There are a lot of reasons that could explain why you have less free space such as temporary files, drivers, browser cache, system restore, background maintenance, updates, storing music, stored installation files, drivers and drivers stored for rollback purposes etc. Another factor can be other users.

The program WinDirStat can help you find out where the files and directories on your hard drive are in terms of size if you are curious as to where the space is going and you can always run a clean-up to restore some lost space.

I once lived with a woman who spoke in accents and French and Chinese whenever she was having a psychotic episode, so naturally anyone with an accent should be locked up and sedated.

And you couldn't send this to Microsoft support because...?

Make a suicide pact for when you die, when you get into heaven they'll definitely be in hell. Or a clean-up your life pact if you are going to hell, then you mightnot see them any time soon.

I left school early and before you think I dropped out I didn't, I have a School Certificate which for people who might not know means I left at minimum required for a trade job. I became a locksmith apprentice but that didn't pan out very well for personal reasons not related to work.

If I hadn't had that goal I would have gone all the way through high school and probably to a college or university as well which I might need to do anyway for my hobby and it's kinda my point.

On the one hand if you have a goal you generally tend to learn only what you need to complete it, but it's good to have a higher education to make it easier if you change your mind or something goes wrong.

At 11/16/09 04:51 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: There's a rounded baby blue rectangle with "search website:" written inside of it and the cursor's next to it. It doesn't open Google, it actually opens "website" and its particular search results for the term you enter.

Oh, I think I know what you're talking about. It's the feature where Chrome automatically adds search engines with the search pages url as the keyword? I'm not sure if this is in the beta, but in the dev you can right-click the address bar and go to "Edit Search Engines", otherwise it's on the basic tab of the Options window.

From there you can change the keywords however you like or add engines manually. Here's a link to the help entry. I've never had a Newgrounds search picked up automatically and I hope this helps.

At 11/16/09 04:54 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: That's the Mac version, so its on a different level than what I'm using I think...

I think the betas are at the same version for Mac and Windows now(not sure if the Linux version has a beta channel now), but I'm mainly using the dev for extension features otherwise I'd be on the beta as well.

I'm on the dev channel(currently 4.0.245.0) so I've had this for a short time before the beta. There's nothing in the release blog about it being in the stable yet but considering I use the PortableApps.com version when I'm out I'm sure it'll become very useful for me.

I left it's batteries to die and didn't recharge it for almost a year. I still have $20 credit on it though.

At 11/15/09 09:33 PM, evan210 wrote: On XP?

It's the Zune theme for XP, one of the few extras digitally signed by Microsoft.

At 11/15/09 08:42 PM, JustSomeDude wrote:

At 11/15/09 08:38 PM, Attacknun wrote: Yes they are. If you have an old version it will cause problems.

So upgrade to it you dumb fuck.

No, they fucking aren't.

I have 9 on my other computer and it's just as shitty

He's right, and in all those versions you can turn the syncing off. Pretty shitty how you can do that eh?

At 11/15/09 01:18 PM, EvilerBowser1001 wrote: Alright, that's really good and all if you want Google to know what deviant porn you've been looking for, and to own everything that you post.

They changed that because the EULA caused a lot of problems and it wasn't suited to web browsing, it now states they don't have any right to what you post, transmit or display. Also since a lot of sites use Google tracking they probably know what porn you look at anyway.

Order some monkey brains at a butcher and find out. You may have a little trouble with the law if you go human so keep that in mind as well.

At 11/15/09 11:21 AM, Soaked wrote:

At 11/15/09 11:10 AM, Snake-Arsenic wrote:

At 11/15/09 10:28 AM, Soaked wrote:

Firefox is open source and uses Gecko as it's engine which is open source as well.

I know, thats why I said "It's also an open source project(Chromium)"

My mistake.

True, it is newer, but they also seem to be taking it up notch. Where Firefox just seems to be out-dated, and now going after Chrome's UI.

They're trying to move away from the word processing style to a website oriented style and Chrome has already done that so why not find out what's good about it and take that into account? If you look at all the proposals on how the new Firefox UI will actually function in terms of features and how the interface will include and change the current Firefox usage then it becomes clear it's not just a copy but is inspiration and they've come up with some good ideas that will separate it from Chrome.

As for your comment of outdated I only partially agree because it is inefficient for me when compared to Chrome but that's a personal choice and all browsers can boast at being the first to innovate in different areas of UI design.

It's more about other browsers beginning the rendering process sooner and also taking advantage of human perception of time than it is about actual speed and Mozilla are working on exploiting perception like other browsers in future versions as well as making it faster to compete with Safari and Chrome (it's main competitors in speed, both of which use webkit).

At 11/15/09 10:28 AM, Soaked wrote: Switch to Google Chrome. It's also an open source project(Chromium), and powered by Google, so the project is being pushed faster. Firefox doesn't seem to be moving as fast as Chrome too, project wise. Chrome has a simple, and efficient UI, and is really fast at starting-up, and loading pages.

Firefox is open source and uses Gecko as it's engine which is open source as well. It is also developed by a community as well and like Google Chrome anyone can contribute. Firefox is updated daily like GC, but unlike GC there are no pre-built weekly or quarterly versions for Firefox, you have to build them yourself.

Google Chrome seems to be moving faster because it is adding new features. Firefox doesn't because most of those features have already been in Firefox for years and a lot of recent additions in Firefox are only relevant to developers or are to include new web standards.

In the end it all comes down to personal choice. My favourite at the moment is Google Chrome, but I can see myself going back to Firefox if the interface improves in the way the developers are claiming it will.

At 11/14/09 07:29 PM, HighWayStar365 wrote: Actually jumping into a black hole stretches your tissue fibers and you elongate rapidly as you get sucked into nothingness. It's not gory, but it sure looks cool :D

That's one theory. I prefer to think if the suction force stretches the fibres enough they would tear spilling out your insides like a pinata along the way to nothingness.

At 11/14/09 10:46 AM, Blush wrote: Damn, that's pretty retarded. I can understand him being mad about it, but does he really need to go to this level? Now Sony's going to have to waste time and money to make the shit good enough for him to play.

So is knowingly thanking a blind person for their "appreciation of their cutting-edge graphics". Did they really need to go to that level? Hopefully this gets sorted out soon so we can find out Sony's side but adding accessibility options in games where it's possible for blind people to play doesn't seem that bad. Of course, not every game can be made accessible but his suit doesn't seem to affect genres that don't already have blind accessible games or mods to make games blind accessible.

At 11/14/09 12:52 AM, Fear57 wrote: Big Bang Theroy = the belief there was nothing, and nothing happened to nothing. But suddenly nothing exploded for no reason and created everything! To put it simple Athiesim.

I call bullshit. The big bang relies on there being matter and energy before it occurred, otherwise there would no debris to make up the universe. Also the Big Bang theory doesn't even attempt to address creation in itself, just the event that caused the constant expansion of the universe as we know it.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder...so pluck those little buggers out while you still have a chance.

Newgrounds Radio (Google Chrome Extension)- I thought I'd make this before the issue of cross-domain media elements is resolved (probably will result in a block by default).

It treats the audio portal genres as individual stations and plays a random song with option to skip. It also includes links to the author and submission page as well as a few more. There's still a few kinks to work out but here's a screenshot of it playing a song.

Hmm. . .

I thought it was going to be about these boomers.

At 10/31/09 05:40 PM, SteveGuzzi wrote:

At 10/31/09 10:27 AM, Snake-Arsenic wrote: So the reason that the government banned it because a majority of those in power wanted it banned is wrong?

"the reason they banned it is because most of em wanted it banned"

LOL.
That's not doing a whole lot to explain the ACTUAL reason, now is it?

I know, it doesn't have any of the official reasons because I already explained some of those and don't feel like explaining them again and it doesn't have the reasons of the individuals who voted because frankly I don't know those reasons.

That explanation was intended for an anarchist with anti-government views. It's short, simple and you can build whatever conspiracy theory you want out of it and I was hoping he would move on to the next topic I introduced which was how the concerns about LSD could addressed. He denied the conspiracy theory foundation was the reason, did not touch on the topics I introduce and stated he would rather run around in circles forever so I stopped replying.

At 10/31/09 10:21 AM, pr0de wrote: thats nice, but your reasoning on why its illegal is wrong

So the reason that the government banned it because a majority of those in power wanted it banned is wrong?

At 10/31/09 10:07 AM, pr0de wrote: so it was made illegal 30 years after its creation, for your reasoning and not the OPs

If you mean my reasoning that there was enough political support to pass a law banning LSD, yes.

and instead of "why it is" it should "why it became"

The OP asked "Why Is Lsd Illegal" not "Why was LSD banned".

as you see it wasn't made illegal for health concerns, but now that it is they use health concerns for it being illegal

And as long as people fail to address the present concerns and gain the neccesary support and influence it will stay that way.

At 10/31/09 09:48 AM, pr0de wrote: and i like the cultural influence on psychotic episodes. like a recent story about some guy who cutoff power to a hospital because he thought he was in "Silent Hill"

so try comparing the psychedelic induced stress disorder to one of a war veterans, people duped by culture

What do you mean, a war vet with stress disorder against a war vet with psychedelic stress disorder.
How do you avoid culture? Even if you succeed in avoiding known cultures, if you meet other people you usually end up making a new one.

In short, it's because there is not enough political support in influential parties for LSD to be legalised but there was enough political support for alcohol.

sure the political parties that existed in prehistoric times, or repealed prohibition

What proposal do you have so ensure there would be little or no possibly of obtaining a high enough dose?

a high enough dose of alcohol? seems pretty low for certain people to start getting violent

For both LSD and alcohol, and how to ensure that dose is the norm. Also what restrictions if any would be placed such as driving or operating heavy machinery, distribution, etc.

and from my experience others and i don't turn violent on high doses, because at high doses you are glued to your seat and might have ego death, so you would be just sitting there

While that's a typical case, the emphasis at the moment against legalisation is on self-harm, harming other and stress disorders so managing that needs to be addressed as well as emphasising positives.

At 10/31/09 09:28 AM, pr0de wrote:

At 10/31/09 09:25 AM, Snake-Arsenic wrote:

I broke your factor down to multiple factors so they could be addressed.

yet you don't know at what dose it takes to make people psychotic, and if it were legal those wouldn't be factors

What proposal do you have so ensure there would be little or no possibly of obtaining a high enough dose?

Fine, why is alcohol currently illegal? Oh, it's not.

if lsd is illegal because it has the potential to make people violent then why does that other drug that has more potential to make people violent (even intelligent people) legal

In short, it's because there is not enough political support in influential parties for LSD to be legalised but there was enough political support for alcohol.

fool

Flattery will get you nowhere.

At 10/31/09 09:18 AM, pr0de wrote: try and grasp the concept that if were legal, the doses would be accurate, and even then the average dose of illegal lsd is 50ug with a single dose being $5-30

I keep saying that doses would addressed by legalisation over and over and you keep arguing for the sake of arguing.

At 10/31/09 09:15 AM, pr0de wrote:

just look at your post

If I include dose in the factoring then I would also have to include at least two more factors, the first is that you can't always guarantee your getting the same dose because like any illegal substance it can vary between deal...

I broke your factor down to multiple factors so they could be addressed. That post would never had been made, dosage would never have been explored and I would have never explained how that is not a valid factor via how it can be addressed.

and i'm always in a "good" mood, unless i smoke cannabis, and i still don't do any harm

Good for you, there are also people who aren't in a "good" mood and there are many people who drink alcohol and don't do any harm as well.
thats nice (more stereotypical culture catchphrases) but that post you made was before i posted in this thread

and keep on dodging on applying your "why its illegal" logic to alcohol

Fine, why is alcohol currently illegal? Oh, it's not.

At 10/31/09 09:04 AM, pr0ded wrote: "I'm merely explaining the reasoning behind it being illegal"

True.

ie the doses being inaccurate

Bullshit. If you want to fabricate arguments try it based on factors you yourself didn't introduce and that I felt was important enough to include in my original argument.

At 10/31/09 08:55 AM, pr0ded wrote:

At 10/31/09 08:50 AM, Snake-Arsenic wrote:

Would be legal implies an invalid law being passed, I don't think that is the case.

but doses would be accurate if it was legal,

That's what I implied and that's why I didn't bring it up as an argument.

but its all on your false statement of it being legal because people will become violent, while ignoring the legality of alcohol. as that makes more people violent

No I tried to offer an explanation.

i don't need to wait an hour in an attempt to get the last word, or read any of it, since its bullshit

Shops close at midnight here.