athorgarak

i have a gigabyte LAN port and have 25 mbs, but Bittorrent will not download faster than 1.1 mbs. Is there some adjustment in my system that allows me to approach the 25 mbs and use the more than capable gigabyte LAN's promised speed?

BTW, I have several computers and if they all run at that same time or just one running, wireless (I understand proximity issues for wireless downloading) or hard line, all machines seem to limit their downloading to a max of 1.1 mbs

I use either XP pro, fully updated or 7 ultimate, also fully updated.

Any help out there

PS, I HAVE attempted to place a number, instead of unlimited for downloading, but no matter how high i set it, 1.1 mbs is the limit.

2^37156667-1+2^42643801-1+2^43112609-1=???

It has been over 30 yrs since I have had a math class and NEVER had need for exponential numbers in life, but I find the need to add these size numbers today. HOW do you do it?

In the set of whole real numbers > 5, the sum of 3 consecutive prime numbers = a prime number.

I have tried this from the numbers 7 - 300+ and it always results in a prime number.

Is this a known method and if so, what is it called. IF not, how do I register a new method for this process for international acceptance and recognition?

OK This mobo has been working well for yrs. All of a sudden, it shut down. I noticed that light, so I opened up the power supply and noticed a burned area, and com capacitors that had raised tops. After seeing this, I put in another PS that is know to be 100% functioning.

No change.

Still shows the over voltage light. is there a reset option or jumper? I contacted the company, but no response. I also reviewd all the manuals. hardcopy and online versions. Nothing even mentioned about this little light.

I know it is old, but with a 3.2 ghx and 4gb of ddr, it runs window 7 just fine.

ny REAL help (not the 'just replace it' kind) would be GREATLY appreciated.

I actually want to fill a 45kg propane tank with standard air, and wonder what is the average psi in compressed tanks for consumer use. and the cubic ft of air it will have in it.

Thanks

I hope, really hope that some thought goes into your answer. This IS a religious question

Saying the Constitution allows for us to make laws is not applicable and here is why:

The U S Constitution is a legal document made by man and is included in the question if man even has the RIGHT to make a law.

Nearly all, if not all, societies have laws regarding murder, theft etc... and these are nearly universally the same law.

But laws can and do change and the perception behind legality is that of right and wrong, good and evil.

If the law changes, good and evil, right and wrong change.

This is nonsense!

As a religious, christian question, God, made man.

Man is corrupted by sin, while god is not

Man's corruption leads to excusing himself from accountability

God made certain rules or laws such as physical laws that we have discovered or identified

Man cannot make a physical law, only operate within them

attempts to defy them always lead to harm or death

jump off a high cliff and see if you can defy gravity, you cannot

Anyway God has the right to make rules for us but do we have the RIGHT to make laws?

WOW, some guy shoots up arizona and kills several people, all while attempting to kill a politician.

Sickening, I agree.

He was CAUGHT in the act, NOT SUSPECTED OF DOING IT!

If the person had escaped and if investigation were to point to him, then we should and could accurately use the term 'suspect'.

But why call him a suspect when there is no question, whatsoever of the WHO, perhaps the WHY is open for debate and IF he had accomplices (based on the above, they would be SUSPECTS)

Are you as tired as I am of this PC crap?

As an American, I think it is better than liberal students burning the US flag and their draft cards in the 60's and 70's. Those same students who are now the adults, in government condemning this guys rights of freedom of speech and freedom of expression/protest.

I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend your RIGHT to say it!

If you wish to remove this man's RIGHTS why should anyone EVER stand up for ANY of YOUR rights?

Seems to me that you can judge the rightness or wrongness of it based solely upon the opposition:

Mike Bloomberg, Hillary (Ram)Rodham Clinton and the other liberals who wish to fully dismantle the US Constitution, disarm the population and fully rape the public of its natural freedoms.

This is enough to tell intelligent people that it is a good thing

As an American, I think it is better than liberal students burning the US flag and their draft cards in the 60's and 70's. Those same students who are now the adults, in government condemning this guys rights of freedom of speech and freedom of expression/protest.

I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend your RIGHT to say it!

If you wish to remove this man's RIGHTS why should anyone EVER stand up for ANY of YOUR rights?

This post is not about which religion is right or wrong. it is about the US Constitution and the Laws of freedom.

If there is no afterlife (YES, I AM assuming that atheists do not believe in any sort of afterlife, heaven or hell, just nothingness), what is there to fear?

I suppose the MANNER of death could be cause for fear, being subject to vivisection would be horribly painful or burning to death, but those things are not death, but the end of life, and horrible living experiences.

But death and after death, do you fear that?

I have been considering both sides of the argument on biologic and cosmic evolution and have a few questions:

1. Why would it be assumed that ALL atomic mass was in one place in one time? Why not several large clusters of atomic mass spread out throughout the vastness of space?

Since time is considered infinite, it would stretch back, forever as well as forward forever. This would mean that ALL the atomic mass was inert for eons of time before any atomic and chemical reactions happened, causing the BIG BANG.

2. How can it be that things that are NOT inert, were inert for so long?

3. How is it thought that one explosion was enough, no matter how large?

4. How can it be explained that the universe is STILL expanding and only 'pockets' of space are filled with nearly identical galaxies (identical center to outer-rim ratios, identical general form, etc)?

I have read material written by 'scientific authorities' that claim it is not possible to propel material past the speed of light, yet the Bang is claimed to have done just that, and yet this material has not reached 'infinite mass'

5. How can those to things be explained?

Some atomic material Must have received more energy of the bang and had been expelled at a higher rate of speed, and some material expelled at lower rates of speed.

6. How is it explained that matter did not just separate into a 'strata' of matter, the outer rim being the fastest moving atoms and so on towards the center of the explosion until the heaveiest/slowest moving matter"?

7. In light of the fact that some material would, by necessity, have received more energy of the blast (and hence moved faster): Why would the makeup of the different galaxies be so uniform (seeing that their atomic makeup should be vastly different)?

I recall reading or hearing, about a year ago, a claim that the earth's orbit around the sun is nearly one inch per year.

Even if that figure is not the exact amount, we have been able to accurately measure stellar distances for a number of decades and should have some sort of reliable data available

Does anyone know where I can find this data, a link, or published book or journal that contains this info?

Thanks

I bought a cheap green screen kit and the only good thing was the backdrop, the cam and program were busted, same with the replacement the company sent me

So, I have two large green screen backgrounds but no usable program (it only worked with the kit's camera)

ANY usable program that can be used with my digital cam's video is fine for me, for now

I know it is there, it talks about no one desiring to look upon him like he was unremarkable in his looks, the beard torn from his fce etc

I just can't seem to find it right now

Anyone?

I use this analogy:

The cpu opens a book and rips the page out and reads it

Then it crumples the paper up and trows it on the floor

after so many programs and in differing orders, they eventually have nothing in the binding and the computer's performance is wasted on searching the floor for the next needed page

The de-frag is a search and order process, ironing the pages and restoring them to their original and proper place.

OK that is how it was explained to me and how I explain it to others

SO

Why not just have some code that does not allow the OS to allow for fragmentation in the first place?

Just leave the pages where they are and read the disks like we read books?

Is that such a difficult task or idea?

I was thinking that a permanent operating system that is HARDWARE, instead of software would be a big plus.

Wouldn't it be able to be virus proofed?

This would be a big selling and moneymaking point for Microcrap, as they want to monopolize everything. they could really have their way, then

In fact, I would probably buy one.

Are there any drawbacks to a hardware operating system instead of it being software?

Add-ons could be software for certain executables and such, but the basic OS would not be subject to anything less than a flash update

Any thoughts?

in other words it would b e, roughly 2/3 the weight of brass/bronze or 2 1/6 times the weight of aluminum.

It is important that this metal would have a gold color and is able to be used in sheets of approx. 18-24 Gauge

If you know about a metal like this, what would be the minimum thickness for it to be able to be hand engraved with techiques available in the era of 600-200 b.c.

Would it be able to be engraved on both sides?

Thanks

Would this not be a really good test to find out if any religion COULD be true, assuming that there IS true faith?

Read it and abide by the previous, answers that claim no God, or whatever are NOT following the prescribed" Q & A" rules and will be reported, play by the rules, please!

Ok would this be a good starting Point for finding the true religious system, ASSUMING, for the purpose of this post, that there IS a God and truth?

1. The religion MUST be exclusive, denying other ways to God. If any religion claims that their way is only one of any number (that number being more than one) ways to God, then that religion has just admitted that it is NOT needed.

2. A religion must have only one God. A god that is NOT ALL powerful and that has equals, is not really God.

3. The god of any religion must be responsible for the creation of the universe. If not, then there is another 'force' at work leading to the condition of said 'god' not being ALL powerful.

4. The religion must explain man's purpose, and limitations and the reasons thereof

A. The religion MUST explain man's relationship to God

B. The religion MUST explain God's relationship to man

C. The religion MUST explain man's relationship to man.

5. The religion's sacred writings MUST be able to prove historical and archaeological accuracy.

6. The religions must prove historical continuity within itself and any changes must be shown to have been planned all along, by that religion's God.

ie claiming to be a restoration without being able to show that the restored practice or belief ever existed in a prior state of that religion would be false.

Please, tell me if this is a good starting point to sift through religions and if you have any REAL suggestiongs to add to this list, that would lead one to a true religion, list them

Again, please, respect the purpose and intent of this question and only answer if you have REAL comments that fit within the confines of this post

To clarify:

The assumption that there IS a true Religion and that there is a God. 'Answers' that just want to deny this assumption or mock it will be reported as clear rules violations.

Thank you

If you play an organized sport and cheat, or other break a rule, there are consequences, are there not?

Is it then unfair that the rulebook does not allow your rule breaking?

Does the rule breaker get to say the rule is wrong?

"No way, the entire team has decided that only one toe is no longer going to be considered out of bounds!"

Does that work?

Of course this example is not a perfect example, but do not change MY example by putting in YOUR ideas and then claim that MY example fails. If you change it it is no longer MY example!

God made the "game" He made the rules.

He gets to say what is and is not right.

We don't get to break the rules and then collect the championship ring!