truefusion

MyCENTs do not convert into Xisto dollars if you have a warning. When the warning is removed, then when the script runs again, it'll convert your myCENTs into Xisto dollars.

You can usually find those kinds of software in the programs section of stock retail stores like Costco or BJs, Sam's Club, et cetera. But i don't know if there are any of those places in your area or country. Otherwise, you can check out the Home Improvement Software section at NewEgg and pick out whichever one seems good to you.

You can try out my shoutbox script. Its project page is located here: tfsbox. If you don't want to use the latest beta, you can choose the latest stable, version 3.2. Version 4 of my shoutbox, currently in beta, is the only current version that supports MySQL, though. The preview/test run page shows the latest beta, so if you choose the latest stable, expect a slightly more simplistic interface.

Topic is resolved.Please PM any moderator to continue this discussion. Until then, this topic is closed.

No no. I am not wanting to align an image. It's just a line I want to be added using CSS/HTML, so it cannot be copied unless using the Source.

Although they'll have to look at the source code to take the image (though why would they want to take the image?), C-Panel has a way to prevent hotlinking. But you'll need to do research on the clear property. Even if you were to use jlhaslip's code, i can tell you right now, from experience, that won't get you the results you are looking for. If you run off of what Saint_Michael provided and use the clear property, then you'll get better results.
By the way, the CSS property line-height is for text, that is, the spacing between the lines of text.

If you want a computer that just works without much maintence.1. Macintosh
2. Windows
3. Linux

This part is debatable. We no longer live in an era that runs off of source-based-only distributions. Sure there are distros like Gentoo, et cetera, but Linux is about choice—and it's better to know about your system anyway. On my Ubuntu system i don't worry about maintenance. In fact, that's why i stick to Ubuntu over all the other distros—things generally work out of the box, rarely, if at all, requiring me to go searching for drivers, et cetera; and all the drivers i've ever needed were in their repository anyway. Also, on a Windows machine you still have to worry about what anti-virus program and firewall you'll need to protect yourself with and the self-degrading performance of a Windows machine—that is, you have to defrag every now and then, which isn't entirely consistent in maintaining performance.

I've been testing out Jaunty, that is, Ubuntu 9.04, and they've really outdone themselves in performance with this version of Ubuntu. For an alpha 6 release it's been quite stable. But to modify the list, i'd place Linux in second place with Windows if not altogether switch Linux with Windows.

Java has a way to read lines from standard output. You need to import BufferedReader from java.io in order to read the lines of a standard output. I don't know Java enough to write you an example, but you can look up examples on how to implement BufferedReader to fit your needs, over the internet.

They say structs and objects are basically the same except that objects allows for private and protected members, et cetera. You'll want to have such a feature if, for example, you were to be working in a group project. Also, C++ allows for overloaded functions. I find these quite convenient and wish that every language had this ability. I've only heard bad things about C++ from C programmers, but from people that teach programming, i've seen more that are for C++. I say go for C++ just for the extra language features.

All you need to connect two computers together with just one ethernet cable is a crosswire cable. Normal ethernet cables won't work. With a crosswire cable you won't need to buy any extra equipment if both computers support ethernet connections. Do note that it may take a while for each computer to assign themselves addresses when using a crosswire cable. But once connected, you will be able to access one computer from the other computer and vice versa.

Run loads per-core in order

I think this one means: Run Process 1 on Core 1, then Core 2, etc; then Run Process 2 on Core 1, then Core 2, etc; repeat until finished...

Run loads in order per-core

While this one would mean: Run Process 1 on Core 1; Run Process 2 on Core 1; repeat until all processes are ran on Core 1, then run all processes on Core 2; continue till finished...

Normally Wine "registers" itself with the appropriate file extensions, which popular file managers pick up and display the option to open up the program in Wine. But to run a Windows program through the command line you type in:

Do note that Wine doesn't support every single program available for Windows, and some programs may require a workaround to get it to function properly. Be sure to see if there is any information for the program you are trying in the Wine Application Database before attempting to run it through Wine.

Topic is resolved.Please PM any moderator to continue this discussion. Until then, this topic is closed.

Everything else requires a reference point ebcause its speed is relative to the observer. For example, if you are doing 55mph on the road, and pass a car doing 50mph, your speed relative to the slower car is 5mph. However, relative to the ground, your speed is 55mph. This is the reason why we have to declare reference points when talking about velocities. However, the speed of light is a constant and not relative to anything.

Isn't the speed of light observed also (though the speed of light may be measured hypothetically in free space)? But to better explain what i mean, i'll use the example you provide but change one of the objects. That is, let the ground be the ground and have the car i'm in be the slow car, but change the fast car to light and have its speed be the speed of light. That is, relative to the ground i'm going 50mph and light is going approximately 669,600,000mph. My speed relative to the speed of light is 669,599,950mph slower. Being the scenarios similar, i don't understand why the cars aren't themselves constant or why the speed of light still remains or continues to be considered a constant.

 

The use of infinity comes from a limit, a bounding condition. Take y=1/x. Let x get smaller and smaller, and y will rapidly increase. As x tends to 0, y tends to infinity. It describes the change based on the trend so far. Smaller numbers for x make y go up, and we can reasonably expect it to continue to do so. The same occurs in the relativity equations. As v tends to c (ie. you get very close to the speed of light), v/c will tend to 1, giving us sqrt(1-1), which is 0. The reason why we say at this point we get infinite energy, is because when v is very slightly smaller than c, you get very high values for the energy. You expect that to continue, and it makes physical sense based on our current knowledge.

That's what i thought—even though once you reach zero you stop getting closer to the speed of light; which means you can't call anything that follows after it absolute.

Thank You Mr.True Fusion , Can you please tell me what are all the other attacks which prevail today which can be a source of danger in my case. People say SQL injection is only possible only if there is a big flaw in the coding that is in the devoloping part. Hope othere wise SQL injection and other stuffs will not be possible.

Without looking at the source code, i can only provide general statements: that is, SQL injection and XSS is the only things that generally cause problems for developers in your case. Exposing the source code could also pose as a problem, as it may expose any other flaws. So, keeping your source code hidden and doing research on SQL injection and XSS is the only way to help yourself further.

so why not try the Vitamin C injections before chemotherapy?

Some people argue that they pick radiation over natural alternatives because it brings in the cash. That is, since chemotherapy has a low rate of survival, if you convince the person that it'll help better than any other alternative, then you gain a lot of income. As evil as this may sound, it's not impossible for people to be this evil (9/11 anyone?). Another argument is because of what is being taught in schools. Many of the medical schools here in the States teach that natural alternatives are non-sense and bogus and cannot possibly help and therefore should not be considered over the over-the-counter or prescribed medicines. Others just don't teach about natural alternatives; very few actually do, though. Third-world and second-world countries do not really teach in this fashion. At the same time, if you were to visit these other countries, you may find them to be healthier than America itself. I mean, isn't America the number 1 fattest country? Yet, supposedly, we have the some of the best (or better) schools?

 

But to get to whether or not Vitamin C should be considered: In order for Vitamin C to take effect, the body would have to have the proper amount of resources in order to be able to put that Vitamin C to use. Therefore you would have to be a bit healthy yourself, in which case may prevent other cancers from forming. Some argue that the reason why cancer occurs is because of oxidation, therefore Vitamin C, being an antioxidant, counters the effects of the cancer. The reason why not many appeal to this is probably because of lack of research. Then again, if people are teaching that natural methods are bogus, a cycle may form that prevents funding for research, therefore forming a dilemma. But if you were to give a person Vitamin C, this Vitamin C would be better off it if isn't synthetic—that is, if it wasn't made in a lab but found in nature.

 

Concerning the argument your friend gave you, have them do research on the survival rates of chemotherapy. And if you die afterwards because of it, then what was the point of the chemotherapy?

You just need a reference point. You could just as well do it from Mars, specifically from your house, whatever...

Does that imply that the speed of light cannot be determined without a reference point? I know the speed of light was (is) in the implied equation itself, but if these objects require a reference point, doesn't it follow that in order to determine the speed of anything else would itself require a reference point? Or perhaps better put: Why does the speed of light not require a reference point while everything else, as implied, does?

 

That part is the rest mass, and therefore calculates the rest energy of the particle (ie. the energy locked up in its mass while it is not moving).

So m always equals rest mass? But now you've introduced rest energy. How many invisible or hidden adjectives are there? And how does this word game fit into the all the equations that have been mentioned?

 

Not always. More often than not, dividing by zero leads to an infinity rather than zero.

Division by zero, at least from my knowledge, can only have three values: undefined, 0 or infinity. That means infinity is in the minority, and the reason why it's even considered a possible value is not because it is logical from a mathematical standpoint—that is, you really have to play around with everything in order to even consider the possibility of infinity. So wouldn't it be special pleading to go with infinity? What objective arguments are used to pick infinity over the others? If i were to assume that infinity is picked for the sake of progressing (since undefined or 0 is bound to prevent progression), that would be fallacious because anything following it would not be entirely accurate. If it's not entirely accurate, then we cannot claim anything following it to be absolute. So what's the reasoning behind choosing the minority?

 

This is one area where the 'simplified' equation breaks down. With zero energy, the photon must have zero rest mass, and therefore doesn't exist (which makes sense). However, it still has relativistic momentum and therefore relativistic mass. This can contribute to the energy of the photon. This does give photons a small apparent mass when the move. High power lasers have actually been used to push objects around, implying the photons must have a (very small) mass and can exert a force.

Given the equation, isn't the reason why it has no energy is because its rest mass is 0? Or are you flipping the equation around? But mind doing the non-simplified equation for me?

 

But if the photon doesn't exist, how can it still have relativistic mass? That would mean it would have to be brought into existence (i.e. created) and would have to be in motion the very instant it was brought into existence.

Would you rather have a more advanced science knowledge, or more advanced literature knowledge? - assuming we all have basic communication tools, ie basic language.
(But I think that knowing something does not necessarily mean that I have to express it, wh[at] if I discovered science? It would only be available to me and I don't know literature to expose the findings...)

I think the terminology used here makes things too ambiguous to correctly or properly discuss any situation involving or arising from it. That is, "basic" and "advanced" are not defined (enough) to form a definitive black and white picture. What distinguishes "basic" language from "advanced" language? Or (and) what distinguishes "basic" science from "advanced" science? Even if we were to use the examples in your first post of this topic, the examples themselves do not paint a picture that allows us to derive meaningful definitions for "basic" and "advanced"—but it does practically lead us back to my previous statement.

Not necessarily. The equations can be applied to pretty much anything, from sub-atomic particles to space rockets. A good question is to work out if you have a rocket travelling at 0.8 times the speed of light, and it fires a satellite forward at 0.6 times the speed of light, what speed is the satellite travelling at relative to the earth? The same effects come in to play with anything approaching the speed of light.

Why is its relativity to the earth considered?

 

For once science has taken the logical approach. Rest mass does indeed mean the mass of the particle when it is at rest (ie. not moving). This distinction is necessary as the mass of an object is different when it is in motion. Its relativistic mass includes the kinetic energy of the particle, and therefore increases the faster the particle moves.

 

The rest mass of the photon is zero, allowing it to reach the speed of light. Its relativistic mass includes a contribution from its kinetic energy. To avoid confusion, the terms rest mass and relativistic mass are used to distinguish between the two quantities.

 

You can give energy to a photon and not affect its rest mass in the same way that your car does not get heavier the faster you drive. Rest mass is an invariant quantity of an object - it does not change. Supplying anything with infinite energy (hypothetically, as energy is a finite resource) would cause either momentum or relativistic mass to increase to infinity to satisfy the equation. This is logical enough, as we see them increasing along with energy anyway - infinity is just a limiting case of this.

...to avoid confusion. Okay, let's see if i can add these things up. For simplicity's sake, let's stick to the ever-so-common E = mc² equation. Is it safe to assume that m here would = rest mass xor relativistic mass? Assuming it is, that would mean in order for the photon to reach the speed of light it would have to be at rest and bear 0 energy (i.e. E = 0), because anything multiplied or divided by zero is zero. However, you mention earlier that the photon carries energy regardless... But if it is at rest, how can it reach the speed of light? And how can it still have energy though E equals 0? And when it is in motion, in order to reach the speed of light, it would require, as noted earlier, an infinite amount of energy. But, likewise, as noted earlier, energy is a finite resource. Therefore the photon never reaches the speed of light? Or is it that it really isn't the photon moving, but rather something else that is going the speed of light is pushing or pulling the photon (like a person in a vehicle)? Or is it that the statement "in order for the photon to reach the speed of light" is merely theoretical in its nature (i.e. merely allowing it does not necessarily mean any actual moving)? Or is it that m != (rest mass and relativistic mass)?

1. It says in Joel 2:28 So I don't think that it is so anachronistic of God to choose a child. I mean, I'm convinced that Noah wasn't a kid when he started, but God doesn't seem very averse to choosing children. Josiah and Joash were children-kings of Israel, Daniel and his friends were adolescents, David was underage, Samuel took the reigns of the religion at a young age, and Jesus was able to stump the priests at the passover festival when he came of age. Plus, I like to think that God was able to use me when I was a child.

I suppose a next example could be Samuel, as he was chosen, or made a prophet, at a young age. But i think the emphasis is better placed on the task or "burden" placed upon the individual, that is, on whether or not it could be successfully performed by a child or an adult. In this case, we can observe with either David, Jesus, et al, that the tasks were simple or there were none at all when they were small. In the case of David we have Goliath, but i don't recall God telling David to go out and take down Goliath—that is, it was David's choosing.

 

2. Put quite simply; no. The water would push the oxygen out. It would be like they were at sea-level. And there were no mountains at the time. As far as I understand, when the "fountains of the deep" burst forth, the crust would have to be completely busted up and floating around (in other words, pangea to current landmass configuration in 40 days). So in the idea of a world-wide flood, there would be no mountains of Ararat-as a matter of fact, there would be no mountains until after.

Plus, Genesis was written by Moses, so the population of the earth had spread to the degree that any knowledgeable person (moses was court-trained) would know about the massive mountains in other places. At least, that's what I am led to believe.

Interesting statement. I don't have any outside knowledge or information concerning for or against the former, but mentioning Moses seems to counter the former. If the flood was truly a world-encompassing event, and mountains formed due to extremely strong geysers or "fountains of the deep," then to say that Moses wrote about the mountains of his time for Genesis for the time of Noah is to say that Moses made an observational error. An error in any case you should see everything undesirable about it. Therefore either there existed mountains back then before the time of Moses and it is God providing revelation to Moses, or there is an error in the Bible concerning Genesis for the time of Noah which was caused by human assumptions. And if there were mountains during the time of Noah, then it would follow the point that i have been for during this whole discussion.

 

4. But why would they need 2 of every animal if some others survived? If there were 4 million giraffes on the other side of the globe, Noah wouldn't need his 2, now would he? No, I'm pretty sure that every animal (except those on the ark) died.

I already mentioned that the animals on the other side of the globe were brought to the location. And it wasn't just 2 of very kind. God ordered Noah to take male and female (i.e. the 2 for each pair or "kind" that you are referring to) of 7 clean pair of animals and 1 unclean pair of animals.

 

5. Yeah, God is amazing. I hope to be INSIDE the city when the fire goes down. I'll look for you, okay? We can stand in stunned silence together.

I'd rather not be in any city during that time. But i can't remember whether or not those who are written in the Book of Life are to be taken up before these amazing events occur. So even if you were resurrected, or "woken up" (to be more Biblically accurate), you would probably be observing it from afar.

Well, I made this new one. I want to know if the header is okay? Or should I take off the reflections?I surrounded the whole left navigation with a border and had 1 pixel height lines splitting them.

So... what you think about it now?

The left navigation fits; that is, it doesn't require any more work on it except perhaps if you are going to apply an eye-candy style to them. As for the banner, it seems like you have a Dodge or Burn layer blend applied to it, which is causing pixelation mostly on the highlight of the text. I believe it is also the cause for the mismatching blue. I normally go with Overlay, but the color should be similar to the ones already used, and since the banner is more in the dark area of the layout, a little shine effect, which shows the light as if reflecting from the top, may be fitting.

I think the dilemma is more severe than what you make it out to be. I see Literature as the ability or knowledge that allows for any form of writing (looking up the definition actually fits with the way i see Literature as). That is, without Literature, there would be no Science books. Therefore, you should be able to see the dilemma. That would mean Science would not be able to thoroughly explain something; people would have to guess from any available math problem and (or) rely on word of mouth, or would have to rediscover things, et cetera. Yet, since we have to pick one and dump the other, if we pick Literature, there would be no technological advancement, et cetera. For the sake of history and convenience, i'd go with Literature in this case.

Light itself does not have an infinite amount of energy. The energy of a light wave is equal to its frequency multiplied by the Planck constant. This is all to do with the fact that a photon has no rest mass, no size, etc. yet still carries energy, force and momentum. When something absorbs light, it must absorb the energy of the photon. However, it doesn't have to keep it as energy. Rather like in a nuclear reaction, energy and mass are transferrable, so it can be transformed into mass inside the object absorbing the photon.

 

...

 

The photon has no rest mass, and changes in energy affect its wavelength/frequency. The more energy you give to a photon, the higher its frequency becomes. As the photon is not infinite in energy, an object simply absorbs whatever energy the photon is carrying at the time.

So the particle you mentioned in the area where i quote you in my previous post is not necessarily this photon? And does the adjective "rest" change the meaning or state of "mass" like it appears to be doing? I ask this because "rest," as commonly understood by that word, implies that the photon would not be in motion—that it is "standing" still. However, i also realize that science doesn't necessarily apply commonly perceived definitions to words (e.g. the universe is expanding—"universe" being the keyword). But that would mean that when it is in motion, it bears mass (assuming it can actually stand still in one point in time); and if it bears mass, and if it goes at the speed of light, won't we be back to where we started from? But if "rest" doesn't change the state (or meaning) of "mass," then why is "rest" used? Or perhaps better stated, What would "rest" mean here then?

 

Interestingly enough, if "rest" changes nothing, and if it has no rest mass, applying it to E = mc² would mean E = 0, since anything multiplied by 0 is 0. However, since you state that that equation is only half of the actual equation, E becomes actually something that is greater than zero (which, due to the time required to do the math, i won't even attempt to do the math , but it appears obvious, at least to me, that it would indeed equal something greater than zero, even if it is less than 1). This implies that anyone who doesn't use the full equation is generally in err or not entirely accurate. Of course, this part may become irrelevant if "rest" is defined in a way that affects the state of "mass." But i believe you can see the dilemma anyway if E were to equal 0.

 

In either case, i am finding the whole array of terms interesting, especially within the context they're being used in. That is, i find it interesting that you can give energy to this photon without affecting its rest mass (if i understood it correctly). Also, bearing in mind that a photon is not infinite in energy, supplying it with infinite energy (if at all possible) would, at least in theory, change its state, therefore making it no longer a photon, at least by what can be implied by the definition given.

 

Oh well...

Topic is resolved.Please PM any moderator to continue this discussion. Until then, this topic is closed.

Well, it's been 6 days, double post is justified?
Well, I've completely changed the looks. you can look at it and give me an opinion (or many opinions).
I think this one is pretty simple, I have to work on the header a little more tho (or is it good just like that? I don't think so...)
It aligns to different widths and covers the whole page, so you guys with fullHD screens (if you're there ) can view it without a 1000px wide thing in the middle... I've changed the looks of tabs (I'm still using sliding doors method tho).
(in the image uploaded, the left navigation bar has the lower button 'hovered')
So... if you ignore the header, how does it look like?

This one looks more interesting: much better. Ignoring the banner, all i'd suggest is add margins to the boxes on the left; they're too close to each other in my opinion. The colors appear to be in harmony. I have nothing else to say.

If that's not a cataclysmic, world-wide event, I don't know what is.

If we examine not only the context but the very passage you bring into the discussion, what would we see? But before we get into that, one question should be asked, if there is heavy rain and strong winds and geysers (there were indeed geysers as implied in Genesis 8:2), do birds take to flight or do they take the time to hide? But coming back to the context, it could be argued that because Noah was 600 years old at the time that the floodgates of heaven opened up, that it took Noah about 500 or so years to bring all the animals God commanded to bring into the Ark to where Noah lives. Assuming the earth back then was what it looked like today geographically, that is a lot of ground to walk, if it can be at all traveled in less than 570 years (i give at least thirty years for Noah, as i wouldn't say that God would pick a child to go out and do what God asks of him). Wouldn't it be easier for God to just bring all the animals to Noah? And if so, does the Bible give way for that? In fact, Genesis 7:8-9 and 7:15 does just that.
Geographically speaking, Noah's Ark landed on the mountains of Ararat—where exactly, that is, which mountain is uncertain. "All the mountains under heaven" does not necessarily have to be from God's viewpoint (assuming more than just the mountains of the area existed back then). Since Ararat has a lot of mountains (at least from what can be derived from the text and observed today), it could very well be limited to which is visible by (to) Noah's perspective. Since the waters pretty much covered the mountains, if it were truely to cover every mountain in existence (assuming there were mountains in existence back then that reach the heights of the tallest mountain today), Noah and every other living thing on the Ark would require oxygen tanks—unless the only mountains in existence at the time were only the ones in Ararat. The mountains of Ararat could be climbed without requiring such equipment (or at least many of them), as implied by the text. If these people were limited to that geographical location and had never wondered off to other regions, it could be argued that that was indeed the only mountains they thought existed. The people at the time of Noah were apparently too foolish to actually consider leaving the area. Though by the time they did consider, it was obviously too late for them—like with all judgements.

So if all the animals were brought to that one location, and all the people were all in one location also, a world-wide flood would be unnecessary. Even if it were the case that it rained all over the earth, the only part that required so much water was just that one region.

Lastly, I almost wish God hadn't promised us that he wouldn't do it again, just so that I could see it.

If you call that great, then what about what is written in Revelations? Isn't it the case that you will most likely be there to see the Last Day?

I was reading a book by Robin Sharma - The Monk who sold his Ferrari, and was amazed to find that the people in India follow the traditions of special meditation and yoga whereby they easily enhance their life longevity. There were theories where you have to stop all forms of negative thinking and try to inculcate features to enhance brain activity. This in turn makes you active and zealous . Finally with the help of fresh food the life longevity is increased. Also the process of self control and good thinking most troubles in life are eradicated.

Unless those people could live up to 900 or so years just by performing such things and eating well, then it's not entirely relevant to the discussion. Since you mention Ferrari, it is obvious that the people you refer to are incapable of living for so long, as it concerns our time. But the question may arise, What is the current, average lifespan in India? And just how many more years do those that practice these things surpass the the average lifespan of those in India?