Genecks

After reading the requirements of Vista, I decided it was a big resource hog.

20 GB hard drive with at least 15 GB of available space.

- http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsvista/editions/systemrequirements.mspx

That's just too freaking much memory. I don't know what the operating system could offer me. I rather have a faster computer, not a large operating system. When it comes to operating systems, the bigger they are, the harder they fall.

I will continue to use Windows XP and Linux. Until I can figure out how to setup wifi in linux, I use Windows XP. But given the time and ability, I would readily stay with Linux.

Only get VISTA if you are forced to because of consumer products. I like to stick to old programs and whatnot. However, nobody ever archives old programs. People should start doing that.

Hmm. Thought so. Problem is, I don't know how to find folder.htt

I thought I made all hidden files visible. Any ideas as to what I should do? Perhaps a double check?

Also, any particular way I should setup the CD-ROM?

I thought the CD would automatically use folder.htt, but I guess I was wrong.

On a second note, it could be my disc drive. It spins the CD after it burns something, but I have to restart for it to be read. Or else I have to eject and wait a long time before reinserting. However, I have restarted with the settings. Therefore, i don't understand what is wrong.

How should I set the compact disc's folder settings?

Is there anyway to create a folder wallpaper for CD-ROMs by using IESHWIZ or manipulating the desktop.ini file?

I'm trying to understand the nomenclature of oxyanions, but I don't understand how I can look at the periodic table and tell which oxyanion has an -ite or -ate suffix.

How do I figure it out?

Is there some kind of pattern?

I don't see much information on the web about this.

I have a hunch it has something to do with orbitals, but I'm not sure.

Perhaps my understanding of significant figures is still wrong.

Would you say it's to be 2.55?

Yar. I am confused as to significant numbers within theory vs. real-life measurements.

With +/- .25 I assume that means two significant figures: 2.5

Thus, it could be 2.75

Or it could be 2.25

But doesn't going down from the observed measurement somewhat skew experimental truth?

Would this be two significant figures or three significant figures?

The middle marks before the 4 and above the 0 are to represent .5 marks.

I got lazy and didn't add in the labels after 4.

I'm trying to understand how people use instruments and determine significant figures. After reading my book, I figure it would probably say there are two significant figures: 2.5

But from the looks of it, I would say there are three significant figures: 2.55

I'm certain it's above the 2.5, but I'm not sure about anything between 2.5 and 3.0.

Would it be better to say 2.50?

I can't determine how people figure out the amount of significant figures when looking at something like this.

Sure, I'm uncertain about the number between the 2.5 and 3.0. But that doesn't mean I instantly say 2.5, right?

If the lazy example for a miniscus was on the 2.5, then would I say there are two significant figures?

Is there a standard SI unit for volume?

Would it be [math]m^3[/math]?

I was reading a book, and it said people like to use [math]cm^3[/math], but that doesn't define what's considered standard.

Define "bound."

I figure something is allowing the atoms to stick to each other when they cool down from liquid form.

I read reading a book, and it said white gold is a mixture and not a compound.

I don't understand how it's a mixture unless it's all melted. And when it's cooled down and formed into a ring, then isn't it a compound?

I don't understand how it's a mixture instead of a compound.

Is that because different amounts of gold and palladium are mixed, such as different percentages?

wow.. thanks for all your time to write that. it was awesomely knowledgable.

 

 

haha thanks Genecks for referrig to ninjas.. i can understand much easier now haha.

 

also, just say "someone" kills someone an no one saw the incident, apart from the follwoing left behind FROM the killer : hair, clothe fargments, the murder weapon, blood. what else could be left behind to find the killer.

 

and.. is this correct to saY: "america utilises more advanced crime solving techniques than australia"

 

if that statement is true... does that mean its easier to get away with a murder here compared to U.S and A.

Skin cells can be left behind. A variety of things can be left behind.

As said before, there are plenty of hypothetical killing possibilities. Because there are so many ways to kill someone, there are so many more ways to leave evidence. This evidence could be from a puncture wound to the way someone killed the person.

The evidence left behind, as said before, depends on what happened before, during, and after the murder. As the plot unfolds, evidence becomes created. It truly is up to the killer to figure out what could be left as a scrap of evidence.

It's because of the critical thinking required in killing, that someone has to inquire about every action occuring. It's like playing a large game of Chess and thinking about every move.

I don't really know that much about various countries and their ways of dealing with crime. I know America will find someone if solving the crime is highly important or the person killed was important. In other words, if the killer isn't found, positions of power in society begin to change. It's like finding Macbeth.

Also, you can't trace DNA from a single cell that's been there for days, it decomposes. Also, tracing a single cell is very, very hard, as the DNA needs to be multiplied (replicated) in order to have enough for a test.

Polymerase chain reaction.

Also, people are getting better at creating technology (DNA electrophoresis technology) to quickly compare DNA strands.

The shows CSI and the such have been criticized because the chemical and biological forensic processes take a long time to do. People don't obtain results at the snap of their fingers. CSI shows distort chronological historicity, or else they simply ignore the fact it takes a while to do a forensic analysis of something.

You might be able to kill someone, but they'll use old police tracking methods to find you. Afterwards, they'll have used forensic analysis to find out more about you. From there, they'll combine old-school police tactics and science to track you. If you can outsmart both of those, they probably won't catch you until a later date. If you're a smart criminal, you'll have changed your identity or location by the later date. Otherwise, you'll have disappeared.

I understand it is just a crime drama and has been greatly simplified for TV. The point is that they often find just a hair or a fiber and that is enough to give a starting direction in the investigation. It may be a false start, but it enough to start. That is the point -- no matter how hard you try, you are always going to leave some evidence behind.

Did you know ancient Egyptians would shave all the hair off their body? They considered this a way to stay clean and increase life longetivity.

It's not that hard for someone to buzz all the hair of his or her body, use Nair, and shave what is left.

I assume going to Wal*Mart, buying some basic jeans and a popular t-shirt would make it hard to be found. Popularity and conformists allow evil people to easily blend in.

It's called improvisation. I'm seriously sick of people whom say they are smart and can't improvise worth crap. I never disected a frog, and I'm sure it's not necessary. If you want to disect something, go find that something. Otherwise, change your study habits for the surrounding habitat.

Adapatation and improvisation are a few keys to success.

I use my poweruser tools on a different forum. A person needs some poweruser tools.

My most recent dream was being in a mall. Some guys came in with semi-automatic guns. They wanted to start killing people, and I hit the floor. Funny thing, though: I hit the ground first, wondering if people would follow suit. They copied my behavior. It was funny.

After some time, I eventually told everyone to rise and attack. It worked and the intruders had a beat down.

Interestingly, I was with my beautiful ex-girlfrlend in that dream. The best part was the beautiful ex, but everything else was nightmarish. I don't think dreams release stress.

I just want the sleep, memory, and recall bit to take place as quickly as possible. Hell, give me modafinil and let's call it another day. I don't care for sleep.

I think it's more possible to alter dreams after intermittent waking periods. Of course, a person has to wonder if it's still a dream.

This is so kewl.

Well, I don't see how much of this thread is scientific. It's more of a forensic science, and it depends on what you do before and after the murder. If no one knows who you are and where you went, and there is no trace of evidence of your existance after you've done the murder, then you get away. Of course, you need to destroy the weapon and so many other things. Doing that, of course, begins to involve science. That's when forensic scientists start to reverse engineer things you've done.

Anyway, this doesn't seem like a scientific thread.

I've heard many people talk about criminal investigations not going far because people didn't have the resources or enough care. Of course, that's when things become cold cases. And murder doesn't stop being a cold case. When they get enough resources, they'll reopen the file, relook the evidence, and fry you.

These days most advanced killers research forensics. They'll study how evidence could be left behind, and they'll prevent leaving evidence behind. It's all about being a ninja. It really comes down to that, Gaara.

There is one more thing, though.

I've always wondered how people in the past would get drunkards, fill them to the brim with alcohol, and later turn them into cadaavers. I'm pretty sure if you used some old-school killing methods, you might be able to dispose of a body or at least make it disappear. Of course, most people have research old-school tactics. Someone who likes studying history and biology will eventually notice.

Most killers try to lure the prey instead of attacking it. random murders sometimes work wonders. There's no motive. Yet the law enforcement agencies have wised up to these kind of killers. It's all about stealth these days.

I hear they can help treat glaucoma.

There's more than one way to get stoned.

What do you think of this article?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/02/AR2006110200913.html

I'm thinking we will still have fish. It seems to me that more and more people are thinking the end of time is near.

Rubber, so you don't put dents in the floor...

Or you could get a very thick rubber mat and buy cheap stuff.

I really suggest a rubber mat for those who want to use dumbbells.

One thing leads to another. Typically it's a conscious thought that creates a neurophysiological, biochemical reaction. Somewhere afterwards, tropomyosin is activated, and that eventually activated the actin within the muscle. After some other stuff, the muscles tighten.

Getting into the nitty gritty of that stuff can be difficult, and that's why a person has to develop spatial reasoning and a good imagination. Otherwise, it's a bunch of word memorization along with sequence memorization. I sometimes think to myself that the human brain is becoming like a computer when it thinks about how each action and reaction occurs in the body.

Given that and an appropriate model (usually a frog gastrocnemius), we can remove a muscle from a living organism, place it in a special solution to keep it alive (basically saltwater) and stimulate it to contract.

You mean galvanizing it, right?

I'm really curious what people think about this.

I'm thinking we ought to move this thread to the education board.

Could it be used to extract pollution?

I've always wondered if people could create a type of self-sustaining robot that could fly into the atmosphere, extract pollution, and dispose of the pollution. I assume the weight of the robot would come into concern. However, I'm sure having a ton of the light-weight, pollution-extracting robots could do some good.

Imagine toy helicopters in the sky disposing of polution.

I had a discussion a long time ago with people about this. Supposedly, bacon and other foods cooked in a pan can be carcinogenic. They can be carcinogenic because of the char. However, I don't have enough evidence or visual information to believe that claim.

Nah. I'm done with the red-herring posting.

It shouldn't be too difficult to switch majors. However, as described above, it really is the passion that helps someone become strong-willed and determined.

No way. Undergraduate science is largely quite doable without giving up much of your life at all.

True. But a person will excel if he or she gives up a lot of things. Undergraduate years are doable, but they are not excelable if a person messes around with friends and love life; that's why there are school clubs. I really suggest people let go of worldly things and prepare for the future instead of wasting time in the now. Think of all that time a person could have earned a college degree while in high school. The person could have graduated high school by putting lots of emphasis out there. There are problems, however: people want to live life.

However, I'm thinking once people get in their twenties, they understand that people typically still suck and things keep repeating themselves. The best thing to do is go full force, stop wasting time, and get done with education as soon as possible.

Don't think too much about the future; don't think too much about the past; prepare for the future by living in the now.

If people can grasp the concept I live my life by, they will excel.

One last thing: If you hate school, then learn faster.

It's a joke I've made. If someone says to me, "I hate school," I will say, "learn faster.

It's like pulling off a band-aid.

I put all my time and effort into studying, researching, and applying things. It really depends on how far the person wants to go up the ladder.