Baniboy

Well, if you are really, really, REALLY LAZY (like mahesh2k ), you can always type "~". (mahesh i thought you liked linux). Besides, you can create a folder in ROOT, configure it to be owned and read-write -accessed by user. That should solve your problemo. You can change those things, you know, and all you need to do is to "sudo nautilus" once.The points of both of you contain generally the same content. That is, it depends on the situation. I don't get why you're fighting over the home folder path. People's memory works in a funny way. After some time it wouldn't matter if it's the standard Windows path or the usual Linux path. Just like after some time you don't read every letter in the word, but just determine which word it is by the overall shape of it. This is actually proven by neurologists, so don't dare to disagree. :DAnd yes, you can make local repositories, and unlike in windows, there is a neat way of doing that, too. You can configure which software you want pre-installed as you install the OS itself. I view customized standard live-cd/usb easier than installing the OS and installing the other stuff afterwards. Also, you can use simple deb-packages on a dvd or usb, too. That won't take care of the dependencies tho. You also have to face the fact that most of the applications being installed right now by normal users for non-commercial uses are downloaded from the internet.As for user-friendliness, no, Linux is not user-friendly. I know what most are going to say but no. There are several problems that make it not so friendly to the people between the average granny and the computer nerd. The average granny isn't going to find out those problems and the nerd will know how to solve them, but the people in between... they're screwed. Like me :DAnyway, in my opinion if you don't want to learn to be able to use something better, you don't deserve better. Just like those people whining about how it's impossible to determine what kind of TV they should buy. If you have no interest in studying the products you're going to buy, don't, but don't whine about it to other people. If windows sucks for you and you're still using it knowing there is something better, you deserve the crashes and the viruses. It's give and take.

Well, you have to admit having an image that large and then saying you shouldn't resize is stupid. 1000px in width wouldn't cross the screen for most people, but 1500 px is too much and inconvenient to edit. http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/404.png I used to play this game when I was 12...

A lot of theories are wrong and contradict evidence (they are either incomplete or a part of a greater combination), but they are used in science until something better is made up. Until then, we use exceptions to point out the incomplete parts. I wasn't smacking your theory, I have been speaking about zanzibarjones' posts all along. And yea, you got me there, but I was trying to simplify the concept. Words have definitions on which most people that have dealt with the concept agree on. What theory are you talking about exactly? Black holes themselves have been proven to exist, if you mean bikerman's hypothesis about what is in the singularity, then that is a hypothesis and I never required you to agree on any of the concepts of it in the first place. I haven't even been talking about it. We can prove that something is releasing a lot of x-rays, sucks stuff inside itself and doesn't release radiation from a select distance near it. And we have live evidence of stars being pulled from their route and ones orbiting something that supposedly isn't there. No, I'm going to ask the expert to present the evidence on which he/she (although women aren't that good in physics in general) relies on and bases the conclusion from.

Look, science is used to predict the future (or just what happens and why), and because we benefit from knowing what happens in the future, we use it. What this guy is doing is nowhere near it, and it doesn't reflect reality. No I didn't wake on the wrong side of the bed, I'm doing this because I'm trying to show the difference between using information to conclude something and concluding something with incomplete knowledge about the subject, though I do understand that he was just making up his own conclusions. But it's kind of ridiculous to make a conclusion that contradicts evidence unless you can prove that theoretically. A black hole is simply an object that requires a greater escape velocity than the speed of light. That is the definition. If you have never seen my grandfather die, been there when he died or buried him yourself how can you know my grandfather died? Through indirect evidence of black holes, they are concluded to exist. You don't have go through a black hole to tell that they pull particles around them. And that is why you are wrong.

Well now you're not making any sense. Scientists can tell to an extent by using the knowledge available which is consistent with reality. Your false physics on the other hand suggest that you watched a documentary on black holes and decided to write something up without doing the math or researching the subject. You are telling they are made up without bothering with the physics OR math and with no evidence what so ever. About the who says they are right too, what they say is consistent with reality, while what you say is not. And then you continue on saying how it's impossible that something exists and does things in space without purpose. Don't watch documentaries on black holes because most of what they say are what I would call "amazing facts" and speculation which serve no purpose to you without an explanation. You can't understand advanced physics by jumping right in. Ignore the speculation parts and focus on the actual science, which is consistent and can be proven by evidence. Science is a self-correcting process, the theories are changed when they are not consistent with the discoveries like when they found that brain cells do renew. While your made-up arguments don't reflect reality. Yes, like you used your own head and your 'science knowledge' and came up with "they say nothing can escape from it but then say something can and that's why it's wrong", no thanks.

Gravity bends space-time, light particles' route bends with it. A black hole is not a vacuum that sucks light from everywhere. Light CAN'T escape after it has reached the horizon. Light has to 'bounce back' so you can view the object. The escape velocity required to do that is greater than the speed of light. All the paths are bent back to the singularity. With things coming out of it you either mean the shower or the x-rays. The shower is accelerated matter that has escaped. The x-rays come from matter being heated before it crosses the event horizon. Nobody ever said it comes from the black hole itself. It's said everywhere that you can't have direct information from black holes. What happens to it? I don't know. There is no universal law that everything has to have a purpose from your perspective, get over it. Who said that matter gets destroyed? Don't assume things which you can't prove. It's fun to make your own hypotheses and stuff (I do that a lot) but make sure you check the physics first. I hope you could make some sense out of it though I was a bit harsh, but ask if you need more info.

Okay, my addition isn't really that good, but anyway...

Burned or left to rot, the tree has the same amount of carbon, don't you agree? The same amount of carbon generates the same amount of carbon dioxide. At the end, the SAME amount of carbon dioxide is released from that one tree, regardless of it being burned or left to rot. A: the materials the tree contains are needed in the cycle to produce new material, if you take that away and burn it... won't take long till no baby trees can sprout either. B: Fungi are decomposers. They are a part of the ecosystem just like plants and animals. And insects use mushrooms to lay eggs in. Fungi also live in symbiosis with the trees. Solar panels use materials that, obviously, will run out at some stage. It's the same as oil. Things run out if we use them up faster than they're produced. The fact that we jump from material to material for making electricity doesn't change that it will run out some day. Uranium usable for nuclear reactors is going to run out in 300 years, they're developing technology to use thorium next. And what will happen then? Thorium runs out. My point, the laws of thermodynamics prevent us from making "clean" energy, there is no such thing as a free meal.

That actually does remind me of many of my signatures. Without many elements in the background and username in the center with big letters, obviously because I'm a self-centered person :lol:I would recommend doing something to give your signature more depth in the background if that is resembling fire in there. Because now it seems kind of flat. I would want to show you a past signature of mine which was in red and yellow, but I can't seem to find it now...

Those are nice photos, and the photo with the river or canal you have with the small boat reminds me of Venice. So does that canal go through the whole city or is it just in the park? I couldn't go to the central to take photos. I don't want to look like a tourist in my own city haha. thanks for sharing

1. You automatically assume that the death of an innocent person is WRONG, and you conclude that because it's wrong, it makes murder wrong (?) And you fail to prove why death of an innocent person isn't a good thing, that is what I'm hunting here. BTW if you are going to say that the consequence doesn't have to be bad for the action to be wrong, don't bother. Also, why do you give new definitions to words? Murder by definition is an intentional and premeditated kill. Innocence isn't mentioned. It's like I suddenly started calling milk ice cream and expect everyone to go along. But, I'll go along... 2. No that is not improper or proper, that is dodging the question by norms. Just because you can't answer doesn't make it okay to change the question. If something isn't right, is it automatically wrong? So you can't answer what makes it wrong? That is why you changed the question, right? So you can use your assumptions (which are yet again based on your subjective point of view) about the value of life to make it wrong, it seems. 3. The reason might be because you left that one unreplied. And if you mean the thread about free will, no you didn't. You practically said that physical events don't need physical causes, which you failed to give examples of. 4. I never said it is selfish as in how stealing from someone for your own self is selfish. I simply wrote a hypothesis about the cause of what makes you feel it's right or wrong. And you're mixing sympathy with selfishness here. I said it's built into us. 5. I was fully aware that I'm asking for something you can't give me. That was the whole purpose. I did say that in hope of you picking up that there aren't any absolute morals. By absolute I was seeking for something that is always wrong, independent from your point of view ie. you have something by which you can prove it is wrong. Okay I may have misused some words up there and probably going to hear from that later since I know you like to twist my words, but I can't express myself fully right now. Anyway, I'm going on a vacation soon and I'll be back in august, so I won't be able to reply until I come back.

Why don't you go out and take a few? haha Anyway I went for a walk in a forest nearby where I usually go jogging, and took some pics. This one is near the sea This is the path in the forest: This is another picture of the forest: Flower number one: Flower number two: Flower and bee: The last one's focus was off, accidentally focused to the fallen tree behind it and not the flower. I was in a hurry, the bee wasn't gonna stay there forever, you know I also have a video of the beach or whatever... clicky Now it turned from summer pics to nature pics but I doubt you wanted to see pictures of asphalt or buildings here anyway

Well thanks for replies to this (eheem...spammy) topic. I would've hoped somebody had shared their own pics too, tho. I don't have any more pictures yet, but I may upload soon if tomorrow is a sunny day.And to reply to deadmad7, I have a Nokia N900.?

Well that is the case, but see, we have some kind of deadline here, you know. Burning fossil fuels is like burning wood faster than it grows. The effects are negative (as in negative from the standpoint that we want to save ourselves). If you could wait for a few million years for the carbon and hydrogen to go back to being fossil fuels, yea it would be equal to wood. Which one do you think neutralizes the bad effects of burning first; 1 kg of carbon in wood or 1 kg of carbon in oil? So using the wood is more advantageous. You have to add TIME as a variable into your argument before you start saying something doesn't make sense. How does it give more emissions directly? Same amount of carbon, same amount of hydrogen. Creatures that cause it to rot burn the same amount of carbon and hydrogen as the wood contained. The same amount of oxygen is required to burn the nutrients as it's required to burn the lumber by man. The only way I can imagine your argument was not as false at it is, is that by maintaining the life of the decomposers by letting the tree rot the creatures will continue to live and breathe out carbon dioxide. The contents of the tree is part of the cycle of the ecosystem. Now by taking away the nutrients that the land provided the tree by burning it somewhere else, you ensure that most of it doesn't go back to the ecosystem it was going to go to if it had fell and rotten.