1veedo

It doesn't have to be GNU. BSD for instance constitutes free. Something can be "free" by this definition and you still pay for it in cash. Anymore you can make more money servicing your product then you can selling it. Ubuntu for instance makes enough selling support to ship free CDs w/ the OS on it (you dont even pay shipping). The Network Releases were 100% non-at&t but the people who wrote it intended for it to be a "free Unix." The university had been working w/ at&t for a long time before they closed everything up so they knew a lot about how it worked. It sold for $1000 under the BSD license -- meaning after you payed the $1000 you could do whatever you wanted with it. It wasn't a clone of Unix though. Even after Network Release 2, the BSDs had some growing up to do. It came up short of at&t's Unix. So I guess you are right there -- it has an integrate history w/ Unix where Linux was original just a way to get GNU running on a 386. Unix didn't run on the 386. Linus had a 386 and wanted Unix. So he made Linux. At the time most people running Unix ran GNU on top of it. So on the outside Linus's first Linux distro was pratically identical to Unix. Linux + GNU Bash + GCC. You could then install everything you'd use on a Unix computer. It was like swapping out the Unix kernel for the Linux kernel and leaving everything else. It could run non-GNU stuff but Linux very quickly got released under the GPL and most of it's users were happy to stick with free software.

BSD is an imitation of Unix as well. I'm surprised you said this, the tree, "BSD is closer to a "free Unix" than Linux is and knows it." Anybody who knows anything about the history behind these operating systems knows that Linux was more like Unix than BSD was (BSD has grown up a lot though). After running across Linux for the first time, John Hall famously said, "By that time I had been using UNIX for probably about fifteen years. I had used System V, I had used Berkeley, and all sorts of stuff, and this really felt like UNIX. You know...I mean, it's kind of like playing a piano. You can play the piano, even if it's a crappy piano. But when it's a really good piano, your fingers just fly over the keys. That's the way this felt...and I was really impressed." After trying Linux, Hall went on to influence the development of Alpha Chip support and brought it to his company (Digital). This was a big move in the right direction for Linux and was the first time Linux moved out of the "basements" of computer nerds and into corporate computers -- eventually out doing at&t itself. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Hall_(programmer) Linux shipped with the source code which is what Unix used to do for a long time. Today we talk about about proprietary and free software but back then it was just "software." Software was always free. Maybe not in cost (at&t charged upwards of 10,000 usd) but software always shipped with its source code (including Unix). When companies started closing their code base, the computer industry took a turn for the worse. Today it's not which operating system is better but which platform is better. Free software or proprietary? You can chose just about any free operating system (Mac, Linux, BSD, but lets exclude less mature ones like Hurd) and they are all mostly functionally the same. They all run X, they're all Unix-like (certified by The Open Group), and they have source available. Programs that run on Linux run on FreeBSD run on Mac. The exception here being that Macs do some things that FreeBSD/Linux dont but Apple still contends "we try to keep Darwin as compatible as possible with FreeBSD." So here we have "two significant families of Operating System." We have Windows as a proprietary OS. And then we have free software; BSD/Mac/Linux.

I always thought computer science was just programming. Which is why I thought it was odd we had a computer science forum -- it's not science! At our school computer science isn't counted as a science class (despite having the word "science" in the title), they teach like Java or some other shitty language.

Internet 3 is already beta. They're copying firefox -- as soon as internet 2 was released, Internet 3 was already getting attention.

That's easy. You can put it in oil/natural gas wells. Recap the hole you drilled in the cap rock. Reusing depleted mines for garbage disposal is actually a very profitable business because not many places can dispose of highly "toxic" stuff. If nuclear power plants start to be used more, that would be good industry to invest in. The only problem with nuclear power plants is that the plutonium that gets produced from spent uranium can be used in nuclear weapons, so you are right there. On the other hand newer technology can use the plutonium. It's actually possible to turn nuclear weapons into fuel this way. I think if the government agreed to deplete nuclear stockpiles the general public would be behind the decision. None of the other issues that come up, such as safety, hold any ground against nuclear plants. Many people have missconceptions about them, especially about nuclear meltdowns. The only problem comes when you misplace your plutonium and Iran gets ahold of it. This is easy too, depending on the location. You can use excess energy to pump water up a hill and then you have potential energy. Even if there aren't any hills around you can artificially create storage. The latter is a bit more expensive then it's worth though. If prices keep rising it may become an option. Just burry the "pipes and walls" with the other waste. Again, disposing of nuclear waste isn't a problem. You mention this a couple times. I'm not an expert on the power grid but electricity can be transported from distant locations. For instance the local coal plant where I live helps power a fourth of the state of New York. When you look at so called "green power" where you pay extra to get power from solar/wind and the such, its' not like they're marking electrons from these locations and sending specially to your house. You're going to get power from whatever source the rest of your neighborhood gets it from, even if it is "dirty." Essentially power grids work by sharing the power. You can build a nuclear power plant in the middle of nowhere and it would technically be powering the "local" area but now that it's taking care of that area the previous energy that was going there can now go elsewhere, offseting other local energy supplies, which indirectly effect the amount of power on another location (like LA). Basically the grid has one large supply of energy and you can put energy into the grid from any location you fancy to increate this total supply. Conversely if a power plant goes off line, the grid will pick off the slack. If the local coal plant shuts down, 1/4 of New York doesn't go without power. Plants as far away as California are would help to pick up the slack. One way to prevent blackouts would be to make an excess of power plants. Instead of dropping sections of the grid when it reaches maximum capacity (which usually brings other plants offline thus making the situation even worse), you could have enough plants to always be able to introduce more power into the grid, no matter where you're putting them. The problem is that the production of these plants isn't going to return a very large payback to investors because it'll take work from other plants -- plants operated by the same companies. Add in the price to manage and build it and you've got an economic looser. The blind hand of economics has really put us into places that have much better alternatives. I like to think of it as the "The Blind Watchmaker" of economics. As long as it makes people money in the short term nobody cares about planning the future*. If you dont take advantage of economic opportunities as they come up then you loose and company B buys you out. We could have a better power grid and better energy fuels if only people would have agreed 50 years ago to rethink things, regardless of profit. But now we've peaked on both oil and natural gas (natural gas powers the majority of America) and prices are going up. I think I'm quoting somebody when I say we're cluster****ed. A couple good books to read if youre interested in this kind of stuff are buy Kenneth S Deffeyes; Hubbert's Peak: The Impending World Energy Shortage and Beyond Oil: The View From Hubbert's Peak. There's also a really good documentary called "The End of Suberbia." I think its' funny because In 2001 Deffeyes predicted Norway would peak in the next two years and in hindsight he was right. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Norway_hubbert.jpg I read that and jumped strait to google to see what actually happened to Norway. Beyond Oil is his latest book (2005) and it talks about renewable energy sources, such as "water power cars." I havn't read this whole thread but I assume (and hope) somebody else has already pointed out that "water power cars," ethonol "corn oil," and hydrogen power are all losers. Renewable resources are highly misunderstood by most people. It's like a giant public falsehood that makes people happy. "Technology will save us." It kidn of falls in line with the concept of "ignorance is bliss." If you dont know how royally ****ed we really are you can wake up happy thinking the world is just going to keep chugging along. I was talking to a girl just today and she didn't know we were at war in Iraq! She was entirely too perky and I probably ruined her day by telling her that we were at war. I cant help but imagine how she'd react knowing that we peaked global oil production in December of 2005. *unless planning for the future is economical -- for instance lots of manjor oil companies are selling fields to smaller indipnedent companies. Because oil production has, or very shortly will, peak, average oil prices are rising. The most money now you can make in oil comes from recent fields that are still relatively new and can pump oil much cheaper. Letting go of oil fields that aren't as profitable indirectly increase total earnings for the company because they can invest more heavily on the rest of their oil.

50lb is 50lb no matter what way you look at it. Btw it's probably cheepest to look in the clasifieds for things like this. Bodybuilding/"Health" is extreamly profitable and companies exploit this.

Well, I never said it was only neural static, but agreed. Freud hasn't been completely thrown out. There is a sort of resentment among psychologists towards, not necessarily Freud, but how a lot of people think psychology is Freud laying people on couches, interpreting dreams, and discovering repressed memories that have been silently bugging victims of psychopathologies (resentment isn't the proper word; it's a sort of passive meme). Even the Skeptic's Dictionary has an article about him, http://skepdic.com/psychoan.html Just purely supposition, but from my recent attempts at invoking lucid dreams (and thus finding dream signs), a lot of "physical" signs in my dreams, though not on the surface, seem to resemble a lot of ordinary objects I've seen, mostly recently (relative to the dream). Discovering what these are is actually pretty fun because you come to a sort of eiry realization, "those cloths I gave to the convict is actually the pile of close in my room." I had a different dream where I took off my toboggan and put them in the pile of clothes. This pile of cloths though isn't usually apparent, not even after the dream; it seems disguised. The problem with trying to make inferences about what exactly these dream signs "mean", on the other hand, is purely futile because it could be interpreted many different ways to mean many different things. My first lucid dream came when I suddenly recognized the distortion of my pile of cloths, but I woke up. I was like (in a sluggish manner), "hey, these aren't supposed to be out here in the mall." (a couple seconds latter lingering on this first thought) "They should be in my room." This may in a way be what Freud refers to as an unconscious disguised meaning. Though I see no reasons to suppose what he did. This is of course exactly what I was talking about earlier when I said memories get distorted and it "might have led Freud astray." So it's like two ways of looking at the same thing. Freud of course took the idea in his own direction. Realizing what dreams are actually makes them seem less strange or complicated. I never really thought about dreams before, beyond what I had learned in books/school, mainly because of the way school is, I rarely have dreams (well if I think "hard enough" I can usually remember some not so vivid scenes. People always dream, of course. They can be of a sort of lesser quality though -- as you go through the night your dreams become longer and more intricate.) I wonder if lucid dreams somehow disrupt the natural patterns of dreaming. This questions has been asked by psychologists but there's no real answer (see wikipedia). I would think probably not, but you never know, and it could have some other effects, possibly positive. I could see the frontal cortex becoming active in lucid dreams. Lucid dreams are suposidly very vivid (I wouldn't know...) and it may be because the cortex processes memories/cognitive functions a little better and stores your "experience" better then a normal dream.

I'm referring to the kind of social proof commonly exploited in marketing. Just the fact that the majority of people believe in interpreting dreams -- that dreams have meaning (also that dreams can predict the future, that memories get suppressed, etc, but this is irrelevant to the point). So it's not like I'm trying to suppose a dream theory based on social proof. I'm just saying it carries the quality of having social proof. Just an off note, "monkey see monkey do" is known as observational learning, not social proof The point I was making is that although Freud no longer has "social proof" in the academic circle, the majority of the general population still believes all this stuff about the unconscious mind, ego, etc. As I noted above, "In science, Darwin's legacy lives on while Freud's is waning (Bornstein, 2001), In the popular culture, Freud's legacy lives on. Some ideas that many people assume to be true [about psychology] - that childhood experiences mold personality, that dreams have meaning, that many behaviors have [unconscious] disguised motives - are part of that legacy...With out realizing their source, we may speak of ego, repression, projection, complex (as in "inferiority complex"), sibling rivalry, Freudian slops, and fixation. "Freud's premises may have undergone a steady decline in currency within academia for many years," noted Martin Seligman (1994), but "Hollywood, the talk shows, many therapists, and the general public still love them." (ok I know I missed citation three but it comes from Myers.) "i would aprecaite an article a little more up to speed." This is known as the argument from age. Although in science recent is usually better, you cannot argue something just because it's "old" or "new." Besides, "my article" is actually more recent then the article you're citing (not only is your article 1999, the research it talks about was published in 1998 and 1997. The 1997 study is actually, btw, referenced by Domhoff: "The plausible idea that dreams are the guardians of sleep is now contradicted by two very different kinds of findings. First, the frequency and regularity of dreaming in most people suggests that the process cannot be primarily a way to deal with urges that emerge episodically during sleep. Second, dreams cannot be the guardians of sleep if there are people who can sleep even though they do not dream, and we now have reason to believe there are such people, including young children (Foulkes, 1999), leucotomized schizophrenics (Jus et al., 1973), neurology patients suffering from parietal lobe injuries (Solms, 1997), and perhaps normal adults with weak visuospatial skills (Butler & Watson, 1985)." It seems your "up to date research" is so old it's cited by my "6 year old research.") And if you look at the date for my textbook, well, lets say it's maybe a couple months old. I'm not about to engage in a never ending argument from authority though. (A lot of the information found in that study has been out for a long time, for instance being able to "see" in dreams. I (ironically) recall seeing a picture of the brain "while you sleep" in Psychology that may have came out of that study; it emphasized activity in parts of the brain associated with visual perception.) Well, this is where your article fails you as the logic isn't that great. Not to argue on purely linguistic grounds but they couldn't have found a more stereotypical journalist; "'Genuine breakthrough' Leaders in the field who once entirely dismissed Freud's theories say that Braun's and Solms's findings are very significant. "I think it's a genuine breakthrough," says psychiatrist John A. Hobson, MD, of Harvard Medical School. "Either one of these methods would constitute a new look. But the fact that they've come simultaneously and complement one another makes you sit up and take notice." But Hobson doesn't agree that the new research demonstrates that dreams serve as wish-fulfillment, as Freud proposed. " The author calls it a genuine breakthrough out of context. He quotes Hobson to say "leaders in the field who once dismissed Freud's theories.." yet Hobson himself seems to think differently. I actually happen to know what the article is (historically) talking about. It is a genuine breakthrough in the sense that it taught us why dreams are so weird. If you take 1)The fact that the limbic system is active 2)Higher brain functions are relatively inactive 3)Dreams are usually memories/knowlege You can logically conclude that a lot of dreams would be related to emotional experiences. This in and of itself might have led Freud astray into thinking about unconscious motives, sexual desires, etc. The limbic system is of course, if you've ever read anything about mnemonics, a very important part of the brain you want to stimulate if you want to remember something. Memories tied with emotion are usually remembered better. W/ the cortex relatively inactive and limbic system trying to "remember" things, they'd get distorted. Not only in recall but also in logical coherence, making dreams, as the article rightfully claims, "bizarre imagery, loss of critical insight and logic, diminished self-reflection, inability to shift attention, morphing of time, place and identity and forgetting of dreams." This is the true beuty of the discovery. Braun is just taking this a little further. Some dreams can be emotional, or sexual, or may seem to be a repressed childhood memory (and it only makes sense the limbic system would be active) but this doesn't prove they have deep, unconscious relations to childhood experiences or sexual desires. (actually just as a side note most objects in dreams don't have hidden meanings. A dog is usually just a dog, probably a dog you've seen before or made from your concept of what a dog should be) I think the article speaks pretty well for itself; it does not prove Freud's dream theory. Besides, there is still plenty of contrary evidence against Freud's dream theory. Just to get an idea of the magnotude of research we're talkign about here, why don't you take a look at Domboff's paper? Well, I think I know a little about Freud considering it's already been covered/tested in my 401 class, which I happen to have nearly 100%. This is all ad hominem but you're mistaken if you don't think I understand Freud's theories. The excerpts I posted for your convenience come out of sections discussing some of Freud's theories. Originally I thought you were just some guy who had read something about Freud and thought you were an expert on psychology. I apologize if I dismissed you so quickly but at the same time you've pretty much ignored almost everything I've said (here you are saying " Who has refuted the ego?" when here it is in post #16 right out of a mainstream psychology text book. I clearly have my sources in order and you are merely ignoring them. What I'm trying to tell you is something you would learn were you to take a basic psychology class down at your local university. What I'm saying isn't something that's "controversial" or "up for debate;" it's standard curriculum. Ask any psychologist for yourself. You of course have a right to disagree but at the same time, herme3 has a right to know that your opinion is a minority one (cant you feel the pressures of social proof?) and you shouldn't keep trying to present it as if it were (but lets let herme3 make up his own mind instead of suggesting he "find the real meaning of the dream and what his subconscios is trying to tell him"). As I referenced above, Freud did have some things right, but his ideas relating to the "purpose" of a dream, childhood experiences/sexual desires emerging in dreams, etc, are largely disputed among reputable scientists.

/me whistles

Ok, well I ask you this. From my post above, "there is no reason to believe any of Freud's specific claims about dreams and their purposes." (taken from here) You contend this is not the case. So what evidence is there for his dream theory? You talk about the "ego" yet this is the sort of stuff that has been dismissed by mainstream psychologists. Even if some of Freud's ideas are still taken for face value, these are not them. Well, maybe not for his dream theories (if we take your word for it w/o due citation), but repression is definitely the basis for the majority of his work. The only reason I can think of why people like Freud is social proof. Unfortunately, in science, Freud doesn't have social proof. Only in the general (uneducated) population will you find people talking about the ego/id, dream meanings, etc. The only notable psychologists that most people know about is Freud. Just like e=mc^2 is the only physics equation most people know or Richard Dawkins is the only notable evolutionist people can name (he's a zoologists but people only know him for his work in evolutionary theory). The story is annoyingly cliche. If you've read the Universe in a Nutshell, people will think you understand basic physics (hell, nowadays everbody's seen Brian Green's special on PBS about string theory). If you've read the Selfish Gene, all the sudden you're an expert on biology. If you even mention Freud, people assume you know a lot about psychology. People that don't know any better, that is. Psychology is hugely misunderstood by the general population. It almost seems tabo because people assume so many things about psychology that they hear from TV, books, magazines, etc. "Oh, it must be scary living with a psychologist. Does he analyze you every day?" The introduction to most college level psychology books mention this. I find it only appropriate that we discuss mainstream psychology and thus make inferences based on accepted models. There is no reason herme3 needs to "find the part of the dream that fulfilled a repressed or ignored wish," "think about why he would wish to see the girl," or "find the real meaning of the dream and what his subconscious is trying to tell him." (From Domhoff: "Three general ideas remain from Freudian and Jungian theory...First, dreaming is a cognitive process that draws on memory schemas, episodic memories, and general knowledge to produce reasonable simulations of the real world (Antrobus, 1991; Foulkes, 1985; Foulkes, 1999) , with due allowance for the occasional highly unusual or extremely memorable dream (Bulkeley, 1999; Hunt, 1989; Knudson & Minier, 1999; Kuiken & Sikora, 1993). Second, dreams have psychological meaning in the sense of coherency, correlations with other psychological variables, and correspondences with waking thought (Domhoff, 1996; Foulkes, 1985; Hall, 1953b). Third, the unusual features of dreams, such as unlikely juxtapositions, metamorphoses, and impossible acts, may be the product of figurative thought (Hall, 1953a; Lakoff, 1997) . However, none of these ideas implies that dreams have any "purpose" or adaptive function, and least of all the functions proposed for them by Freud and Jung (Antrobus, 1993; Foulkes, 1993).")

Not everything Freud did is obsolete, but his theories about dreams, and especially (sexual) repression, have been shown time and time again to be wrong. On top of this, most of his work is unscientific [1]. To be scientific it has to be falsifiable. "In his landmark book, The Interpretation fo Dreams, [published in 1900, Freud offered what he thought was "the most valuable of all the discoveries it has been my good forture to make." He argued that by fulfilling wishes, a dream provides a psychic safety valve that discharges otherwise unacceptable feelings. According to Freud, a dream's manifest, or apparent, content is censored, symbolic version of its latent content, which consists of unconscious drives and wishes that would be threatening if expressed directly. Although most dreams have no overt sexual imagery, Freud nevertheless believed that most adult dreams can be "traced back to analysis to erotic wishes." This a gun might be a disguised representation fo a penis. Freud considered dreams the key to understanding our inner conflicts. However, his critics say it is time to wake up from Freud's dream theory...Based on the accumulated science, "there is no reason to believe any of Freud;s specific claims about dreams and their purposes," notes dream research William Domhollf (2000). Some contend that even if dreams are symbolic, they could be interpreted any way one wished. others maintain that dreams hide nothing. A dream about a gun is a dream about a gun. Legend has it that even Freud, who loved to smoke cigars, remarked that "sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar." [2] "In science, Darwin's legacy lives on while Freud's is waning (Bornstein, 2001), In the popular culture, Freud's legacy lives on. Some ideas that many people assume to be true [about psychology] - that childhood experiences mold personality, that dreams have meaning, that many behaviors have [unconscious] disguised motives - are part of that legacy...With out realizing their source, we may speak pf ego, repression, projection, complex (as in "inferiority complex"), sibling rivalry, Freudian slops, and fixation. "Freud's premises may have undergone a steady decline in currency within academia for many years," noted Martin Seligman (1994), but "Hollywood, the talk shows, many therapists, and the general public still love them.""[3] Just one last thing... The Hell are you talking about? Products of neurotransmitters? If you don't understand science. you shouldn't pretend that you do. Neurotransmitters are little chemicals inside you that are produced by neurons. They difuse into the synaptic gaps between all your little neuroes and either inhibit (make it less likely for that neuron to fire) or excite (make it more likely for that neuron to reach action potention and fire. Thus we find endorphins reduce pain (by making neurons in your leg or wherever less likely to fire pain signals). [1] Myers, David G. Psychology, Eighth Edition. 2007. Pg 687-688. "because they cannot be proven or disproven...Psychoanalysis is therapy, not science." Facts overwhelmingly prove that most "repressed memories," such as childhood sexual abuse, do not exist. Frued concentrated on childhood traumas and experiences, and repression is of paramount importance to his theories. "Freud's entire psychoanalytic theory rests on his assumption that the human mind often represses painful experiences, banishing them into the unconscious until, with the help f a guide, we someho uncover them, finding them intact, like long-lost books in a dusty atic...In one survey, 88 percent of university students believed that painful expericen commonly get pushed out of awareness and into the uncounsions (Garry et al, 1994) Actually, conted many of today's researches, repression, if it even occurs, is a rare mental respons to terrible rrauma. "Repression folklore is...partly refuted, partly untested, partly untestable," says Elizebeth Loftus (1995). " (ibid, 604) Latter, "Psychologists also criticize Freud's theory for it's scientific shortcomings. Recall from Chapter 1 that good scientific theories explain observations and offer testable hypotheses...it fails to predict such behaviors and traits. If you feel angry at your mothers death, you illustrate his theory because "your unresolved childhood dependency needs are threatened." If you do not feel angry, you again illustrate his theory because "you are repression your anger."" (606-607) [2] Ibid, 287.

God, all of you completely missed his point. It's not necessarily about de ja vu. There have been times when I thought of something "new" and found latter that somebody "copied" it, had already done it, or was planning to do it. Some guy, like Chris Jung , who mentored Freud came up with this idea maybe 50+ years ago. It's probably the same thing mimefan599 is talking about (Jungian...makes sense if he named it after himself). Because humans are so similar we often think the same way. There are "archetypes" that have recurred in numerous religious, epics, literature, cultures etc, around the world throughout history, that could not have been influenced by each other (via cultural diffusion). For instance Beowulf compared to the Iliad or Odyssey. Both epics were written worlds apart (relatively speaking for that age), have a different story, yet they share many similar themes. Not all archetypes developed this way though. If you look at religions, the Christian Hell is adopted from Greek Hades. Noah's Arch is simply Gilgamesh after years of story telling. Etc. But there are plenty of other examples, for instance dragons were invented around the world in almost every major religion and culture. From the Mayans, to the Christians, to the Chinese. There's a dragon special that shows up on the history channel every now and then, and they note (something to the effect), "dragons appear to be embedded in the human psyche...Inseparable from human nature." I think it's funny when autism was discovered it was discovered simultaneously by two men who had never heard of each other yet both ended up calling it the same thing, from a Latin word which means "to one's self" or something.

Technically speaking you could. The PS3 can run Linux.

Pen and Teller did a bullshit episode on Peta: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1913999390200944075&q=bullshit+peta

Heh I've had this unanswered question for a while but I know the answer now. Every decade (now) is rising .2C. The temperature per any year fluctuates greatly (for instance next year isn't going to be .02C higher, it might be lower, or maybe an entire few degrees higher). Between 1975 and 2005 temperatures rose .6C. Between 1900 and 2000, temperatures rose .8C, at an average rate much slower than the current rate of change (.2C+/decade. Half of the total temperature change for last century occurred the last two decades. The other .4 took 80 years.). Here's a graph: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Satellite_Temperatures.png

It's actually more generally accept that it's a side effect of neural static and other functions of REM sleep. Freud's theories are over 100 years old and are scientific nightmares. There's no evidence to accept any of Freud's ideas about dreaming. Dreaming is actually much more important than fulfilling wishes. Dreaming helps sort through what is important to remember about the days events and fortifies memories. If you don't sleep, your memory plummets -- you cant learn anything new. Some experiments have shown that people woken during REM (as compared to other sleep stages) remember less the next morning -- for instance a phrase given to them by a research before they went to bed. Dreaming is also when neurogenesis occurs. It provides the brain with stimulation. Stimulation of course has tremendous effects on young children. Different control groups of mice are given stimulating environments (happy rat) and boring environments (sad rat) durring their youth and the sad rats not only perform far worse on memory functions but their neural pathways are far less matured, showing that the happy rats experienced far more neurogenesis. This is why infants spend so much time in REM sleep. Nothing personal but Freudian psychology is very outdated and disputed. You've been reading some very misleading information about psychology and dreaming somewhere. Interpreting dreams and all this other mumbo jumbo is largely a thing of the past. Psychology is a much more respectable discipline now.

The Selfish Gene (heh people are probably thinking, "you mean you havn't read this book yet!")

PGP anyone? If you're really paranoid you could use pgp to encrypt over a webserver. (assuming of course you own the webserver)

The password can be broken if you know something that's been encrypted and the real text, the special md5 encryption code, or a couple other things (there are special files on the server). Some websites will leave the encryption script open letting users type in text and getting the md5 back, allowing them to hack the script. (if you notice some porn sites encript the "real" site w/ md5 -- php?site=q45ehy8... and if you get the site you hack the md5 algorithm and can then decode all the other links) There are articles on the Internet about all this. I used to know how but that was a while ago. You just use john, it's really not that hard. I doubt your site has any problem though -- if it's one of the big forum software programs like vb or phpbb.

Heh port mapping is pretty useful for websites. Your router can do that AND your name server. DynDNS for instance can auto send data over port 80 for a name to your computer at 81, another name to port 82, etc, but from the user end it's all port 80. That way one address can host more than one website (w/o requiring :81/:82). I'm not sure what you meant by the rest of the post though. The whole thing about blocking other computers from the Internet was discussed in the other thread I posted: http://scienceforums.net/showthread.php?t=10110 He forwarded a port for halo and his brother was still playing halo. "If so how could my brother be playing the game on port 2302?" I think dave explains it pretty well in post 5 and Silencer again in 17.

There's a little distinction you're not making here. By definition you forward a port to only one computer. It'd be pretty difficult to split incoming connections to two computers. This is just common sense but I guess some people are dumb and think you can. Other computers can still use forwarded ports though. It's not like when you forward a port you make a black list, "oops, nobody else can use this port now." This is because they make outgoing connections and routers (well maybe TCP/IP, according to dave) are smart enough to send everything where it belongs. Incoming connections only go to one place though. What dak pointed out is just that, if you wanted to, you could specify ports to be sent to other computers, and the rest would still go to the dmz computer.

Lol DMZ is the feature I was looking for. My router was just being stupid. After resetting it (with a pin) it seems to be working. Btw: The Internet still works for everyone else

If you think people here are immature you obviously haven't been around the web that much. Forums like scienceforums.net, IIDB, and (real) programming sites generally have smarter/more mature members. OMFG here comes the illuminati bringing new world order choose YOUR side and fight to the death to defend it!

Other computers would be able to get on the Internet Forwarding only concerns incoming connections. I already have twenty port ranges forwarded to my computer (I'm not really using them all at the moment but instead of editing virtual servers I just leave them). It essentially is THE server on my network. The other two computers dont run any services, and probably cant in the first place (they're both Windows). "If so, forwarding every port makes all connections go to you." This is essentially what I want. It's just an annoyance. It'd be so much easier if I didn't have to constantly edit my router settings. Plus at twenty I'm out of room to forward any more ports. (ok, yeah, I know twenty is a lot but most are rarely used. Like all the filesharing ports -- I don't use them all the time, just every now and then when I need something.) So am I out of luck or is it possible to do this?

Ok well this is getting ridiculous. I tried putting my computer in DMZ but this apparently brings my computer out of the firewall and doesn't do much to forward ports. I assume there are like 50000 ports so I tried forwarding the range 1 - 50000 and my router told me to reset and log on again. So that didn't really work. I had twenty other forwards to begin with so maybe it would've been better to delete those first, but anyway, aside from running all these wires around and connecting directly to the Internet (thus kicking the other computers off), is there anyway I can just tell the router, "Forward everything to my computer?"