truefusion

In my lifetime i've only tried out the following distros: *Ubuntu, Debian, Mandriva, Gentoo, Fedora and Zenwalk. Why would i use the others mentioned in that list? For Gentoo it would be due it being a rolling-release distro rather than a cycle-release and perhaps for performance reasons. For Debian it would be due to the fact that you can change to a rolling-release repository. For Zenwalk it would be for performance reasons. Fedora, err, i wouldn't use it. Mandriva i would use it for performance, its looks, and ease-of-use (especially with its Control Center)—in other words, i see Mandriva as the second best distro next to Ubuntu. Why would i not use the other distros? Gentoo, being a source-based distro, requires too much maintenance; due to its the required maintenance, it kept me from being as productive as i normally am. Zenwalk, when i first tried it, didn't have a decent repository; that may have changed by now, though. Mandriva, when i first tried it out, didn't have that great of a repository, but that has changed. Mandriva 2009 hardware drivers didn't play nice with my setup; the TV tuner driver conflicted with the Nvidia driver. However, the Mandriva Wiki provided a way to set up the X configuration as a temporary "fix" and the Ubuntu forums had the actual solution for the problem i had with Mandriva 2009. But since my GFX card died, i now have an ATI gfx card, so that shouldn't be a problem now. In other words, i don't currently have a reason for not using Mandriva. As for Fedora, it never played nice with my $HOME directory. Compared to the other distros listed, Fedora doesn't provide any performance gains. Debian, though may be considered stable by many, it was unstable for me in certain areas, and unless you switch to their other repositories, you'll get stuck with old programs (which is supposed to be the reason for its stability). You referring to SELinux? I know Fedora has it installed. Can't really say if SELinux would be an advantage (for home users), but you can install it on your Ubuntu system (though it seems to have the libraries already installed, at least on my machine).

Before i prolong from responding any further, i should mention i watched the entire playlist a day or two after you posted it. I had prepared a response against the entire playlist but have decided not to post it. I will just enter and mention one thing about the playlist, the only thing that caught my attention that i was slightly surprised to hear in the video about. But before that, i can see why you suggested that we skip several videos into the playlist. Aside from his complete misrepresentation of the Biblical text, and aside from his self-contradicting videos (which is a good majority of the videos in the playlist), the part that i had argued in this topic was about the maintenance of the body concerning the theory of evolution. In the video he mentions about this one child who apparently has received the "muscle gene"—which would apparently contradict what i have argued. While the guy speaking in the video misrepresented many things concerning reality and theology, he also misrepresented the truth behind this child. Since the child was only briefly mentioned, that gave me the impression that the child was taken out of context for at least merely the promotion of the theory of evolution. So i did some research concerning the child: i found his name, a Wikipedia article about the child, and other things. Among these other things was his Youtube channel. Here's the truth from the research i've conducted: the child, named Richard Sandrak, never received any special genes from his family that caused him to have a complex muscle structure. The truth of the matter is Richard's parents had started him at a very young age[*] on this exercise program concerning children's health. They started him at such a young age that he was able to enter into muscle-flex contests or galleries at a young age—ultimately surprising the audience, i would assume. The man speaking in the video, in one of the videos he talks about what a dishonest person is—he provides a definition. By his definition given, he would be a dishonest person. Whether he deliberately provided false information or whether he was the subject of false information is beyond me, but anyone who believe this guy rightly represented the truth within his videos, i believe, is accepting things on blind faith.

I don't necessarily get sequels, but i do get those rehash dreams you talk about (even if they occur years after the "original"), although i can't necessarily say that they were better or more exciting than the "original." These remakes tend to be farfetched and less realistic than the previous, but these "remakes" don't necessarily start from the same place that the previous ones started at. They seem to pick some place in the middle, perhaps cut out a few "scenes" and then extend the "ending" a bit. The interesting part is that i might get a nostalgic feeling in the dream as if i know or realize that i'm seeing something from the past.

The forums are very responsive for me right now and have been satisfyingly responsive for me for a while. mahesh2k has already mentioned some of the consequences i would have mentioned. But if other sites using the same software and having more members are not having a problem, then we should be able to conclude that it is unrelated to the database.

Download and install one of the following: EtherApe or WireShark (you can download them from Ubuntu's repository). These two tools, in order to work properly, require root privileges. Have them monitor (capture) the internet connection you make use of during the time you suspect your internet connection to be used by other than yourself. I've just finished testing out WireShark and it captured when Pidgin syncs my connections and when i was browsing Google, so it should be able to pick up practically every network activity through your network.

The file manager that comes with CPanel allows you to edit files, but it is practically impractical editing files through CPanel. Having files stored on your computer is the better way of going about it. You could use WYSIWYGs for editing files; however, if you're going to be editing WordPress files, like templates, et cetera, WYSIWYG programs may not be the best programs for such tasks. I use Filezilla for my FTP needs. The host information required by the FTP program may differ from host to host, so you may need to consult with your web host. WordPress itself is customizable, but you'll need to know of its structure and PHP. Allowing other users to register to your WordPress installation is wholly dependent on you and your WordPress settings. If you have already installed and tested out a WordPress installation on your computer, then you should already know how to at least edit your WordPress settings or navigate the WordPress admin control panel.

CPanel is a utility used by web hosting companies to ease the process of managing accounts. The FTP account for your account should have already been created with the same username and password that you used to log into CPanel. If you do not already have one, you can create one under "FTP Accounts." Any file you want to be publicly accessible you place within the directory "public_html". You can upload files there using either a FTP program or by using the file manager that comes with CPanel. It is recommended that you use a FTP program to upload files, though.To install scripts that are dependent on a database, specifically MySQL, you would have to first make a user for the database if one is not already existing and provide the needed permissions to that user. You should take note of the user's password, as it will be asked of you when installing WordPress. You'll also have to create a database for WordPress. You should be able to see a image labeled "MySQL Databases" under the "Databases" section—you create the databases here.While CPanel may at first look intimidating, things are pretty straight forward and you will most likely not need to make use of most of what you see in there.

By "posted" do you mean something like a portal, in that you won't have to constantly keep the index page of your site updated with information, where posting in the forums does that for you? If so, i've never had IPB and have not searched for any portals that are compatible to it, but that is what you would be looking for. If not, then organizing your forum to fit a news section and using RSS feed for that part of the forum specifically and messing around with the RSS script would (should) do the trick.

I suppose i'll post mine up. What is shown in the picture is just the KDE desktop with the currently immature desktop panel i'm working on. While the panel may still have its few quirks and does not currently support a system tray and a complete menu, it's enough to work with concerning window manipulation and my KDE favorites. If anyone is interested, you can obtain the immature source code from the trunk, here.

After logging in, at the top you'll see a menu. Click on "My Services." The list of services you have applied for should be shown then. Look for the one you want to cancel and on the right side of it you'll see a little image which looks like a sheet of paper (or whatever) and a green arrow pointing to the right. Click on it, and on the next page scroll all the way down. At the bottom of the page you'll see a button labeled "Request Cancellation." Click it and wait for the service to be canceled.

One common mistake i've seen people do is use images where HTML and CSS would have done the job. Another mistake, though rare, is using multiple images that all display the same thing when they only need to display one of the images. Another mistake is designing a layout that doesn't match the purpose of the site. Do you need a layout that looks good or that makes your website do the job of a website? Take out what you don't need. If you were inspired by another website, don't try to do everything they've done though it may be in your own way. Is a complex banner really needed? What do you want people to remember, your site's name or how the banner looks like? I'm not sure what the site is about or if the template is made to be suitable for all kinds of sites, but it's better if you design with the purpose of your site, or a specific kind of site, in mind. I should point you to a few pages concerning optimization: 1, 2, 3. Although a user who is really interested in your site would most likely wait as long as needed for the site to load, a website that isn't as popular as it could be would not have many visitors like that. You should also note that optimization isn't limited to how fast the user can download the image, it also concerns the website's bandwidth. While browsers tend to cache stuff, that starts becoming irrelevant when you have multiple users visiting your site.

[1] For introductory purposes, i pointed out "from dust to man" to inform readers of a Biblical abiogenesis event. Abiogenesis is when something declared as "non-living" turns into something considered "living." Dust, the dirt of the earth, is "non-living;" "to man," man is "living." This occurred due to divine intervention. [2] Do you remember back when you talked about the differences between possible and plausible? Here you have only talked about the possibility of abiogenesis occurring without intervention from a conscious being. However, we know it's plausible with intervention from a conscious being. But you bring up another point: theories proving other theories. Logic doesn't work like that; a theory proving another theory is absurd. Only definite truths can prove anything, not theories. But that's one of the things i don't like about science, the truth of a matter isn't necessarily true—it is often times just "good enough to pass on as 'truth.'" And they don't really tell you in textbooks either, unless perhaps it has already been refuted; if you so happen to figure it out yourself, then you have figured it out yourself. The only hard part is figuring out the margin of error for things labeled as a "fact." You might at this point start thinking that what you have stated was all concerning things that are plausible. Believe it or not, things like "occurs in nature," or "happen on their own," is ambiguous. Ironically, when one takes the time to see just when and how they occur in nature, what do you get? Nothing but talk about what scientists have done in a lab and more theories upon theories. Is this evidence to you? Even the "early conditions of the earth" is a theory. When i see the words "may have," "could have," "possibly" or what-have-you, i'm supposed to translate these into "it's a fact"? "Go study abiogenesis," you might say, but all i see are theories upon theories upon theories. You say RNA can form on its own, but the "RNA world hypothesis" is still under construction (i.e. research and scrutiny)—you'll have to do better than this if you are to convince me. [3] You said, "It was energy [...], not [...] matter." Was that "not" not intended for matter? Wouldn't make sense if it wasn't. [4] "As you should agree" was not a command. In other words it could be said, "As you should already believe." [5] Wasn't it you who just finished saying a process by which things are accepted? What is different than what i said? Who would deny or question that we can't make anything from nothing? You think they'll actually succeed if they tried? Due to absolute failure it is perfectly safe to mark as a fact (not a theory) that we cannot create things from nothing. Therefore if things are wholly dependent on evidence, then they would have to conclude that there was something before the Big Bang event. [6] If you are alluding to "neither created or destroyed," that is a play with words. 0 mass means 0 energy, therefore no energy whatsoever. When one thinks of destruction one might picture an explosion. Creation is where something that didn't already exist now starts existing. In either case for destruction, the object ceases to exist. Destruction, therefore, is when something ceases to exist. If we consider "the speed of light," anything that gets closer to the "speed of light" would require constant energy to reach the "speed of light." This implies that energy is a limited resource and therefore can cease to exist. Concerning the Big Bang theory, if what was before the Big Bang event that caused this universe was another universe that imploded on itself, constant imploding and exploding would cause energy to decrease, eventually leaving nothing. Space and time itself may also have to do a lot with the life of matter (energy). Obviously this is all concerning physical things—since energy is itself a physical thing. [7] Let me tell you why space and time may have to do with the life of energy. Anything that bears mass is limited to space and time. Anything that doesn't bear mass is not limited to space and time. Metaphysical things do not bear mass, therefore are not limited to space and time, and therefore space and time are metaphysical. Since metaphysical things aren't restricted like physical things are, they therefore do not share the same consequences. One of those consequences is the ending of itself. This implies that space and time may play a big role with the life of physical things. And i don't mean to imply that when energy (something physical) ceases to exist it becomes metaphysical. To avoid confusion, anything metaphysical has to have always been metaphysical—it could not have "started off" as something physical. When something metaphysical "takes on" physical properties this does not mean that the metaphysical thing stopped being metaphysical. Its physical "self" is not the metaphysical entity, it is still separate and its physical "self" is merely a puppet or a suit to the metaphysical entity. In other words, the physical "self" is merely being manipulated by the metaphysical entity. Therefore when the physical parts cease to exist, the metaphysical entity still exists. And i have been on a lunch date with metaphysical beings. They were just merely manipulating their physical "self" at the time. My only proof for a metaphysical realm is free will. My current definition for "free will" is "the ability to manipulate the physical self"—though i'm not entirely satisfied by it. I already know that you may believe that "free will" is an illusion. However, if you're going to debate me on this matter, at least provide an explicit definition of free will that does not allow for any position other than the one you support if you're going to argue for your case. My case is that the thought process occurs before the physical self reacts. This runs along the lines of idealism vs physicalism. One argument i have is if one claims that there is a physical force behind every physical force, that leads to an infinite regression. Therefore to do away with the infinite regression you have to accept that there is a metaphysical force behind it somewhere. This metaphysical force i would call the "conscious." [8] I suppose "concluded" and "decided" are synonymous, but i, of course, do not agree with what is in the parentheses. But i'm not sure how you got that i've "decided" from the part of the quote of me you were addressing with this. I don't recall ever mentioning that God was physical to begin with; in fact, that may actually be blasphemous to do so, by Biblical standards—as such physical things tend to be idols. I wouldn't say He's protected against all that you list. Logic is itself metaphysical, yet we use it and fail to use it constantly. To say that God is protected by all the things you list is to say that logic is protected against all those things. [9] Space and time is a hard concept to grasp, therefore it's not an easy subject to talk about, as paradoxes can form easily, so you have to watch what you say. Concerning the Big Bang theory, depending on how things are argued, space and time could have existed before or could have come into existence at that point. If "space" came into existence at the "time" of the Big Bang, that implies that "space" is anything that is or gets filled, though not necessarily entirely. That means if there is no physical thing in existence, then there is no such thing as space. But that implies that space is dependent on physical things. But if "space" existed before any physical thing came into existence, then "space" is not dependent on physical things. Similar things can be said about "time." If you feel you have a completely sensible way of explaining space and time, then that would be interesting to see. [10] Okay, let me get this straight: You are using science as an absolute ruler (measuring stick) and anything that doesn't agree with science is in turn false? And you try to justify this by saying that because of standards and the way science does things, science is the better choice? And this is all said even though what science says isn't necessarily true (though they may be "working on it")? [11] Even evidence is rationalized. The only way to prove something is to reason for it. As you say, without God there is no such thing as "good," therefore in order to discuss the matter one has to at least, even if temporary, assume the existence of God. Since "good" is dependent on God, "good," therefore, can only be defined by that God. This discussion has, apparently, chosen to assume the Biblical God, therefore in order to argue anything concerning "good" you would also have to assume the Biblical definition of "good." As implied, choosing to take up a definition for "good" that isn't Biblical will merely put us back to square one, therefore making it pointless to discuss this. So what is good? Good is said to be God. (Mark 10:18) So what is God? God is said to be love. (1 John 4:8) (Do note that though these things may make God look like something that bears no conscious, that is not intended.) So what is love? Apparently a lot of things. In short, love places the other person first before the self. God is also known to be the God of Justice. (Isaiah 30:18) So what is justice? Justice is to treat people fairly, which means to treat everyone as equals. (Leviticus 19:15) So what does this mean? Doesn't it mean if you give someone a chance, that you should be giving others a chance as well? So what's the method that God, apparently, chooses? He predestines a time when the people will be judged for their deeds. You are in turn given a chance before the appointed time to repent. Though you say that anyone can say "I'm sorry," how would you expect a lie to pass by God? Many people may label this as "delayed justice" or whatever they may label it, and therefore not like this method. But even if you committed a grievous sin, you would most likely want the chance to be forgiven. And if you didn't want the chance, why should others not receive a chance? You don't have to accept this method on how God does things, but if the only thing that makes it wrong is because you cannot accept it, then if you're going to prove something as wrong, you'll have to have something better than that excuse.

Wouldn't the reason, in this case, why it goes on and on is because you would keep asking the same question over and over again even though it was already answered?

If Windows didn't come bundled with a browser, how would i be able to download other browsers? I would at least require it to download other browsers on Windows, since there's no such thing as a repository, like in Linux, where i can search and download all kinds of browsers from. It doesn't matter if it were Internet Explorer or something else, i would still require a browser with download capabilities to be able to navigate to the website of my favorite browser and download it from there. So, in other words, yes, i would still use it, but not for anything other than what is "necessary."

Indeed, the burden of proof is on the one who asserts. However, given that fact, would you not agree that it is not safe to enter a discussion assuming that the believing side automatically has the burden of proof? I mean, if a believer says, "God exists," does that mean that all believers who have yet to make such a statement now bear the burden of proof? Isn't that the same as saying that because one atheist said, "God does not exist," all atheists now are burdened with the burden of proof? You say that those who disagree do not bear the burden of proof, but what if those who disagree their statement is itself a claim? Does the burden of proof still not lie on them? If a believer says, "God exists," and an unbeliever follows immediately after and says, "God does not exist," since they both made an assertion, does not both carry the burden of proof? Or does only one still? Switch them around, where the unbeliever made the statement first, who has the burden of proof then: both or one? Have we not already concluded and agreed upon that the one who bears the burden of proof is the one who states an assertion? Yet, you can see it, that not all who bear the burden provide evidence for their position, and instead insist that they don't have the burden because, apparently, they weren't the ones who said it first. You say atheism doesn't try to make itself more than what it is—a description—and therefore it is exempt from the burden of proof. How you avoid the words that make up the description, and state that atheism isn't a faith and so forth, is beyond me. The description itself is what makes it go beyond that which you call a "label." Atheism doesn't have to be a faith or a way of life, or what-have-you, to bear the burden of proof, otherwise you could say the same thing concerning many things of science—that because many things in science aren't those things, they are therefore exempt. Indeed, atheism bears the burden as well. Are believers the only ones who will actually attempt to provide proof for their position? Will atheists always hide behind their words that try to shift the burden of proof when they themselves have it too? Or will they continue unjustly believing that they are justified? Russel's teapot, is that still being used? We can find an object on Mars that looks like a mask, but for some reason we would have trouble finding a teapot hiding in the ring of Saturn? You should already know about what can be labeled "unreasonable denial." God's existence has mostly been argued through cosmological arguments—from the knowledge that we have about this universe. While many may not want to believe it or even allow it, the Big Bang theory is just another step towards another cosmological argument. By this, are you saying that i will never catch you saying "not enough evidence"? That would be interesting. If what little evidence one has cannot be called sufficient, then there is no evidence to begin with. Therefore words like "sufficient" or "not enough" are irrelevant. It's either you have evidence, or you don't—you can't have it both ways; there is no middle man. The first definition you gave states that evidence is anything that is presumed to be true. If you think it says more than that, then you'll only run into a paradox. Yet, if you consider the one you provided for "scientific evidence," you'll still run into a paradox. To say that it is presumed to be true is to say that evidence relies merely on consensus. If you still don't see the paradox, then answer this question: What is the evidence for evidence? But i wouldn't expect you to be satisfied with this, as it degrades what truth is. But that, i would say, is why we have standards. One could say that logic is itself a standard, but not many use it properly—and how did it become a standard in the first place? Interesting, you left open for the possibility for the lack of free will. But observation that we have made? Wouldn't "our observation" be merely yet another electrical impulse in the brain? Can you really then claim it to be "ours"? What does it mean when something is "ours" (in this case)? Not to fully direct your attention away from your discussion with rpgsearcherz, but being this an open debate i have something to say about the age-old statement of the so-called Epicurus. But first, being neutral is not a case against the argument, for you are nevertheless taking away God's position of being God, therefore agreeing with "Why call Him God?" Epicurus's argument (if it is truly Epicurus who said it) only touches on two things concerning God: God's omnipotence and the assumed definition of "good" that people attribute to God. Is God capable of saving? No doubt. But since when is it necessary for Him to do so? Because He is called good? Since when is God the one at fault for people's choosing? The assumed "good" from the argument is that one can only be good if they stop evil when they are capable. But tell me something, what is good: to stop evil or give evil a chance to repent and change their ways? To stop evil is to end the life of the one causing evil. Ironically, what happens when God does end one's life? Do you not then hear many cursing God? "Why did you take them away from me?" they say. Humans are too ignorant and foolish to be making decisions for God—yet many still try. People pray for the end of days, but God rhetorically asks them, "Why do you ask for it?" (Amos 5:18) It is easy to say, "i do not like this," but what is good? You do realize that "from dust to man" is abiogenesis, right?—though divinely caused. But you do realize what you're saying, right? Even if you don't need "magic" (apparently one of atheists' favorite words), you still need a conscious. Done in a lab, right? Who works in a lab? Conscious beings. You can't escape this fact. Even if it was done in the lab, in a lab you can have things work to your advantage. This is not so where you lack control. You see, even if it was done in a lab, you cannot conclude anything concerning the beginning of life just from that—for there still remains a large margin of error. Everything that bears mass is itself energy. You cannot say that the energy at first was not matter. As you should agree, if there is no evidence that there was anything before the Big Bang, then the only position to take would be that there was nothing before it, no? If that is the case, then isn't it inevitable to ask, "How did something come from nothing?" Whenever we try to make something from nothing we fail to do so. Is this not repeatable and observable? Therefore does it not fit the scientific method? Therefore can it not in turn be considered scientific evidence? So anything against this would require evidence that overpowers this. Therefore we can declare that, no, it was not from nothing, this universe came from something. However, our knowledge of this universe tells us that anything physical cannot last forever. Therefore whatever it came from cannot itself be physical but at least metaphysical. But something metaphysical cannot cause anything without a desire to do so, but a desire requires a conscious. Anything metaphysical can last forever. This is why those who know better would never say that everything, both physical and metaphysical, requires a cause. To say that those who know better would say such a thing would be a straw man. Nevertheless, "everything" is generally intended to be limited to matter alone. Space could not have come after the Big Bang event; space is necessary in order for the Big Bang to even occur. As for time, it depends on whether one says that time can be stopped. But if you consider time as merely a point from a certain event, then time is not required. While "there" is normally used to specify a location between two points, you can still say "there" as in "in there within space." One's understanding of the sciences does not mean that science is ruler over religion. Science is merely an understanding of what is observable, therefore it is not better than religion. Likewise, for that reason, you can't bet all your money on science either, since "truth" in science isn't necessarily true.

From what i remember, it's supposed to be when you reach 502 posts—i am uncertain if it has changed, though. Go here and see if there is a field that is labeled "Custom member title." If there is one, then go ahead and change it if you want to change it. If there isn't, then something is different from what i remember.

Here are some points that you can have fun pondering about: Is the atheistic viewpoint truly exempt from the burden of proof (like many atheists like to believe)? What is "evidence"? What is "not enough evidence" or "lack of evidence"? What is a "conscious"? What is a "thought"? Unfortunately, i am having trouble thinking up more at the moment, but i may recall them later on. Out of the things that you've mentioned, with the exception of perhaps predetermination and perhaps a few other unmentioned things, this position doesn't seem like it is any different from the position you started questioning. But i say this with the assumption that you don't believe we have free will—as freewill is impossible in a purely materialistic world. But i'm not really sure of your methods for questioning things.

You can also look at websites such as OpenDesktop.org and the Linux section of Softpedia. I normally just search the repository. If there's not enough information on the program in the repository, i see if there's a website in the description or search for it on Google and see if i'd be interested in installing it. If all else fails, i just code my own.

They could have started it to provoke the developers of the commercial game to release their game for other platforms, even if it would never happen. They could have started it because they were bored or wanted to get into game development and making a game similar to their favorite game would be more entertaining?whatever the reason. It is possible for an open-source game to compete with a commercial game. I would personally prefer it if commercial game developers gave away the source code of the previous release of the game after releasing a new one, like what was done with Quake and HomeWorld (though i don't like either of these two). Although the source code for Warzone 2100 was released for other reasons, Warzone 2100 was my favorite RTS, and i'm glad i can play it again?and on my computer (i had first played it for the PlayStation).

The last time i used Photoshop was a few years ago, back when CS2 was the current CS. I'm not sure if there are any new features when creating a new layer, but it shouldn't trigger any other actions. All i can recommend is perhaps try using keyboard shortcuts; i think the shortcut was Ctrl + Shift + N for a new layer.

I thought that style seemed familiar, but i thought it was from a different tutorial when i first saw it. This work seems to work well for an avatar. Text is a bit hard to distinguish, though; maybe a drop shadow would work well here. Thanks for the linkback (if it can be called that).

Interesting, some i've never heard?and apparently for good reason. But i'm not surprised that i didn't find a valid reason for atheism. Many of them aren't even arguments. If i can coin a term here, i would say this is a good case of "atheism of the gaps." I don't expect the topic starter to be responding to this topic, but if they do, then i'll consider addressing some statements.

One meal a day is impossible if you don't get all the needed nutrients for the day. Fat is a requirement in order for your body to go longer without eating, as the body stores what it couldn't put to use at the time into fat and because fat gives you the feeling of fullness. Given the small insight on what you are planning on eating for the day, you'll end up with multiple deficiencies and you may eventually crash or start feeling sick or not good. Forget about what others tell you concerning your weight; even if you wanted to lose weight, eating less is not a good way to go about it. Eating one meal a day will actually work against you in trying to lose weight. By eating only one meal a day, you slow down your metabolism and it also causes your body to enter what is known as "starvation mode." When the body is in this mode, it starts storing up whatever it can, like one stores up for a "rainy day." It's a way the body tries to keep itself alive in one of the ways it knows how. However, if you are not getting the kind of nutrients your body needs, what would there be to store? If you eat throughout the day, even if they are small things, snacks even, this helps improve your metabolism because the digestive system is constantly working. Breakfast is called the most important meal of the day because it breaks your fast. When your fast is broken by eating food, your body puts the nutrients to use more effectively than it would have if you would have eaten something after breakfast. But breakfast does not have to be in the morning; breakfast is merely the first meal of the day—no matter the time. When you eat, try to touch on many kinds of food, healthy food, as possible—but be sure it has some fat in it, even if all the fat comes from any meat. While pizza contains fat, if you're going to eat pizza, make sure to at least get the kind that contains a lot of vegetables as its toppings. Otherwise there's really not much to gain from eating pizza. If you insist on eating just one meal a day, be sure it contains a decent amount of nutrients, preferably essential nutrients. Essential nutrients are nutrients that the body cannot create on its own. The body can't put to use everything it takes in if it doesn't have the necessary resources to put it to use. While the body can create certain nutrients (like cholesterol) on its own, it cannot do so always and it cannot create many nutrients. Many foods contain a lot of nutrients on their own, but it is better to eat a variety of food. It is not good for someone to be taking risks concerning their diet without supervision, so be sure to consult at least a dietitian.

I watch anime mostly on Hulu. Dragon Ball Z used to be my favorite, but then i came across other animes. I like animes more that have to do with dual intellects, if you can call it that. Animes like Death Note and Code Geass. Another interesting anime was Mushi-shi?it's nice and calming, but most of all it is decent. But what interests me the most about anime is the art?those that try to achieve a sense of realism. Animes like One Piece, the art degrades the show for me; while the concept of the anime is farfetched itself, One Piece could have been better if the art was more realistic. I hear many animes don't have an ending to them, and they just leave you with a cliffhanger. I've run into animes that end with a cliffhanger?very disappointing.

The GPL, which practically almost all software available for Linux is under, allows users to sell the software it is licensed with, regardless of who it is selling the software. In fact, you can purchase the Kubuntu DVD for $10 off of Amazom. However, due to Ubuntu's philosophy, that is most likely to pay for the DVD and packaging and not the software itself. Stores like Best Buy could sell a Linux distribution for as much as they wanted; but, obviously, anyone who knows about Linux would not purchase it (at a store), except for maybe distros like Redhat and SuSE.