Sayonara

If they want to categorise that recognition as "sixth sense", let them. It gives them something to talk about, which keeps them out of the way.

To be honest, you really need to read the W3C web site. If you want to eventually use XML you aren't going to be able to muddle through by asking questions on a science forum.

That's a false argument. Rocks are not aware of dimensionality because they are not aware of anything (well, insofar as we know). The fact that they have no awareness explicitly requires that linking their awareness to anything is meaningless. If we are the residents of dimensions beyond length, width and height, we are not aware of it because we lack the faculties required to perceive that state of affairs. The two kinds of "unawareness" are not comparable. You can base an argument for a rock on the attributes of a rock, or base an argument for a human on the attributes of a human, but you can't cross them over willy-nilly. [edit] Just to clarify, I can see what you're trying to say and don't really see anything wrong with it. It's the reasoning that is broken.

Ecology and Evolution would be more fitting than Evolution/Exobiology (which, incidentally were merged a while ago due to the small number of exobiology threads that weren't utter gubbins).

Exactly where is the flame in that thread?

It's not intended to. You need to actually understand these things before you can have theories about them.

Notice how I put it in one line.

I think aluminium can possibly help trigger the onset of Alzheimers (or maybe it was Parkinsons, I forget), but not cancer.

You're right, the harsh environment doesn't cause the mutations. But it does cause them to mean something.

HTML is a markup for describing the presentation of (any) page content in a hypermedia environment. XML is the next generation of markup, which structurally describes data in a hypermedia environment. XHTML is a reworked version of HTML, which aims to offer a slight taste of the functionality and syntax of XML while preparing web authors for the eventual migration away from HTML and towards XML. It's a transitory markup language that encourages well-formed documents, semantic code, and separation of the content / style / behaviour layers.

I think that's just woefully bad phrasing. It should be "because of", not "despite". Burn the book.

All they've done with those pictures is remove the colour calibration that is needed to show the image in truecolour.

++y will increment the value, then use it. y++ will use the value, then increment it. Or is it the other way around?

I realise this, but one would imagine by now that people would be adjusting automatically for my brusqueness*. * I really wish there was such a word as brusquicity.

Press the edit button on your last post, add the required information, press "save changes". Voila! By the way, I don't actually have any wild pigs and I can't smell you from here.

Was this a hungry, hungry hippo?

You're over-thinking things a little. Evolution describes mechanisms of change. Nothing else.

No.

I don't see what that has to do with science generating "the same kind of totalitarian beleif system that one also finds in the extremest memberships of most religions".

It's not unkind, it's abrupt. If I was being unkind, I'd have said "learn where the stinking edit button is, you idiot, or I'll set the wild pigs on you", which I didn't. Posting four URLs is not a good enough reason to make four posts in a row - that's the reason.

What if Cadmus had even posted in this thread?

Problem is though it doesn't work in all instances.

You're suggesting we are not capable of re-learning tasks. Is that as a society' date=' or as individuals? I didn't realise just how severe this "de-evolution" was meant to be. My points about obsolete media are these: 1) We don't need an 8-track player to retrive the information (leaving aside for the moment the inconvenient fact of the short media lifespan). We have the capacity to analyse and solve problems, 2) The media could easily have been backed up, 3) The fact that 8-track [for example'] is obsolete is a product of market forces and developing technology. It has sod all to do with our evolutionary status (and I realise that wasn't your point, but you will go and take exception when I am refuting things).

That's not exactly true. The survivable distributed network concept was conceived by Paul Baran while he was working for RAND (a thinktank for American nuclear planners) at the end of the Fifties. The design was put together for the US Air Force, who paid a grant to RAND, for command and control of nuclear assets. That was actually a completely different system from ARPANET and had no IMPs, gateways or TCP/IP protocol. The two people most responsible for the actual creation of the internet as we know it were Vinton Cerf and Robert E. Kahn, who literally wrote the book on Packet Network Interconnection in 1974 (although the idea originated with Donald Davies in the late Sixties, kind of). The system was fundamentally different to Baran's distributed network, but ironically it depended entirely on the packet-switching idea he devised for it.

Learn where the edit button is.