Dak

Well, it seems to have picked up on your original words. OI! GOOGLE! DISCOUNT BUT-PLUGS!!

Free beer, boobies!

yeah, laws such as 'you cant show it to kids'. I dont think that any adults have ever been incarcerated for looking at or producing pornographic images of adults, with paedophillia being cited as a reason. [edit] all of which is diverging from the OP[/edit]

As i said, i dont think anyone has been locked up for 'paedophilia' for distributing pictures of adults to other adults. If you want me to accept otherwize, you'll have to provide a source.

I agree that its often used for political gain, rather than for the belief that its actually justified and benificial, but i dont see why making sex-offenders use prisons rather than schools as hurricane shelters neccesarily falls into the former catogory, rather than the latter. citation? I dont believe that any adults have ever been incarcerated on the charge of paedophillia for exchanging photographs of adults having sex.

The issue isnt wether it is a sexual preference or a mental illness, the issue is wether it is too bad for childeren to be allowed.

The reason that most of the internet is free is that there are lots of adverts on the sites. I agree with thomas, in that certain adverts (popups, flashing/blinking/shaking, music-playing, and especially those anoying flash ones which hover in the centre of the page) are annoying, but the discreet ones like google-adwords are what stops us having to subscribe to most of the sites that we view. So blocking every single ad that you come across perhaps isnt a good idea.

Actually, the only way that i can interpret the passage you quoted, is as "yes, evolution exists, but all that proves is that evolution doesnt exist" or possibly "yes, evolution exists, but i have absolutely no idea what evolution is, but on the other hand BURN IN HELL, ATHIEST SATAN WORSHIPERS"

I meant what legitimate use could adverts have for using active-x? (apparently flash is handled as an active-x in IE, so there's a possible reason). Beacons can be done with simple <img /> tags, why would you use active-x? and cheers for the description aeternus

guessing at what you actually meant, no: what i said is that extremely large numbers of mutations happening at once is generally extremely bad. the relatively few mutations that happen in the abscence of mutagenics are almost always survivable. I am mutated, as are you, and we both live.

Oooh, i didnt know we had a center tag Whereas in this case, the sicle cell anaemia will likely kill you later in life than malaria would have. bear in mind how common malaria is in these parts of the world. Yup, massive simultaniouse mutating is not very good for ones survivability. cf hiroshima. Mutations are much less comon in the abscence of high doses of radiation, thus decreasing the chance that they will have a cumulatively fatal concequence. Yup. we scientists call this evolution. when this 'evolution' has occoured to the extent that a group of individuals is significantly different that the other individuals, we oftern dub this different group a seperate 'species'. true of massive mutation, ie lots happening at once. Not true. oftern, simple A --> G mutations in non-coding, structural regions is inconcequental (just one example). all evolutionists, i think youll find Mutations are generally crap. natural selection filters out the bad ones and propogates the good ones. thus, natural selection was not abandoned for mutations. they both operate at the same time. That is what we scientifically refer to as bull shit. No one claims that is the case. Yup. thats pretty much why no-one believes the 'hopeful monster' theory. No. mutations are not usually benificial, but they are not 'always negative' or even usually fatal. Iv never been very good at developmental biology, but sufice to say that, even in the abscence of that last reason, a scientist would have had to have been drinking the contense of their chemical stock-cupboard to believe the 'hopeful monster' theory. evolution tends to happen slowly. given that every thing that proceded this conclusion was crap, id say that the conclusion itself was unsupported.

I have come to the conclusion that yes, that is javascript. the "script language=javascript" was so obviouse, i felt it had to be a trick. But no, that is indeed javascript, and not active-x. Same goes, i believe, for the page which it points to.

I think i may have an incomplete understanding of what active-x actually is, so im going to go and look it up. Untill then, ill just say that im pretty sure thats a javascript, and not an active-x.

Why on earth would an ad require active-x?

pants, in britain, = underpants. also slang for 'not good'. hence, pants code = rubbish code. nothing to do with your trousers id go to the effort of making an analogy about sayos wording being inconpatably with your ability to read 'cos he didnt follow universal standards, if i thought that herme would actually make the effort to understand.

the amount of times that i get other peoples names wrong, i could hardly complain. as for your other comments, very briefly: 'usualy ok' does not mean that, in the cases where it is not ok, it is insignificant enough to not require preventative legislature. Yes, the branding can do more damage than the sex-act, and as i said that is an issue that needs to be addressed; that doesnt mean that the sex-act itself is ok. Im more than happy to discuss these issues, but from experience I know that that kind of conversation tends to go on for quite a while, and i believe the OP was specifically about the refusal to admit sex-offenders into hurricane shelters. So, unless pangloss doesnt mind his thread changing course, Im going to declince to fully respond to your comments, unless you want to start a new thread on them, lest we drag this thread off-topic.

No. MS agreed to abide by the standards, which are there for the convinience of all. then they didnt abide by them. thusly, IE is more like the driving-on-the-left people. I feel its thoroughly rediculouse that someone who can barely wright HTML (me) has a better grasp on this than someone who is a web-master (you)

willowtree. i actually miss him

plonkety-plonk Im far too drunk to understand exactly what your last centance meant; however, i believe that i have already explained to you once that the reason that i use 'potentially damaging' is a bow to reality: paedophillia is not damaging in 100% of cases. better than 'a descision was not made'. seriously, huge amounts of our lives are regulated in such a maner for the benifit of all. I too am dysloxic then i assume that you see no reason that rape should remain illegal/imoral. what with it being a societty-enforsed moral.

1/ there are many other valid locations for Iexplore.exe 2/ i believe the exact reason that ie cant be removed is that it is too closely integrated with the graphical user interfase for the windows operating system (ie windows explorer)*. the reason this pisses people off is quite simply that it forses you to keep a program -- and its security flaws -- on your system even if you dont use it. *might be wrong, but i think its something along these lines.

oooooooooooooooooooookay... Imagine it like this. In america, it is a convention that everyone drives on the right, and stops at red lights. Imagine a bus company who employ people who drive on the left and go through red lights, but stop on green lights. What happens then? well, it becomes difficult to design descent road systems that will be compatible with cars and the busses, due to the fact that everyone will be doing a slightly different thing. and so, conventions are adopted. and obeyed. and roads are designed with the assumption that everyone will follow these conventions, and the conventions are designed to facilitate the job of both the road desighners and the people who will use them, ie the drivers. and everyone drives on the right and everything works fine. its like that with the w3c. conventions are defined, and then websites can be designed with these conventions in mind -- with the assumption that any users will 'drive on the right' and 'stop at red lights', so to speak, which gives web designers the possibility of desighning web sites that will actually be usable by everyone. Then, microsoft comes along driving on the left and running red lights, and every thing stops working. and the annoying thing is that microsoft actually thought that universally recognised conventions were a good enough idea that they actually agreed to abide by the w3c conventions, but then didnt. Its really, really not that hard a job to see where we are coming from when we critisise IE for non-compliance with the standards. no. microsoft only know whats best for microsoft. in theory, the w3c, being a collection of different people with interests in the web, should know whats best for everyone. i doubt it works that perfectly, but its better than letting microsoft have the sole voice. You know, if IE had actually adopted w3c standard (like they said they would), then 'web-site compatability' wouldnt be half as big an issue as it is. due to the fact that universal standards would probably exist.

whilst i fundamentally agree with you, it is still pretty firmly established that sex with underage childeren carries a high risk of being damaging; hence the reluctance to allow it. all quite true, and something that i feel needs to be adressed. If a child has sex and manages to survive the experience with no ill effects, then any subsequent treatment at the hands of the legal system should not carry the risk of being a potentually damaging ordeal; However... ...this doesnt follow. Its a fact that sexual intercourse can be potentially damaging, and that the potential for causing damage (and the magnitude of that damage) is significantly greater in childeren than in adults; therefore, it has been banned. wether or not you agree with peoples oppinions on sexual abuse, or wether or not it is damaging in 100% of cases, is irrelevant. A descision was made, based on the (by no means unfounded) assumption that banning sex below a certain age would be in the best interests of childeren as a whole, and -- like all other laws -- it has to be enforsed. This nessesetates the concept of a 'sex offender', wether you like it or not. as i read it, it means sexual morality as defined by a consensus of the masses, and pushed onto everyone. IE, you could argue that sosciety puts pressure on us to abstain from, say, sado-mashichism, due to the fact that it is 'deviant' and 'perverse'; or homosexuality for the same reasons. Whilst id agree with thomas that there should be no reason that two consenting adults cant engage in S&M (or homosexuality) in the privacy of their own home, i dont see anything wrong with society trying to enforse the 'sexual moral' that 'sex with childeren is wrong'. at least, thats how i read it; appologies if im wrong.

wouldnt that have to be echo. <--note the full stop i think echo just returns the status of echo (ie, either prints 'echo is on' or 'echo is off' )

Just out of interest, what does the first 'echo' do? The one that iv enboldened? Its not the cause of your problems, im just curiouse as to what its for.

Its not a problem, its a feature Seriously, the difference between FF not supporting active-x and IE not complying with w3c standards is that theres a perfectly valid reason for FF not to support active-xs, and that is one of security: active-xs just allow too great privelages to downloaded programs... they make it easy to become infected, and amplify the severity of any security holes in the browser. Dont get me wrong, I agree that its a pro/con type thing; on the one hand, you gain extra security (especially for the "oooooooooooooooh, a button has just popped up, what does it do clicketty-clicky" type user), but on the other hand you loose, well, the ability to use active-xs and any websites that rely on them. But, like i said, theres a valid reason to not use active-x. IE, afaik, has no valid reason to refuse to adopt the w3c conventions. btw: Arent you thinking of cookies? I wasnt aware that active-x was commonly used for that purpose (at least, not legitimately). [edit]sorry, the previouse two posts werent there when i started typing [/edit]