Hannibal

I'm hannibal1987 on devart. I don't post art myself, I'm just there to watch ;) I'll login when I'm back at home and +watch you (and a couple of others for whom I should have done that a long time ago...). I also asked about the location of the scene - any comments on that? :) I may post some photos to my account when I'm home and have time. It's the only thing I do that may in some far future be some kind of competition with all the other stuff on devArt.

You landed yourself a red screen of death. Meaning there's an XML error in the XUL (gui) Firefox is trying to render. When I'm home in the evening and hopefully fixed up my homework, and maybe my new pc, I'll look into it and see if I can help you fix it (it's trivial really, you'll have to look in the extension jar and validate the xml, see what the problem is, fix it, use winzip without compression to remake the jar and replace the old jar. Obviously doing the latter while Firefox is closed, we wouldn't want to confuse it now, would we? ;-) ) If you didn't get the above (not that odd), you'll have to wait till I'm home. I'm at uni right now.

Heh, I did consider that. My old p2 has a network card, problem being, I have a warranty on this pc. And I'd prefer not to void it (though I was assured that I was allowed to open the case, add memory and whatnot). I guess I can call them, because you're correct that it would save me a hell of a lot of time. Weird thing being that I'd be installing a cheap 10/100mbit network card in a pc which has dual gigabit lan (I'm still wondering what I would need that for, but it was on the mobo so you don't hear me complaining). I'm also struggling with the fact that right now it doesn't have a window manager installed (eg. KDE, Gnome, Fluxbox or associates). Which means I have to go console-diehard to do anything on it. Which means I spent 90% of my time reading man pages on how to get stuff to work. I know the basics (listing directory contents, moving between directories, working with and reading files...), but it gets fun if you have to mount stuff, decompress (and then find out there's no package installed that can do bzip2, so you have to decompress on another pc and then put the floppy in... etc. etc.), or even shutdown the computer! :lol: I knew 'exit' logged me out of the terminal, and 'reboot' or Ctrl+Alt+Del rebooted the computer... but that wasn't what I wanted. So I ended up hitting the button - bad idea of course. Linux did well under it, but the first thing I did this morning was look up how the hell I'm supposed to tell linux 'shutdown'. For any other newbies like me: 'halt' is what you're looking for :P I might as well give the network card thing a try. Unless I can't put the pci slot covers on the case back, because that'd mean I'd have an opening there after I take it out again :( On the other hand, recompiling a kernel sounds like a good exercise :lol:

Right. I got my new PC. Unfortunately, MS is being an ... and isn't shipping registration codes to my student association, which means I don't have a registration code for windows xp and can't install that. Seeing as I wanted to dual boot anyway, I decided to try and install debian on it for the time being. Being the lazy person I am who wants everything done quickly without too much trouble, I downloaded the network install cd image, burned it, booted it. Everything worked perfectly fine, until I arrived at the point where it would normally detect a network card (note that I've never installed Linux before, it just said it'd look for one). This is where the fun started: it couldn't find a network card. After some googling, I found out that my motherboard (ASUS P5AD2-E Premium) uses some kind of exotic chipset (Marvell) for its dual GB Lan and its wifi-g lan. There were no drivers for that chipset on the install cd. Now, since it can't use my network card, I have no way of installing more packages without burning them to a cd. Apparently I need a rather new version of the drivers since I'm running the 2.6.x kernel. By now debian is installed with a bare minimum in packages. Unfortunately that doesn't include GCC, so I can't compile the source for the drivers (I haven't been able to find any pre-compiled packages). The drivers' install instructions say I need a compiler and the kernel source, and will have to recompile the kernel. Fun! So, basically this is a puzzle: the only option I see is getting cd 1 of the normal cd install, reinstall debian with gcc (which is on the first cd), downloading a kernel source package on my old pc, burn that to a cd, and then following the instructions to recompile the kernel. If anyone can figure out a better solution, I'd be very grateful - this is not my idea of fun ;).

The odd thing is... Clair de Lune is really a piano-only piece, and in the movie they have an orchestra as accompanyment. Really weird, but it sounds great both ways. I'll have to second How2pk's opinion on the soundtracks of Am̮̩̉̉lie and Donnie Darko. Other good soundtracks (imho) are Gladiator, Ocean's Twelve, A Beautiful Mind and Pirates of the Carribean. In the light of soundtracks... have any of you listened to Epica's new album, 'The score'? It's supposed to be an ode to soundtracks, and I'd say they've done a pretty good job at that. (thanks to Necromagus for telling me about it ;) ) The LOTR and Harry Potter soundtracks are both quite nice, too. In general, stuff by James Horner is usually very good :). I kind of suffer from a personal hatred towards Titanic, but its soundtrack is okay in general. (just that my sister keeps playing 'My heart will go on' on the piano and trying to sing along, and in the end you're thoroughly sick of it)

And you with your generalising. Yeah, go on. I suppose all buddhists are fat and wear orange dresses all day, right? Telling people they can believe what they want to believe and then generalising everyone who follows a religion to be an extremist is a great way of looking at things. (In case the sarcasm in this post is not obvious, I suggest you stop being an American. Yes, that statement is self-reflective)

Err, that's not really true. The human brain works by neurons sending eachother signals. That's just a physical reaction with various chemicals reacting with eachother, forming new stuff and thus transmitting signals. This is not intelligent. However, we call the result of all these neurons together intelligent. Another example: My computer knows how to add up/multiply/divide and do some other basic calculations. That's not very intelligent. Yet I can use all those basic calculations to make it do something a bit more interesting, such as displaying a small graphic. Now, using the code I wrote to have my computer display a small graphic, I can make it fill the screen with assorted graphics, creating a normal GUI. Then I can write code for this GUI to work appropriately, all based on the simple things my computer could do from the start. I mean, MS Word spellchecks documents. While it's hardly always correct, it is somewhat intelligent, because it keeps an internal representation of your document, and acts based on the changes you make to that document, or the changes it expects you to make. (This is called a pro-active agent, fwiw) Having both an internal state and the capability of reasoning based on this state makes this agent intelligent. So yes, that means that just about all creatures on this earth have some kind of intelligence, however, most only involve a limited number of subjects. You can't ask a bird to do your math homework, for example. Well, you could, but I'd guess it wouldn't help you too much ;) Anyhow, I'm risking putting too much theory here, but I study Artificial Intelligence at university. The generally supported view is that something has intelligence if that something has an internal state (you can also call it memory or whatever), and is able to reason about this internal state. Ergo, even if we are just a collection of atoms, the neurons in our brains still enable us to have an internal state and the ability to reason about it, hence we are intelligent.

It's rather jagged though... could you maybe smoothen it a bit? Otherwise, looks nice :)

Ummmm....slight mistake there. Jehovah's Witnesses don't believe that blood contains a person's soul. They don't even believe in an immortal soul. The reason for denying blood transfusions has to do with respect of the sanctity of blood. I wouldn't know - I'm freely translating what I was told by a Jehovah's witness who came to a youth service in my church. It's been a few months, so if I don't recall everything exactly... They used Leviticus to explain it to me: Either way, I'm just saying that Jehovah's witnesses say the bible tells us that we should not transfuse blood, or have birthday parties, and in general not all Christians (by far not all, in fact) would agree with that. While they read the same bible - though in another translation, and they then interpret it differently. It's true that some parts of the bible arn't explicit in their meaning and thus are up to interpretation but some things are too clear to be up to interpretation. If the bible says "thou shalt not 'blank'!" then it's pretty obvious, we shouldn't do whatever blank is. So is the whole bible up to interpretation? I don't feel so...some people obviously do though because I've already seen people say that they think most of the bible is made up despite it being a very historically accurate book. Oh sure, I'm not saying everyone can interpret anything any way they like or say that it's 100% fiction, science itself has proved it's definitely not that. What I am saying is that there are often very interesting cases on which the bible is not that clear. It's also unclear how strict one should be about doing everything the bible says - some things are influenced heavily by the culture that was common when the bible was written - I don't see your parents taking you to the city counsel because you don't listen to them, to have you dragged out of the city and stoned to death (this is a rule given in Leviticus, fwiw). These are all rather clear examples (at least, I do hope everyone here agrees that stoning youngsters to death when they disobey their parents is not really a good idea in today's society), but there are others which are not so clear. I'm not going to discuss them - that isn't the point. The point is that while you can't say the bible is 100% fiction and we should ignore it, you can also not say that everything in the bible is true and that we should still live by everything it says (nor that we agree on what it says). The same is true for any religion's guidebook, by the way, so also for Koran or any other religious text. (I must confess I remember little about what religious texts buddhism or hinduism use, but they're bound to have somewhat similar problems) I'd give you some more theory about Communication (my study has a subject called Communicative Interaction, we've discussed the subject of interpreting communication - which a book is by default - intensively), but I think I have made my point :). Whereas you don't think you're right about everything, and of course you believe there's no such thing as a narrow-minded atheist? You're being quite hypocritical in a sense :). And hey, everyone posting here is a priori not narrow-minded, beause they're responding to someone else's post. Of course, one could wallow in their own intellectual superiority, but it's usually good to have a decent discussion at times, to question your own beliefs at least as much as you question others' believes when thinking on your own.

Dutch (native language) English (fluently) French - I'll read and understand any, and hear and understand most French. Speaking/writing are a lot harder though. German - same as French, reading and listening is a lot easier than writing or speaking. I also know Latin and Ancient Greek, but those aren't spoken anymore and modern Greek is rather different from Ancient Greek - I can't really understand it, though I can read the characters which are still the same. I know random phrases in Polish and Czech (though more in Polish). I also know quite a few songs in Spanish, Latvian, Russian, Polish, Czech and some other assorted languages. Sorry for you, but unlike some others on this forum I'm not going to post music files of me singing ;).

Yeah Ruzbeh, if you have a more uncommon name, at least we can find out all about the dumb things you do when on the 'net.

Since you mention the letter to the Romans, have you also read Romans 8? I had lectures about it for 1 week when I was in Taiz̮̩̉̉. It says that people live either in the Spirit of God and Jesus Christ, or in sinfulness (so quite the same as living with faith, and being forgiven, or living without and being sinful). It also says implicitly that the Spirit lives in everyone who does not knowingly reject God's mercy (we are all children of God, the Spirit lives in us because we are children of God). Hence, everyone who does not knowingly, willingly, renounces God's mercy will be saved. The brother who gave the lecture explicitly pointed out that one should not assume from this text that only people who explicitly believe in God have the Spirit - the Spirit lives in you regardless of everything else, as long as you do not renounce it. xyrec: this is an example of what I just said: insane and I seem to disagree, though we both read the bible, we read it in different ways. It's impossible to specify one 'true' way to read it, even if not simply because of translating issues, then because of interpretational differences. Heck, Jehovah's witnesses read the bible. They conclude from it that blood contains a person's soul, and thus blood transfusions are transferring your soul - woah, we shouldn't have that! In other words: it's not as simple as saying 'the bible is the only thing we need, and we will all believe the same', nor can one say 'there is only one way to read the bible, so everyone who does not read it exactly as I do is a fraud Christian' (I know you didn't say that, I'm just pointing things out :-) ) I should note that by any definition, I'm a very liberal Christian (if you still regard me as a Christian, anyway). I'm still annoyed that I missed the service my church held two weeks ago, with a Muslim imam doing the preach (ie the bible explanation). We also had one of our reverants doing that in a Mosque :). It's good to learn about eachothers religions like that, it kills off some prejudices we may have, and it's good to hear a fresh opinion in any case :) Incidentally... I've never really heard people on here speak out about Islam - are there any Muslims around on TIF? :) I'm curious about a few things. For example, some denominations in Christianity are used to praying to Christ or to saints - does Islam have similar things? Or do you only pray to God (Allah)? Furthermore, am I correct in saying you recognise Jesus as being sent by God? (Though, I think you consider him a prophet, and not the son of God, IIRC? What about Mohammed, do you regard him as being a son of God?) What about other religions? I've always known there are Christians, Jews and lots of Atheists on this forum - are there any Hindi (sp?) or Buddhists? :)

Okay, we all know what happens as soon as we actually start discussing other people's opinions, I'll try my best not to have that happening (I'm quite sure it wouldn't be insane who'd reply in such a way, but of course we're not the only ones on this forum...) First of all, I agree with the unquoted part of your post :P. Which is that the concept of a loving and caring God is wonderful. While I also agree that the crusades or specific people (pope?) should not be seen as representatives of all Christians, I don't like the way you talk about them here. You basically say there is some kind of 'true' Christianity, and everyone who doesn't follow that gives the 'true' Christianity a bad name. As we've had these kinds of topics before, no matter how long ago, I guess you might remember my argument: you cannot know for sure what 'true' Christianity is. Assuming that nobody really knows God personally enough to consider how He meant everything to be, there is no way we could know what the 'right' way of doing things is. Ergo, I think you should refrain from saying 'person X is a pervert Christian, because he doesn't follow 'true' Christianity as I see it.'. Examples are: A) I don't believe in the Holy Trinity. Does that mean I'm not a real Christian? B) I don't believe that Jesus really multiplied 2 bread and 5 fish at the lake in Galilee. Does that mean I'm not a real Christian? C) I think people should celebrate birthdays and be administered blood transfusions if need be. (red.: Jehovah's witnesses, for example, would disagree with this). Does that mean I'm not a 'real' Christian? For me, I think the distinguishing between 'real' or 'unreal' Christians is of little use. Personally, I believe that God will judge you on your actions, not on your association with a certain belief. As I voiced it when talking to a brother in Taiz̮̩̉̉ about this: It seems odd to me that a God of Love and Compassion would disallow 80% of the world population into His Kingdom and/or eternal life (whichever you believe in/want to call it) just because they didn't worship Him. Surely, amongst those 80% there are people who have been good people, maybe even better than some of the 20% who call themselves Christian? (See also Matthew 25:34 and onwards)

Fine by me, but usually people who make these sites are reluctant to learn, thinking they already know it all, and 'it just works'. It doesn't. It works in your browser, because it's trying hard to cope with all the crap you throw at it. People have come to expect that. It's the webdesigner's responsibility to make a page accessible to everyone, not just to people who have a good browser. Hey, we've got to take care of IE as well, don't we? :) So errm, you didn't understand the link. The link didn't like the topic starter's page. If it did, it'd look something like this: http://validator.w3.org/check?verbose=1 ... /projects/ That's a lot easier, right? Because it's slower this way, it uses up more bandwidth, it's slower to render, it may not get rendered correctly by your browser because it's such a mess, and it doesn't 'just work' - rick couldn't even view the site! If you'd read everything he said, you'd know that he'd seen the HTML. Which sucks. So that's a very good reason to rate a website like that. Also, I think it's rather weird you understand a rather complicated site like this (forum) and were not able to find the help link at the top of the page: http://validator.w3.org/docs/help.html#clickedandlost

http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox ... 1.html#new Something they don't mention is - a new element introduced in the WhatWG spec for HTML 5. This basically works as a kind of scratch pad - you can use javascript to draw on it. I'll link to a demo once I have hosting that doesn't involve my RL name (it's currently on hosting from my uni). Safari and Firefox/Seamonkey already support it, and I'm quite sure Opera will be working on it as well. As for IE... well, we all know that they're far too busy catching up even with CSS 2 support ;)

http://validator.w3.org/check?verbose=1 ... site/Home/ If you don't have any idea what the above means, please stop coding webdesigns. Now. Did you just say 'all by yourself'? I mean, I'm used to people discluding notepad, editplus, emeditor or textpad if they say 'all by myself'. But this is something different... ns4 = document.layers && true; msie = document.all && true; function init() { } Useless javascript, badly coded javascript. ... Ugh. Just ugh. Forums It's so great if people have no idea how html works. Also, go easy on people editing the code. A newline doesn't kill you, you know. Let's try that again: In head: Forums Much nicer than the tag soup you're using. Also, as pointed out by rick, your bg image doesn't work, at least not in IE, and as rick says it doesn't work, it probably doesn't work in Opera either. And you're using a TABLE LAYOUT. This is the year 2005. You should use a layout or no layout at all, or at least put up a big sign explaining why you just 'had' to use a table layout (I can't think of any valid reason - if you're already 'fixing' a table layout in IE, surely 'fixing' floating divs wouldn't require too much more effort. Tables are for tabular data, not for design. Damnit... Last but not least, use an external css. Please. And kill all your 'style=...' attribs.

Did you burn the file to a DVD as a file? The point of an image is that it's an exact replica of the filesystem of a finished DVD / CD. Nero has a special option to burn using an image... problem is, I don't use nero so I wouldn't know where it's located. The normal Knoppix CD should still fit on a cd, so be around 700MB. I think you may have downloaded an extended version or something like that ;). A direct link to one of the mirrors: ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/dist/knoppix/K ... -27-EN.iso Before you burn this to the cd, use an md5 program to check whether the file is intact. Saves you the time to burn it, test it and trying to figure out why it doesn't work. As you can see here (ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/dist/knoppix/), the actual file is about 700MB as well :) Maybe this mirror is slow for you, then pick another one here

You download a .iso file, so a cd image, if you download knoppix. This will fit comfortably on a 700Mb cd, if all goes well. Any good cd-burning program will support burning such a cd (Nero, Roxio, whatever). Specialist knowledge... well, using Linux may be somewhat of a change at first. If you want to use the commandline (I think you should, but I can't make you ;) ), you would definitely be helped by some tutorials, but those should be easy to find on the web :). Apart from that, Knoppix has alternatives for a lot of programs you're used to. I'm pretty sure the newest version has Firefox, as well as Konqueror (also a browser), and Thunderbird and several other programs for Email. It will also have some development tools (KDevelop, Emacs and Vi editors), and it has OpenOffice.org (comparable to MS Office). It shouldn't be a real problem to use, provided you don't grow all scared when your desktop doesn't look the way you're used to ;).

That looks great. The only thing I'd like to have changed is the Valid CSS icon. Either remove it or make it blend in more with the design (ie, design your own icon). Personally, I don't think parading the validity of your page is always that good, but I don't really mind it. Just don't have it clash horribly with your otherwise so incredibly nice layout ;). Just have a few links all the way at the bottom to validate HTML, CSS, AAA status, etc. etc.

Error 403 means 'forbidden'. Are you sure your username and password are correct?

http://icculus.org/neverball/ Freeware, and it's a great amount of fun. It does require that your card does OpenGL, but I'd think this should run without too much trouble on your laptop. As for the game itself, it's somwhat inspired by the game Monkeyball (I think that's what it's called?), originally a game for the gamecube :).

I do: tap your monitor 3 times, squirk like a frog and join the local line-dancing club, practice 3 times a week and come back when you've got a few performances done. This one's guaranteed to work :). Alternatively, donate a few bucks to TIF so we can send the Tech and Computer people on a course to use psychic skills to figure out what your problem is. This may work. Alternatively, give us more information. This might work next time, but on this thread people are probably too annoyed to do anything about your problem.

Ahhh durrr....of course other people besides americans had such price increases. My point was that inflation has continued to rise without wages going up and I don't know how that compares to Britain. Wages have risen just as well, you fail to notice that you compare just the minimum wage. Minimum wage won't rise until the government decides to do that - it's not bound to anything but their decisions. If it didn't rise in 30 years, I suggest you complain to the current president, you know, the one you elected and all... I do hope I'm not the only one who finds it funny that you complain I can't read, while you claim I said 'all economies are exactly the same', which is nowhere near 'America is not the only country who've had price increases.' I never said our economic situation is exactly the same - I'm glad it's not, with your lacking social support from the government, the expenses on the war in Iraq and the high debt. I'm talking down to someone (or, if you dislike me picking on you, all the Americans here) who considers (him/them)sel(f/ves) to be in major trouble because of 'high' gas prices. I'm claiming that they shouldn't be complaining as they have less taxes and lower gas prices than most people in other western countries. Whether or not that's good for their economy I'll leave to you to decide. You've had economics, you say, so that shouldn't be a problem, no? :) As to why I 'flame you for no apparent reason', I suppose we have a different interpretation of the verb 'to flame'. I disagree with your opinion, and as this is a public online forum I believe I am allowed to voice my own, contradicting, opinion. Which is why I 'flamed' you, if that's what you want to call it. Now, I'll try not to go down that route again even though I think you just tried to insult me, but I think that the only reason people ever have for flaming someone is because thefey either disagree with the person's opinion or hate the person him/herself. As I didn't call you names nor start an off-topic rant about how horrible you are (I don't know you, so that'd be rather hard to do), I did guess that I wouldn't have to spell that reason out for you. My English is fine, thank you very much. The fact that you've worked there and don't do that kind of work anymore doesn't bother me at all - I'm simply pointing out that you cannot complain about the wages granted on, well, minimum-wage jobs. They're called that for a reason, and as stated above, that wage only goes up if the government decides so. As we're talking Dubya, I doubt you'll be in luck any time soon. I didn't vote for him and neither did half of the population so don't lecture us about what our dummy president does. Don't you think we know what he does considering that we live in the country he runs to terribly? The fact that you as a person didn't vote for him doesn't make a bit of difference. I'm giving my opinion on your president - that's not anywhere near a personal flame or whatever. Feel free to take that personal, but it wasn't intended to be. I'll give you three guesses as to whose fault it is that this increase is so bad for your economy. Apart from that, I never intended this to be a 'I'm more pitiable than you are' debate, I'm just pointing out that I have a hard time understanding Americans complaining about gas prices (or any price for that matter) because usually Europeans pay more. Average wages in America were also higher than in my country, last time I checked. Seeing as we also pay more taxes, we'd be worse off. Except that we're sensible enough to drive cars that don't use gas the same way an average alcoholic drinks beer (motto: use more, do less). I don't, my last car got 25-30mpg. The one I'm about to buy gets probably 20-25. I'm fairly certain that I didn't say anywhere in my post that I drive a 12mpg car. Yeah, I guess you fabricated that one to make me look stupid? Real good job, give yourself a pat on the back for being an idiot who flames with no regard for common sense. I applaud your for your extraordinary reading of the thread, in which you have undoubtedly noticed that there are multiple other people talking about the milage issues the average American car has. I hate to disappoint you, but your post was hardly so important that I made mine solely to reply to you. I would agree, but unless I missed something you just violated your own advice. As for your personal insult, I could care less. If you think of me as a general flamer, umm, well... maybe you would be so kind as to read some other posts I've made, and you'd know I'm generally not like this. If my post was insulting, sorry. I'd just like to point out that yours was no less so. Guess we can call it even then. Now, apart from the first post I replied to, I'm quite sure there have been some posts about this... but why does everyone only talk about taking a bike? Doesn't America have a public transport system? Yes, you'll be stuck like sardines in a subway car, but at least you'll be there faster and cheaper than your driving collegue.

I dunno how the US economic situation compares to britain but just because you guys pay more for gas there doesn't mean you're in worse shape. Why not? Oh, wait, there's a long rant coming up, which is no argument at all but since it's everything the poster could come up with... Minimum wage here is like 5.10 an hour, most grocery stores like walmart, krogers and meijers all pay less than 8.00 per hour for all starting positions. As far as i know meijers pays the same as they did before and when I worked there I started at 5.75 an hour as a bagger and cashiers started at 6.45. Some people work at meijers full time and that's their only income. Not to mention american cars have never been known for their great gas mileage. For people who are working 45 hours a week at only 8 dollars an hour they're getting a measly 380 a week with a third of that taken out for taxes, an extra dollar or more per gallon of gas means a lot. The price of everything has gone up for years now with the average income in this country staying around the same. When my dad was my age he bought a brand new harley davidson motorcycle(a smaller one) for a few hundred bucks, a new sports car was usually well under 5000 bucks, perhaps under 3000 depending on the car. His first job started at like 1.75 an hour. My first job started at 5.75 an hour just 3 years back. That's not a big increase considering that a new harley(even the cheapest ones) are over 6000 and even the cheapest of new cars are between 6000 and 13000 bucks and if you want a sports car, prepare to pay over 20,000. And of course only Americans had such price increases, no? :roll: It's called inflation. Take some Economy lessons, it'd do you good. You'd also learn that your country currently has such an incredibly high debt that it's causing your economy to suffer. Then again, all of this is probably hard to understand if you have a minimum-wage job at a supermarket... Matt's right, stop whining. Thanks to your dummy president you still pay a hell of a lot less than Europeans do - 60% of the gas price here are taxes. Of course, Bush would be out of office faster than you can say 'Kyoto' if he so much as mentioned adding some taxes to the fuel price right now. Also, don't complain if you drive a 12mpg car. I don't think they even make those anymore, and if they do, the designers should be hung. As should anyone who's freaking stupid enough to buy one.

I used to play the piano. However, I don't have the room/money for it in my new home (alone, away from parents). Plus, my neighbours would complain if I practiced too much :P. So, no pics, sadly