Dak

although, it may have been tactful to say "sighns of a mental creationist", to exclude creationists who dont foam at the mouth. there are a few sane creationists. apparently.

I said 'a tad' incorrect, not completely invalid. Yes, as you say 100% of the respondants of the poll called them terrorists. I was just trying to point out that, when the 'terrorists' motives become clear, a whole chunka people who may have been refraining from voting might suddenly make up their mind and vote. although id be very surprised if their motives dont turn out to be those of a terrorist.

ooooh, i'll have a more thorough looksy at that when iv got time. cheers.

Hi everyone hope you like the forum. great avitar, larsnco. aiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii am the queeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeen of france!

Im not sure on the grounds that i dont know their motives, and unless the motives were political coersion i dont think that they count as terrorists; but i didnt actually vote 'not sure' as im assuming that pretty soon their motives will become clear, at which point ill vote ya or nay. reading the responces, i suspect others may have done the same, so perhaps 100% is a tad incorrect. circulalarly (?) related, i suspect that the reasoning may be a political one: if we're going to come down mercilesly on terrorists, we'd better be dam sure that we are clear on who is and isnt a terrorist, and dont label people as terrorists without good cause. if i were a cynical git, id also say that this approach leaves us the option of continuing to support terrorism (as we have done before) under certain curcumstances, eg if it classifies as 'freedom fighting' or 'insurgency'.

it could have sexual overtones, but it doesnt nessesaraly... and even in the cases where it does, its a far cry from rape. I doubt it would be, unless there was specific evidence to sujjest rape was intended. it would be assault, and i doubt any sex-offender registration would follow. why should it be different with a child? and dont forget that, by the wording of the law, compulsary sex-offender registration would have followed even in the abscence of the "come here little girl".

warrented or not in this case, the fact that compulsary sex-offender registration follows a non-sexual crime is surely worrying. maybe he felt that "COME THE F*** HERE YOU STUPID LITTLE B**** SO THAT I CAN F***ING WELL NUT YOU!!!!" would have solicited a less aqueisent responce?

piiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiikaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaCHUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 kall me old facioned, but i like sepiroth. not only is he cool, but he has cool music too. bum-bum-bum bada bum bum BA-AA bum bum BA-AA bum bum BA-AA bum-bum-bum bada bum bum BA-AA bum bum BA-AA bum bum sep-ee-roth do-do do-do do-do do-do do-dodo-do sep-ee-roth do-do do-do do-do do-do do-dodo-do do-do: DADA DADA DADA DADAAAAAAAAAAA etc

Nahh, tried that. doesnt work. after lots of faffing about, i finally made the list of my extentions appear in the tools > extentions list... but none of them worked. stoopid computers umm... might it have something to do with the CLSID bit of the registry? just a guess (im not really sure what the CLSID does)

you still have to re-download all the extentions thats what i want to avoid having to do, as i have many, and most of them have non-default settings...

Im having trouble savvying where your comming from, due mainly to the length of your posts. Could you give an abstract of your ideas, ie a succinct, consice and (above all) brief (250 words max is common for an abstract) summary of your ideas please.

couldnt do it... i found a few reg entries and copied them across, along with the appropriate files, but couldnt get it to work. Oh well, manually d/l and install the extentions and then manually set the settings i suppose... this'll take ages

without knowing their motives, its hard to say. if it was in a "do x or we'll blow more stuff up", then id say yes. but as i said, without knowing their motives...

::sigh:: genes are capable of duplication. therefore, even one gene can, in the dueness of time, become many. its relative ratio within a population is linked to its fitness of survival. i do wish creationists would at least try.

It looks like 8-bit binary... i thought it might be ASCII, but putting "(number);" gives å æ ø Å Æ Ø again. does the same on vb... is that directly imputting ascii?

He'll probably get in trouble for perverting the course of justice.

yup. two molecules of H2O will yield two molecules of H2 and one molecule of O2 one molecule is a very fiddley quantity to work with. Basic maths: if two molecules of H2O will yield two molecules of H2 and one molecule of O2, then two MILLION molecules of H2O will yield two MILLION molecules of H2 and one MILLION molecules of O2. these are nicer, less fiddly quantities to work with. However, it now becomes a pain in the arse to wright down huge numbers each time. so someone invented mols (horay!). mr avagadro was his name. a mole is simply x molecules, where x = very large number. this makes the quantities easyer to work with, cos rather than having to weigh out one molecule of H2O, you can weigh out x molecules, or one mol, of H2O (which is a larger number and thus easyer to weigh out). the ratios remain the same so its still true: eg, two molecules of H2O will yield two molecules of H2 and one molecule of O2 --> 2x molecules of H2O will yield 2x molecules of H2 and x molecule of O2 --> two mols of H2O will yield two mols of H2 and one mol of O2 the reason carbon is mentioned all the time is that carbon-12 is used as a standard: the number of molecules in exactly 1g of carbon-12 is the number of molecules in a mole. eg, 1g carbon-12 = x molecules carbon-12 = 1 mol carbon-12 and, for your information, x (ie, the number of molecules in a mol) = 6.02214199 × 1023 = Avogadro's Constant. as google will convieniently tell you <-- which i think is cool. So, 2x(6.02214199 × 1023) molecules of H2O will give you 2x(6.02214199 × 1023) molecules of H2 and 6.02214199 × 1023 molecules of O2, which is simplified to 2mol H2O --> 2 mol H2 + 1 mol O2, or simply 2H2O --> 2H2 + O2 NOTE: not to be confused with molarity, or M. this is the concentration of acids, and is moles per liter. so a 5M conc of H2SO[/sub]4[/sub] would have a concentration of 5 mols per litre. if your wondering, there are tables where you can look up the weight of one gram of a substance, so you know how much is nessesary for a reaction: eg, to make 5M H2SO4, youd look up the weight of 1 mol of H2SO4, times that weight by 5 and chuck that many gramms of H2SO4 into a litre of distilled water; et voila, 5M H2SO4.

Its not a game, so theres no 'winning'. I was merely pointing a logical flaw out.

a couple of people, before there was a timeout for editing, used to go back and replace all there posts with '...', which ruined the thread: hence the lack of delete button. or, back on topic, its a SFN conspiracy to hold all of what we say, even the embarrasingly stupid things and the posts with personal info, so that if we get famouse one day they can black mail us. It sounds stupid, but it goes on alot around here... Dave, for example, got his position because he possesses embarrising pictures of blike and a goat. actually it may have been a senator, or a pornstar, rather than a goat... i forget.

are those percentiles efficiency? if so: you cant have more than 100% efficiency in the way in which you are sujjesting that you can. I just wanted to quickly point out that this is logically unsound, although we may suspect that it is true from the wording of the quote. reason its unsound: simply, if good people have not seen god, it would not make the first statement untrue. eg, "any one who has done evil is not a tulip" is true, but it does not follow that anyone who has done good is a tulip. the alternate statement of the above would be "tulips have done no evil" or, for the original, "anyone who has seen god does not do what is evil"; not that "anyone who does not do what is evil has seen god". also, its arguable as to wether "not evil" equates to "good".

I was tought that they were blue-green algae, and a member of the algae (ie, protists), although it was by a 150 year old lecturer, who said alot of other taxonomically questionable stuff. What are lichens? are they a single species? or are they two species?

No, its a direct vote by the populance. plonkety like, for example, the latest referendums that i can think of were on wether to accept or reject the EU constitution -- not wether or not to allow a vote on wether to accept or reject the EU constitution. although, i suppose theres no reason why a referendum couldnt be held on wether or not to vote on a particular issue, itd just be a bit pointless. If memory serves me correctly, tho, i believe that in switzerland if a pettition is sighned by x% of the local populance, then by law the issue which the petition pertained to has to be addressed and voted on in the local govournment, and the pettitions are referred to as refferendums (possibly -- my memory is a bit kak, so i might be wrong), which is kinda similar.

is it

^^^ Im inclined to agree with that

It doesnt really seem that odd usage... whilst the outcome of the referendum could have caused change or maintained the status quo, it seem natural to equate the referendum to the change as it was likely people pushing for change which caused the referendum to be held in the first place. Were there a referendum in england as to wether we should illegalise abortion or not, and the result was that it should remain legal, then i would imajine that it would be reported as "a referendum on the issue was defeated".