somewhat less specialised. That's just my opinion, though. Either way, I personally prefer Xisto simply because I found it first and signed up here for hosting without really looking at Xisto. I'm only really here to talk about tech-y things anyway, as if I want to talk about anything else I don't want it tainted with a need to keep my hosting credits up. Here I can get all of my hosting questions answered, as well as other related topics, whereas on Xisto I'd have to dilute my posting with slightly less focused threads. Still, either way it's down to personal preference.

Pretty much, yeah. I still love the idea of all of these HD ready TVs on sale, when currently they make no difference at all. Then, once HD discs come out we'll have about 2 years of use out of them before something new (the tera-disc, perhaps) absolutely dominates the market, meaning we have to buy yet another little gadget.

1TB discs are pretty damn scary. Bear in mind that my current hard drive on my laptop is 60GB, and you're starting to talk about some serious storage. What gets me is the idea of quantum computing making even all of that look obsolete. For those who don't know, quantum computing is basically the idea of, instead of having 1s and 0s, having pretty much any number stored per qubit (quantum bit) you like. The only restriciton is the sensitivity of the reading equipment, plus a load of other complicated stuff that A Level physics doesn't let me even come close to understanding. For those who are interested, check Wikipedia for a whole stack of mind boggling ideas.

*chuckles* Yeah, I suppose I can see why. I've never had much luck with any sort of graphics software. The most I've managed that I've been proud of was my electrical cicruit diagrams for my AS Level project in Inkscape. Not the best suited to that sort of thing, but as I had it installed at the time I figured I'd might as well give it a go. They turned out great, and I know what you mean about the "giddy as a school girl" thing. It's definitely nice when something works for a change.

You should go have a look at Xisto. They offer an identical service but the forums are far more general and less technical. Sure, you'll have to make your three posts so far again, but in the long run I'd imagine that it works out far easier to keep your credits up for people who can't talk in a few of the forums here. Although I don't actually have a Xisto account, as far as I know everything's identical other than the actual forums. Click on "Xisto" at the top, then "Xisto - Free Web Hosting" in the drop-down list. :DPersonally I'd probably find it a lot easier to post over on Xisto, but by posting here instead I get to learn a bit more about relevant topics, as my knowledge of all things internet-y could certainly use a gentle push. As I've got my site hosted here I get an incentive to read the threads, so I learn a bit more about useful things rather than a lot of the waffle that goes on at Xisto.

Hmmm, you sure? From http://forums.xisto.com/ : Free Web Hosting Features NO ADS, BANNERS, POPUPS! Web Hosting Control Panel MS Frontpage WebSite Hosting PHP, CGI, Perl, MySQL ImageMagick Support Unlimited Email and FTP Accounts Fast, Free 24/7 Tech Support Web Site Hosting Help Forums 3 Web Based E-Mail Programs TCL, SSH 99.9% Uptime Guarantee I was under the impression that both starter (10 credits) and standard (30 credits) packages received all of that, the only differences between the two being the initial cost (obviously), the amount of online storage (500MB instead of 20MB) and the monthly bandwidth (10,000MB instead of 500MB). Still, I could be wrong.

Yup, that's all it says at the moment. I'm trying to get e-mail account sorted before I get going with the addition off too much software. Anyway, my account was approved here a few days ago. Since them I've changed my domain (from mordent.astahost.com to mordent.co.uk - which I registered the same day) and requested an upgrade to the 30 credit package here. Other than that, thanks for bringing it to the attention of those who can do something about it.

10 credit, but I'm trying to upgrade to 30 credit (waiting for an admin to go have a look in the upgrade request forum). Both have unlimited email accounts, though, so I can't see the problem. It may be because I recently moved my domain from mordent.astahost.com to mordent.co.uk, which I guess would muck it up nicely. Still, http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/ still takes me to my site (nothing there yet), so I don't see why emails shouldn't work.