Jennifer

ideally you would want a partition devoted to paging(like linux's swap partition) but i'm not sure how or even if you can set this up on windows.

 

big page files get fragmented and big fragmented page files are hopeless. and anyway, with 1G of RAM your computer should never touch the swap file.

Part of my 80G HD is a 3G seperate partition, you think it would be better to make that a Pagefile?

My computer seems to dip into it a lot, I like to run a lot of things at once (IE, Media Player, Games, Vent, IMs, etc)

*Plays World of Warcraft*>>>>>>>>>>>

*Is a nerd*>>>>>>>>>>>>

I apologize for not putting this in the help thread, wasn't sure if it should go there or not.

Anyhow, I have read that if you have two hardrives, it will greatly increase system performance to disable Pagefile on one and make the Pagefile on the other larger. Is this true?

For example:

I have one 80G. (Master/boot drive)

and a 20G for random stuff.

(I have 1G RAM but is shared with onboard Video)

Just now I set my Master/Boot drive to no pagefile and increased the 20G harddrives PF to 2G min 4G max.

Is this more efficient and/or safe?

They ask me how I know so much and I say"well instead of drinking, partying, and doing stupid things I like 2 read about science and history, Current events going on all around the world, this is how I Know these things

Without partying and having fun, what point to life is there?

(sorry to go off-topic)

Anyway, bacteria and viruses (Not sure on plural ) also seem to me to be the "population" limiter of life. Especially when you consider that the higher a population density, the easier the infection spreads.

I do believe that we have more to fear from these microscopic entities than our fellow man, just on the point that at least we can kill a man with our own two hands.

(Course, I guess you could argue that we could kill an infection with our bodies also, but....you know what I mean.....)

and the fact that the towers collapsed from the top down?

Darn, i was just about to bring this up.

I was watching Bowling for Columbine and decided to rewatch the WTC attack. (I felt like being a liberal today )

Anyway, I was watching and I noticed the planes didn't hit the center of the buildings, they hit near the top. (Where I assume the buildings were weaker.)

I can only assume that it wasn't only the heat that caused the first tower to fall, but the combination of the force of the planes hitting the skyscraper, (Even wind has been known to cause skyscrapers to sway), the weakening of the metal from the heat, and the weight of the top part of the tower that caused the top to fall onto the rest of the tower.

And of course, this started the domino effect that destroyed the rest of the area.

Not to mention that, for all we know, there may have been explosives on the planes themselves.

Of course, as I've said before, I'm not a scientist, nor am I even educated (I'm working on it!) but in my opinion, whether the U.S. Goverment had a part or not, two 747s had enough power in themselves to destroy the tower.

I am but a young college student who has only taken High School Physics, so I won't offer anything about the document.

I just wanted to point out that I thought the conspiracy theory had to do with the Bush Admin creating and/or helping along the attacks, not whether the planes themselves destroyed the buildings.

Also, don't forget that one of the towers was hit by two planes.

I don't understand what this belief of yours has to do with whether or not Freudian psychoanalysis is valid or not. If someone has a broken arm one doesn't call a witch doctor and if someone has a physical deficiency in the brain many would not waste time calling in a Freudian analysist.

 

Even if someone has a non-physical psychological issue most health care providers today would still not call in a Freudian analysis but would try other approaches to help the patient. Few would be obsessed with the complexities of the patient's buried repressed subconscious sexual relationship with their parents Instead they might try stress relief, coping skills, etc. Freud would be out of the picture.

 

Edited to point out this is in response to the full positng and not the just parts quoted above

Sorry, I was just throwing that in.

I actually think the basics of Fruedian theory are correct. From an evolutionary point of view it's hard to believe that sexual desire ISN'T the prime mover behind everything else.

 

I think he went a bit far, and some of his conclusions were just plain wrong, but in general I think he was on the button.

This is more of what I was believing.

The reason one may have poor coping skills or depression isn't because of some early childhood relationship issue with mom or pop but a chemical deficiency, etc. that is corrected with diet, pharmaceutical regimen or allergy avoidance.

I'm a firm believer of exhausting every psyhcological therapy known and maybe thinking of new ones before even considering "chemical" solutions to problems.

Of course, I'm not really an expert, like I said, I am of young college age myself.

Tee hee, maybe my title is misleading, we all know Freud is dead, physically, but his teachings?

Let me explain. Me and friends have been in a......debate. They are of college age and have been taking basic college psychology courses. (United States) One day, somehow, Freud get's brought up, and they say "Freud's a crackpot."

Is this true? Has Freud "died" in the scientific community? I realize that a..few... of his theories are shunned, but I was of the opinion that psychoanalytical theory was still pretty popular and generally held in high esteem.

I've been studying Psychology for a while, but I admit most of my sources are outdated. (What is Walden II? Just kidding ~_^)