Dak

[off topic] mywebsearch is a CoolWebSearch variant. Nothing has been done because CWS is based in russia, and in any case they always blame the dodgy installs on 'rogue affilates'. 'being based in russia' seems to be the number one reason why nothing has been done about these sites. If you get infected with mywebsearch again (sounds like its a reccuring problem for you), shift it with CWShredder [/off topic]

I get the rest of your post, but im a tad confused about the trust bit. The only way i can relate it to trust, is 'an open minded person will actually asses the problem, and attempt to contribute; a closed minded person will just try and think-up a justification for their view, or outright preach'? Sorry for being off-topic, but it intruigued me. No need to reply if you dont want your thread off topic Ah, cant see how they cant be terrorists, then -- by my definition or anyone elses. Terrorists with more justification for fighting than other terrorists due to the fact that their country was invaded, but imo theres no justification for fighting in the way that they are. hmm... with the exception of the emergency services, thats how we attacked them. Although, for people who actually live there to do it, it is kinda cutting off your own nose to spite your face, even if you ignore the civilian casualties.

sigh... 1/ the majority of sites DO work with firefox. usually, when they dont it's due to the fact that the site requires an active-x in order to work, and FF doesnt support active-xs; HOWEVER most websites are desighning work-arounds for this, and there really arent that many sites which are incompatable with FF. I cant remember the last time that i found a site that i couldnt view in FF. [edit]except the microsoft update site, suspiciously enough[/edit] 2/the w3c doesnt consist of one person making random declarations. its a group of people who descide upon conventions which will make life easyer for everyone. those conventions differ from the convention put forth in your analogy because A) they are not imbecelic and thats it, really. Its only one difference, but its a big one. 3/In addition, microsoft are actually a member of the w3c, and agreed to abide by the commonly accepted standards agreed upon by the w3c. so its not as if its some bulchy little organisation shouting about what they want m$ to do; its a group which ms is actually a member of laying out a set of common practices that microsoft have agreed to impliment. so

interesting. I kinda agree, but i cant see how two identical oppinions could be of different validity due to how they were arived at As for the terrorist/freedom fighter comments: iv always felt that if someone atacks soldures or empty buildings, they are a freedom fighter -- if they intentionaly kill civilians, they are terrorists. Not a standard definition, but i feel it highlights an inportant distinction. If the insurgents in iraq are only targeting soldures, then id say that there is a significant difference between them and the terrorists. (iv not been following it that closely, so i dont know who theyre targetting)

Ah, misunderstood: i thought you were casually dismissing the idea that it could do anything other than increase the likelyhood of offending (it was the 'we wont even go there' bit that did it, but i see what you meant now). apologies, my bad .

only because if they were, then everyone who uses IE would not be able to access the site. As yourdad said, this has already been explained to you. To briefly recap: as i understand it, the w3c set standards that, were everyone to follow them, would make life easyer for everyone who, in some manner or form, uses the internet (ranging from the browser desighners, to the web desighners, to the end user etc). m$ blatantly ignore the standards, like their lack of support for CCS2 in IE7. which is cacky. And no, w3c compliant HTML is not comparable to viruses. Viruses are desighned to damage computers, or do something else crappy, and so if the computer crashes its the viruses fault. w3c compliant HTML is desighned to work properly. if this makes IE crash, then that is IEs fault. On the subject of viruses, IE is quite full of security holes (and not just what youd expect from it being the most popular). I would positively orgasm if IE7 is actually secure (preferably out of the box, although i know thats asking alot from m$)

Maybe not for much longer, with IE. The EU has already forsed m$ to provide their OSs without m$ media player bundeled with it1, maybe they'll forse them to not integrate IE so fully, espescially with all of the security poopness assosciated with IE (i can half remember something about the US govournment reccomending people ditch IE due to security reasons). Yes. firefox with one of the anti-phishing extentions Or any browser with an anti-phishing toolbar/plugin/extention, come to think of it. But yeah, I was impressed with that. It will only be of limited effectiveness tho, in the same way as all blacklists of websites are only of limited effectiveness (theres a lag atwix a new site being registered and it being added to the blacklist). Nice to see it fires up if a site is expected of phishing. as long as its not too overly sensitive, that should be quite groovy.

Slippery slope fallicy Its not always untrue, but it isnt nessesaraly true just because it superficially seems to make sence; in the abscence of any evidence, its just as likely that viewing images would sate their desire as it is that it would stimulate it. If somethings worth getting upset about, then its worth getting upset about in an accurate and factually correct way

The fact that some people will break laws does not make the laws worthless. Otherwize, we may as well all become nihalists, and lay back and accept anarchy. (yes, i know thats an appeal to concequence, but im just illlustrating a point -- what should we do, not make laws becuase criminals might break them? thats why we enforse laws, with police and whatnot). Bow to accuracy. Paedophillia is not damaging in 100% of cases. Yes. Because its recless, and has an unacceptably high chance of damaging the kid. analogy: if i was to throw axes at childeren, then im sure that i would end up in jail, even if all the axes missed. on account of it being a dangerouse and irrisponcible act, which could potentially have harmed the childeren. just to clarify: when i say paedophile, i mean someone who has sex with childeren; when i say 'potentially damaging', i am refering to the sex-act itself, not any associated behaviours. I agree. Hang on... assuming that were talking within a sexual context here, i fail to see how someone could chose to look at sexual images of childeren and not be a paedophile. Yeah, well, there are two different cases that i see here. 1/ someone watching a kiddies program, like grange-hill or neighbours or something, and getting sexually excited over the kids. Grim as it may seem, i agree that these people should not be persecuted (as long as thats all that theyre doing), as it doesnt actually hurt anyone. 2/ someone watching kiddie porn. This is entirely different. kids actually suffer in the making of these pictures/films/whatever, and by watching them you are supporting the industry, in one way or another, and so are indirectly responcible for the kids suffering. compare with someone who buys a snuff film. Theyd be supporting an industry that kills people. hardly a blame free act.

'cos it will come with the computer, and will probably be downloaded as a security update. I agree about the dropping the ball comment. Lots of the features -- espescially the tabbed browsing -- looks like theyre trying to impliment whats already available and popular in Opera and FireFox.

sort of like a logical falicy? ie, your manner of ariving at your conclusion is wrong, even if your conclusion coincidentally happens to be correct? or do you mean that an oppinion would be incorrect if its the result of closed-mindedness, even if the same oppinion from an open-minded person would be correct? by-the-by, iv just realised your name is pangloss, and not pangaloss. my appologies for consistently spelling it wrong up untill this point

Sounds a bit like slim browser, iirc (tabbed browsing, more secure, search box, uses IE engine, rss compatable etc). hope they deliver on the security front. Hmm... i remember hearing that a new version of FF is also in the pipelines, but im not sure if its v1.2 or v2.

You can make a cheesy one out a stick of any bendy material with the tendancy to spring back into a strait line, some string, some lightweight stick-type-thing for the arrow, and something for the flight (feathers, leaves, cardboard). TO MAKE ARROWS: first off, make javelin-length things, out of a light-weight strait length of stuff. Bamboo canes, certain plant/bush stems etc work well. make flights out of something (ideally, they are kinda floppyish, like ridgid leaves or feathers; cardboard works well for javelins). carve 3 or 4 groves out of the not-sharp end of the javelin, making sure that they twist gently around the shaft (ie, they dont go in a strait line) (fig 1). now, slot the flights (your cardboard or whatever) into the groves and tie inplace with thin string (cotton thread works well). The effect should be that when you throw the javelin, the flights should make it spin (thus making even poorly-weighted and bent sticks go in a more-or-less strait line); another effect of flights is that they will keep the butt of the arrow at the back, and the pointy-bit at the front (ie they will stop the arrow from cartweeling). After youv got the hang of it and worked out the correct size and placement of the flights, then you can move on to making arrows, by using smaller lengths of wood (javelins are easyer to practice on, but a bit hard to fire from a bow). Only difference between arrows and javelins: arrows have a single notch across the blunt-end, to slot them onto the arrow string (fig 2) Make sure the arrow is slightly longer than the distance from your nose to an outstretched thumb. TO MAKE THE BOW: take bendy staff, roughly 2 foot higher than you are. I find plastics generally work better than wood, for a cheesy bow. a good trick to increase the power is to cut a notch into the tip of the staff, and around the staff about a 1/3 to 1/4 of the way down, bend it into a curve, and then use string tied to the two notches to keep it in that shape (fig 3). do the same at top and bottom. Now, tie the top end to the bottom to make the bow (fig 4). the smaller curvy bits increase the power, by the way. TO FIRE: Hold the center of the bow shaft with your left hand. slot the notch of the arrow onto the string, about half-way down, and rest the shaft of the arrow on the thumb of your left hand (where it is clasping the bow). Grasp the string with the index finger of your left hand hooked above the arrow, and the middle finger below. Draw the bow string back untill either your fingers are touching your chin, or you think the bow will brake if you draw it back any further. Next: let go. a couple of notes of caution: 1/, dont put the bow under too much pressure without finding out what happens to the material if it breaks: some materials (quite a lot of woods, for example) will explode if put under too much pressure, sending eye-removing splinters all over the place at a painfuly high velocity. If in doubt, dont pull the string too tight. 2/ if your going to sharpen the arrows, be careful. make sure no-one is going to walk into your line of fire, etc. Wood makes the best bows, but is tricky to make a wooden bow. for best results, you have to use two different types of wood, and 'steam' them first: google around if your interested, and start off making 'cheesy' bows from lengths of plastic to get the hand of it. even tho i call them cheesy bows, they can actually be quite good, although not exactly enraged-bull-stoppingly powerful. Practice with different positions to put the bends, different shapes/positioning of flights, different materials etc.

You could try making a mangonel -- theyre kinda like catapults, only using weights and pivots rather than tensile strength. Or a bow. bows are always fun (making arrows is quite fun aswell), although you wont get that powerful-a-bow.

I agree that there are a few people who subscribe to the oppinion that you outlined above; however, the vast majority of people can differentiate between harmless sexual dievience (such as homosexuality, SubDom etc) and potentially damaging sexual dievience like paedophillia and rape. People who harm people are offenders. people who harm people in a sexual way are sex offenders. Thusly are padophiles and rapists persecuted and labeled, to protect the rest of us. Yes, there are some who would see homophobes, 'sluts', people who have sex outside of marrage etc lumped in with the above, but that doesnt detract from the nessesity be cautiouse of rapists and paedophiles. I agree that, in some cases, the labelling of someone as a sex offender seems a bit uncalled for, and i agree that we shouldnt automatically assume that its ok to suspend someones human rights if theyve been labeled a sex offender (as do most people, afaict), but that doesnt make the whole labelling people as sex offenders thing wrong. briefly: a faggot was originally sticks and other thin slivers of wood tied into a bundle, so that they would burn slower and for longer, kind of like a log. It was burnt by poor people, who would sell the decent fire wood to rich people and themselves make do with a crappy substitute. Thus, 'faggot' or 'fag' became synonomouse with 'a poor substitute', hence: lumps of mashed-up low-quality animal products covered in gravy = 'faggot'; poor substitute for meat. the servant-boys that prefects used to have in old public schools = 'faggot'; poor substitute for a servant. ciggaretts = 'fags' (in the uk); poor substitute for cigars homosexual man's boyfriend = 'faggot'; poor substitute for a woman. also, there was apparently a lot of homosexuality between the prefects and their 'fag boys', which no-doubt enforsed the assosiation of homosexuals and the word faggot. thus ends dak's ectylomogical monologue on the origins of the word 'faggot'. hope you enjoyed.

Hello! Heres a tricky one for all of you cryptography buffs. Please note, iv never tried to break this particular cypher-system before, so i have absolutely no idea how difficult it will be -- but im pretty sure that it wil be hard. If you want, i can encrypt some more stuff in the same way for you, to give you some more data to work with. UVYK B~GUJF'R F'B A'VKS EVZF Y B'UBE W'P PQV'GP' OIR BX/VFOR XVB Y OL'B F'RG'NN PRT'Z LFS' BU'GGR' HG BAY NQQ'GEJ PPF%K VPR'KBLX JAS'SPE'G UF'@R@H +SBV O'PPZ KYFGVY Z~NOFP /QLHAY V'YFG GRQF'WBM G'HUP J'FC/BAW'A PA!WBV OOR'X BIQT'PZA'CR XBNR' Y BVOOR'KR GGFEH~UB IV'S VA/ZAC'TL BC'Y FPL#)()* good luck, and have fun!

Stay away from explosives, unless youv actually had some safety training. even then, be very careful. Note that there was no technical info on how to make explosives in that What kinda gadgets are you after?

did you mean "The whole idea of defining someone who hasnt commited a sexual crime as a "sex offender" is vicious, mean-spirited, hateful, and promoted by dangerously insane people who are at heart homicidal. It is just one more way to make the human race its own worst enemy", or just that its cruel to define anyone, reguardless of their actions, as a sex offender?

I agree with what herme says about the zoomage -- it could easaly be that they zoom in on a point and then superinpose a higher quality scan of that particullar area, rather than that they are making out that they are didgitally improving that particular area. But all the same, they are not inexplicable; in fact they are very easaly explained, without resorting to ghosts. Herme, its not as if ghosts are beating us around the heads with their corporeal hands, and we're stood there going "nope, must be a draught". the video footage really is poor and unconvinsing.

you have sensitive nipples and a penis that works. nothing to worry about.

^^^ Bacteria are a good example of that. Plus, im not aware of any species which reproduces entirely without a means of swapping at least the occasional gene.

No. my post got deleted when i did that

They looked suspiciously like shadows. And to clarify, i dont mean shadows of a life, aka shades ie ghosts; i mean shadows as in abscence of light because someone is walking in front of a light sourse. one of the still pictures, as your dad said, was a gravestone. another one was a tree. I absolutely swear that one of the first ones was a cardboard cut-out. Im also pretty sure that at least one of them was a living person. Im not saying that ghosts dont exist, because I cannot be 100% sure that they dont -- but i will say that there is no evidence to suggest that ghosts exist, including the vidio that you linked to. All of the images are easaly explained by some non-supernatural means.

no. they can all be explained by double-exposures, reflections, interestingly-shaped things which resemble people, shadows, and (in at least one case) cardboard cutouts. actually, quite a few of them took quite a streach of imagination to see what was supposed to be the ghost... Look, these are the 'ghost encounters'* that iv experienced in my life which spring to mind. 1/ ghost at window. turned out to be the net-curtains making an interesting shape because of the way they were hanging. 2/ ghost in tree: this one nearly made me poop my pants. i looked at a tree in my neighbors garden, and saw a perfectly formed face, which stayed there as i stared at it. shifting from side to side, i could tell that it was just the leafs letting through the moon-light in a way which made it resemble a face, but viewed from a certain angle, it looked really like a face. 3/ reccuring one. Unlike the previouse two, i didnt actually (even momentaraly) consider this to be anything odd, just something which looked extremely ethereal. basically, they were flying glowing golden things which sped with unnatural speed over the top of my house. i saw them quite often, and always wondered what they were. eventually, i saw them one dusk, and they only glowed a little; they turned out to be birds, with reflective underbellies.. They looked like they were going really fast, 'cos the glow made it hard to judge their distance, and they seemed to be much higher than they were. 4/face at window. it was my mate, with his face pressed to the window waiting patiently for me to notice him so to scare me (which he did) so, whenever someone says theyve seen a ghost, i always thing 'yeah right, youv seen something that made you jump and didnt stick around long enough to figure out what it actually was'. and as for the footage: like i said, shadows, reflections, double-exposures and things which vaguely resemble people. and cardboard cut-outs. ---------------------------------- * 'Ghost encounters' meaning odd things that made me go "omygodomygodwhatthehellisthatARGHitsagohstoitsacatphew" (excluding things iv seen whilst not sober or wilst extremely tired)

Ho yes, i forgot about that (i hate that display so i always change it.) well, ps2huang, if "my computer" isnt on your desktop, go to "start", and click "my computer". then double-click on "Local disk (C:) " Question 1/ Can you see a folder named "windows"? Question 2/ Can you see a folder named "Winnt"?