truefusion

10 seconds? The last time i saw something like that was on a Youtube video where this one person had a quad-core processor overclocked to 4.0ghz, and that was for a version below 9.04. Currently, my Ubuntu system takes 25 seconds to reach the desktop, and that was after installing Apache with a lot of modules, MySQL and other boot-time services. I'll be sure to try out 10.04 beta 1 on March 18, 2010 (never had any good experiences with the alpha releases).

Most valuable poster—while "poster" is singular, i don't believe "All members of Xisto" cannot be added to the poll.Most Improved Member—out of all the ones i can think of, Ash-bash beats them all. I feel this position is more for staff members to be nominating.Welcoming Committee—SpiderVV, -Sky-, Ash-Bash and Nameless_. At least one of these can be seen in the Introductions forum's latest topics.Most Reported Posts: Ash-bash, definitely. Any others i'd say would be mahesh2k, shadowx and TheDisturbedOne (can't remember many others). Since staff members are basically the only ones to nominate others for this position, shouldn't that mean that only staff members should be allowed to vote for them? While you can't stop others from voting for them (since there's no way to distinguish between users), i can only assume that what staff members say about each could skew the results.Crazy Reviewer Person—Saint_Michael, even if the reviews are a few months old. Just the term "movie" seems to have S_M written all over it for me.GFXtrap GFX Elite—Baniboy. I don't know about you, but that cake was awesome. Sure, that may not be enough of a reason for nominating him given the description, but that cake was good, and he has been improving on his graphics.Lives at Xisto—this one should be obvious: OpaQue. Though people may leave (for whatever reason), if Xisto is still up, you can expect OpaQue to still be around.Tech Geek—rayzoredge.I'll edit this post if anymore come to mind.

I don't use Rhythmbox; i've grown a bit tired of media players that have a complex layout. I've left Amarok, though it is a really decent music player, because of its complexity. Amarok also connects to Magnatune and Jamendo and others. I've also lost interest in the ones that have a similar layout to Winamp 2. I have tried out many music players in search for one that can play the formats i use and that has a simple-enough layout. So far Muine fits my needs—although, i don't really like how it imports music, but that is easy to work around.

One of the first things i did was install Pidgin. I had tried out Empathy, but i found it lacking in certain areas. I don't use video chat or anything like that, so those things are irrelevant to me. When i first started up Empathy, it asked if i wanted to import all my accounts from Pidgin. It didn't have any problems there. Empathy is like Pidgin in certain areas, and both integrate with a specific GNOME panel applet, but Pidgin's plug-in feature is what attracts me to Pidgin.

If i were given an administrative position in the forums, i'd request to be downgraded back to moderator. I don't want that position and all that it comes with. Modifying the forum structure and applying modifications isn't what an administrator is all about—anyone can do that. There is more to being an administrator than that. Anyone who truly considers being an administrator of this forum can only increase integrity with me. Therefore the ones that are still an administrator should be thanked for remaining in their position.

I've never heard of TC. GCC is the most popular compiler used for compiling C and C++ programs (though it may support other languages) under Linux. Look up SCons or Waf: they're both replacements for the GNU autotools which were made to make compiling C and C++ programs an automated process, but SCons and Waf are much easier to maintain. Waf seems easier to use, but SCons seems to have better documentation. They're both written in Python and only require a few lines of code to compile a program for you. They are indeed very useful and a whole lot easier to work with than the GNU autotools.

A bit late, but here is what i have for you. I don't have any good fractal brushes, so i didn't attempt anything concerning that.

By definition, to say that you are not a believer but consider yourself a believer is mutually exclusive. The only way to make sense out of that is if what you define by "belief" is anything in general, rather than the specific belief i implied within my post for the term "believer," given the topic. In other words, you are a believer concerning only what you believe, which does not necessarily include what i had in mind. What i had in mind is one that upholds Scripture concerning the Abrahamic religion; and i don't mean some small parts here and there, i mean a good majority of it. I remember giving you my definition for "selfishness" in another topic. "Selfishness," as i currently define it, is where only one person (i.e. the one providing) bears the most benefit among those who can benefit, rather than equal distribution or providing more to others than yourself. In this way, though one may "satisfy their motive" (as you put it), doing so would not be considered a selfish act given the context. Also, bearing a belief is not a motivator. Many, even all, can believe in good things like mercy and compassion, but that doesn't mean they'll be motivated by it. For example, "Oh, i wish someone would have mercy on me!" But concerning the person who acts, all it means is that when it is time to act, whether by being told to, asked of or other matters, there's a high chance of other things not getting in the way that would normally prevent a person from helping in the first place. In other words, if you believe you should help except under certain conditions, then if those conditions are met, they'll just get in the way. But in order to bear a belief in the first place, one requires that they are aware of their own existence. Over time, depending on the person, any immature beliefs can be dropped for others. Therefore, if one is to expect the belief of putting others before yourself, you have to make sure it doesn't get replaced by something less than that. However, you and i should both know that no matter the efforts of the motivation, if the person stands firm with their belief that bears exceptions, they will not help if the conditions for the exceptions are met. When we consider natural motivation, "natural" can be ambiguous. But it nevertheless includes instincts and self-preservation. I know how a person who feels they've been wronged will act without the beliefs that will keep them wanting to turn the other cheek. One who could not be brought up with high standards, or one that does not accept high standards, will consider revenge than turning the other cheek. It is ironic to see that one is more willing to put out more effort in order to get revenge when they are wronged than to help at equal effort when the time to do right arrives.

That's not it. A friend of mine had the same problem after installing a popular Linux distribution. The reason why your BIOS time matches the one you see in Ubuntu is because Ubuntu updates your hardware clock when it installs itself (and probably when there's an update for the package that manages the time). Whether or not you have recently updated your Ubuntu system could be the cause of your problem. I'm not entirely sure how my friend fixed the display on his Windows setup, but i would suspect having XP synchronize your time with the internet time would fix it—though i've never really had this problem.

I would recommend installing APTonCD (which can be found in the repository) and have it generate an ISO for your APT cache. That way when you reinstall the system, you can just install APTonCD again and have it restore your APT cache from the ISO it generated. That way when you try to install programs you had before the complete system re-installation, you won't have to go through the long download times (with the exception of new versions that came out after the install).

Here is where you'll find the DVD ISO/torrent. However, the Ubuntu website seems very slow for me right now, so you may have to wait about a minute for the page to load.

Truthfully, i had trouble following that part of your other post. However, i fail to see how the charities i provided are not solving what is problematic. And i can only be disappointed in you for taking up the same assumption that the charities that i have provided are merely forcing others to convert in exchange for help, while providing no evidence for your claim. Will you provide evidence for your statements or continue to avoid the burden of proof? You don't have to explicitly say it to imply it—after all, i did say "whether directly or indirectly." But you still have a lot of claims on your own end to prove. And you say if i take the time to visit India, you can easily prove to me their intentions. You should, however, be able to provide me with multiple websites (for you said "be it any religion") that show clearly the intentions you say they have. Nevertheless, you add "at your place;" but to pick one organization or very few (for how many could you possibly have in "your place"?) and then give the impression that all, no matter the religion, are the same is hasty generalization. Why are they hiding? Not even the Arabic and other Eastern Christians hide in those countries, so why are they hiding? The Islamic religion, as stated in the Qur'an, perfectly allows those from other religions to live in the Islamic-believing countries. All that has to be done is adhere to the laws of the land, just like with any country. No one is going to barge in and believe that they own the place and start doing whatever they want, unless perhaps they are brave. The consequences of failure to comply with the rules are irrelevant. Everyone, no matter the religion, are subject to the laws of the land, regardless of country. Also, i have seen Zakir Naik before. I am not sure what you want me to see from him. I'm not really sure what you are trying prove here, as i do not see anything from what i've heard him say that reflects or proves what you have said concerning those who try to convert others. It'd be better if you post a direct link to the video that explicitly states what you are trying to illustrate. If merely stating his name was supposed to imply that all of his videos illustrate what you have been saying, then i have to say i don't really see it. When i posted in this topic, to which you responded to, i will agree that, though i was not the only one, i made a statement that required some evidence. However, i said it knowing that it would not be hard for me to prove. Now i no longer bear the burden of proof for the statement i made, as i have already provided an exhaustive list. It is your turn now to provide evidence that overwhelms the lists (evidence) i have provided. That's how a debate works: after one person provides their argument with evidence, it is the opposing side's turn to prove otherwise or to accept what was argued—even if "to accept" is merely "to allow to pass for the time being." I'm already used to unbelievers avoiding the burden of proof—it is nothing new to me. I just wish that i could see at least one unbeliever who attempts to provide evidence for their claims besides continuing to assert things. It was the only way i could make sense of your statement considering the part of my post you were addressing with that statement of yours. You were responding to the part that i talked about motivation. But for some reason (as it did not follow from my statement) you talked about charities that help only in exchange for converts. Do you see what i mean now? Exchange for converts? Where did that come from? It doesn't make sense, since the part of my post you were addressing was talking about those who already believed. I wouldn't say the Freedom from Religion Foundation is a charity organization. Nevertheless, just doing research on the "foundation" is more than enough to conclude that they obviously see religion as a problem (if you could not tell from the name alone). So i'm sure in some way they see themselves at trying to solve a "problem." Truthfully, before i searched for Christian charity organizations, i searched for those that proclaim to be non-believers, but i could not find any. You yourself should know that to list an apparently neutral organization as evidence would have been absurd of me. But if i say "i don't know," would i expect you to provide an outside source showing at least an approximation, or will you just say, "Well, there are many"? Secondly, it is an assertion to state that just because one charity proclaims to be doing work in the name of Christ (or for their religion) that they are "showing off." The reason why the Christian organizations do the things they do is not to show off, but to proclaim the Gospel. Proclaiming the Gospel in no way implies forcing belief onto others, nor is it forced upon them. They declare themselves a Christian organization in the name of Christ, not to say, "We are better than you." You need not go any further than their website to see this (if you request for evidence). If you are going to, again, argue otherwise, it would be best if you provided some actual, objective sources rather than continue making assertions. Also, you bring up "in your area" again. Is it really so hard to provide some sources other than me buying a plane ticket and flying to your area? That can only mean that those you are talking about are too insignificant to even be trying to argue with. My starting statement was that believers do more problem solving than unbelievers, not that problem-solving was limited to believers alone. You can make your point, sure. But that doesn't mean that there aren't more believers than unbelievers doing problem solving. If you understood differently from my starting statement, then i do not know what to say. However, i will say that you attempted to show that religious charity organizations bear different intentions/motives more than you tried to show that problem-solving is independent of theological stance. We are not (or at least i'm not) trying to convert each other. He asked me to prove my statement, so i did. Well, many ministries do more than just preach. Generally, only the smaller ministries do not go out world wide to help, as they only earn enough to do things locally. Also, how many members can one organization have? Anyone looking to grow will outsource. But that runs along the lines of what i touched on concerning the human population.

Strange, i just did a quick search through the list i have provided just to make sure, and i found nothing of which you speak of concerning Carl Sagan, Allen Turning, and whoever else you had in mind. However, i am not surprised that you would try to argue, whether indirectly or directly, and whether significantly or insignificantly, that religion is the cause of all evil. But i can very much consider your argument ad hominem and consisting of other fallacies, like putting the list of charities i provided in the same level of the movements within your area that you dislike (or hate). Hmm? If they're hiding, how can they help out? And shelter you say? While the Islamic religion doesn't want people to convert to another religion (though this could be said for any religion), that doesn't mean Muslims haven't done so. It is not unheard of for a Muslim to convert to Christianity, et cetera, and vice versa. But i don't see how you can say i didn't provide any stats. You are the one that is supposed to be providing stats that show that unbelievers are hiding within the believing groups and every other statement you have said that requires the same form of evidence. I would not think that you would mind having the same standard you ask of me being requested from you. Your own statement, by your own standards, is self refuting. If you have followed my statement, you would have noticed that my statement already assumes that the believer is a believer. Could you inform me how you concluded that a believer is not a believer? Here is what is observable: atheists starting movements that are in the form of pure mockery of other religions (e.g. Winter Solstice, and others). Their argument that they generally use for their justification: "Freedom from religion." In other words, the motivation came from some apparent envy or dislike or hate against believers. I was hoping for an exhaustive list, not just one. One organization isn't enough to "take down" the list i provided. As mentioned before, i wouldn't consider it absurd to request for the same standard from you that you ask from me. So, please, along with an actual exhaustive list, also provide me with the sources that state that all the lists i provided require you to convert in order to be able to be helped out in the first place.

You wouldn't happen to have a copy of their standard or explicit dedication towards quality products, would you? I'm not really a fan of any LCD screen, given the dreaded dead pixel moments i've seen others have, but it doesn't seem like CRT monitors are as abundant as they used to be. I could use a new monitor and have been looking around, but if i knew what to look for in a product, especially concerning methods used by the manufacturer that helps prevent dead pixels, that would be great.

I've never heard of Jack Chick or of his practices, but believers tend to know the implications of what is meant by living your life for Christ. Better yet would be if the following verses were referenced: Matthew 25:34-40. Here's a short list: link. Here's another as a back-up: link. From this you should be able to derive that i can keep the list coming, along with Islamic and other Abrahamic religion charities. However, i do not necessarily mean to exclude every other theistic religion, but the topic is related to the Abrahamic religion. But i can also provide an argument, though i consider it slightly weak, that implies that most world-problem solvers or helpers are believers. We can use the world's population for this. Though i prefer not to use Wikipedia as the supplier of the world's population, they tend to provide references themselves. Click. From this we can conclude that approximately 3.614 billion people in the world are professing that they belong to an Abrahamic religion. According to this page the world's population is 6.794 billion. 6.794 - 3.614 = 3.18, which means the Abrahamic religions fill over 50% of the world's population. However, this is not to exclude other theistic religions. But giving to charities and volunteering requires motivation, of which believers get from their churches, Bibles, and other believers. Unbelievers do not have many, if at all any, sources for motivation that would want them to provide for those outside of their self or families. Though you could argue that believers providing for others could be a motivation for unbelievers, whether it be out of envy or other, but that is desired and wanted by believers anyway. Now, if you would be so kind as to provide me with charities that are proclaiming unbelievers, we can have a decent discussion.

I personally would recommend doing a clean install instead, that is, assuming you separated your personal files from the system, or else they may vanish along with the system. Distribution upgrading through the repository tends to leave old settings from the previous version and therefore may give a different or "funny" look to the operating system. Therefore to increase the chances of getting a more consistent feel or experience from a new upgrade, you should reinstall the system.

PHP was my first computer scripting language i have learned and found it easy to use and learn. After using PHP for my websites, i don't see how i can go back to purely static HTML. I have made many things, both related to web development and not, with PHP, and can say that PHP is capable of accomplishing tasks beyond web development. You can probably make a very simple FTP program and word processor in PHP if you install the right modules, but it won't be as complex, or probably as easy to use, as Filezilla or Microsoft Word (though i have heard people complain about Word's complexity), let alone distribute as easy. You could probably use the Roadsend PHP compiler for distributing purposes, but i'm not sure how practical that is. I don't think it would be that easy to get something at least as close to Outlook Express in PHP. Nevertheless, you can make your own e-mailer if you have the proper mail server installed. As for retrieving e-mail, that would be more difficult.

Your RAM, if you have 4 gigabytes or more, showing up as its actual size. Concerning Windows 7: Windows 7 requiring 2GBs compared to their 32-bit version, which requires 1GB. There's practically not much else to expect.

Ironically, the ones doing the most problem solving are believers. But to say that no one is fixing anything includes unbelievers, too. Ignorance doesn't follow from the statement. However, Christianity requires admitting your sins; people don't admit their sins without guilt.

Here's what i recommend, assuming you have access to the directory above public_html: In the folder above public_html create a folder called "uploads." Whenever a user registers, have the PHP script create a folder within that folder "uploads" according to user-specific information, like their username (whatever is required to be unique). For example, a user with the username "Joe" registers, a folder named "joe" gets created under the "uploads" folder (make sure the script uses a case-insensitive comparison when checking if the name is already taken). Whenever "Joe" uploads a file, move the file to the "joe" folder. Under public_html, create a folder called "users." As with the folder "uploads," have the script create a user-specific folder under the directory "users." This will be useful for many reasons, but for our current purpose, the users directory will be used for when the user wants to download one of his files. Now, when the user decides he wants to download a file that he uploaded, have your PHP script create a symbolic link using the symlink function. This is so you won't put pressure on the hard drive in case of large files. Have another script run as a cronjob to be activated every few hours (depending on how big the maximum allowed file size you allow for uploads is). When the cronjob activates, the script that will be ran will remove the symbolic link from the user's directory. You can have the script scan the user directories and see if there are any symbolic links and check to see if since the time of their creation, the alloted time has passed. And remove the symbolic link if so (i.e. assuming the symbolic link does not take on the creation date of the file it links to). Have the script sleep after checking a few folders to reduce load on the server's hard drive.

That's a theory (suggestion) i brought up a long time ago. While i can't verify it myself, i would consider it a smart thing to do concerning crawlers. While these things cannot support all search engine bots, you can nevertheless redirect the popular crawlers. But i wonder if Google or any other search engine crawlers have ways to avoid being constantly redirected.

I've been using it since the first beta release (i normally switch to the newer versions when the first beta comes out). I installed it multiple ways: through a frugal installation and through their internet installation (i think that is called "netboot" installation). The frugal installation gave some problems slightly, which seems to be dependent on certain BIOS settings, but i have yet to figure out what exactly (same problems occurred with 9.04). The internet installation wasn't near 100% stable until the first release candidate came out—but it should be wholly stable now. For the RC release, concerning the new XSplash, they seemed to have added text support for the default theme for when the HDD check is running, et cetera. Also, starting, restarting and stopping services are done through the service command (no more having to call the scripts from /etc/init.d—doing so will inform you of the service command). GRUB 2 also looks nice. It seems to boot up a bit faster on a clean install. And GNOME is actually pretty stable for me to want to use over the others now. You should be able to force the update by running: CONSOLE sudo apt-get dist-upgrade From then on just wait several hours, could take up to a whole day, depending on how many people are upgrading through the repository.

Did you know it took up to Windows Vista to introduce symbolic links on Windows? I said to myself, "About time," when i read it. Can't remember where i read it, though; but it was probably on the Microsoft website. I normally use symbolic links for GTK styles (to link the ones in my ~/.themes directory to /usr/share/themes so my themes will get picked up by programs with root privileges and so the themes won't get deleted when reinstalling the system) and custom libraries (so my custom programs can execute without having to "install" the libraries).

In an attempt to add to the current list (though i would prefer to get others to check theirs' out as well), i appear to get better CPU temperatures under Linux. I average about 32C on idle and 49C on load under Linux (according to lm-sensors), while in Windows i seem to average 41C on idle and 59C on load (according to CoreTemps). I would be interested in seeing if anyone has a similar situation. Either lm-sensors or CoreTemps is telling inaccurate temperatures, or Windows XP (SP3) likes to heat up my processor. I'm currently running 9.10 RC and it has been stable—though i've been using it since beta, and was stable then too. They've increased the eye-candy with this one a bit, and boot times seem to have increased a bit. I can reach the desktop in about 25 seconds—this is after i have already installed a lot of services, like Apache and others. The only problem i have is with the ATI drivers—the proprietary drivers worked in 9.04, but currently not in 9.10. The final will be release on the 29th.

I'd consider it a waste not to overclock if one will be going with a water cooling system like Ash-Bash is. I'm not sure if the processor he's going with will have an unlocked multiplier, but most INTEL processors require you to mess around with the front side bus. Overclocking the FSB should increase performance for more than just the processor. But performance doesn't come from the processor alone (as you probably already know); having fast memory with great timing will help with performance too. Though i'll be upgrading to better memory (hopefully) soon, my current computer has DDR2 533mhz (its advertised CAS latency is 3). Before i adjusted the timings, it used to be at 5-5-5-18 (i.e. "auto"). When i set it to its advertised timings, 3-3-3-8, i noticed an increase in performance that you could visually see. Programs started up about a second faster than they used to. How fast memory is isn't really the issue, it's the timing that counts. I saw a DDR3 1333mhz memory with a timing of 7-7-7-24 outperform a DDR3 1600mhz at 9-9-9-36 (i think it was 36—maybe 32). While a program may not utilize all cores and probably doesn't utilize more than one, that doesn't mean only one core will be working. But i can tell you one thing, if you are one that compiles programs a lot, multiple cores are very useful. Me and a friend of mine wanted to see just how much of a performance gain a quad-core has compared to a dual-core running at the same speed. We both downloaded the latest Linux kernel (2.31.*.*) and timed how long it took to compile it on our systems. GCC is "required" to compile the Linux kernel, and GCC, i hear, can utilize up to 16 cores. Though my system is not as up-to-date as his and my processor was (is) an older model, AMD AM2 Windsor 6400+, 3.2ghz, his being an AMD AM3 Phenom II X4, 3.2ghz, it took me about an hour and 15 minutes to compile the Linux kernel. It took him about 40 minutes.