Sayonara

Ah right, I see what you mean now.

That's weird. Are you using IE5.5?

As consumers, we can apply pressure to change the market.

No, not really.

I'm not presenting it as evidence, I am pointing towards it as an example summary of 'things that happen'. I don't expect anybody to take the particulars of the story as being a verbatim prediction or account.

Homosexuality cannot be characterised as being a "desire", so there goes that. If it can, then so must heterosexuality. Society has never had the right to police who can have which fundamental feelings, and it never will. Perhaps some elements of society do frown upon homosexuality (or, and I think this is what you're referring to in place of the actual issue, male-male sex) but to be quite frank it's none of their business. As Mokele points out: argument from tradition. I'd also add argument from common practice.

That is the essence of anthropomorphisms.

Fairness means nothing in ecological interactions. Nothing.

What has that got to do with this discussion? "If you're an atheist it's probably because you're a gay-lover" is not where I want to see this (read: any) thread heading.

Pointing towards a metaphor for human nature is shaky ground? It's a work of fiction because the characters and specific events were made up.

"Identifier". http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=define%3Auri

There's no real reason to delete the cache - it's not like they don't have the space. Sites do get de-indexed if they're dead for a certain period of time, but the cache is not reliant on the index. Google returns around 125,000 instances of the term scienceforums.net from this domain, and around 175,000 overall. This means it is indexing and caching us with virtually perfect efficiency. It also means there are around 50,000 known links to us out there.

Only if you searched for site:scienceforums.net "scienceforums.net" which apparently you didn't.

Or, in a mere four words: Lord of the Flies.

Broadly speaking, the omitted results are any URIs that have an identical URL to a result already given, but a different querystring. There are other reasons a result would be in that list, but they are all based on properties of the resource, not the content. Think about it. If two web sites list the same information on you, and google spidered them and determined that to be the case (which their system can't do, because it doesn't think), would they drop one site from their index and only list the other? No, because that would make for a crap search engine.

I don't see what ignoring them has to do with not caring what they think. Please try to discuss things I actually said with me, rather than things you want to argue about. True, they are not mutually exclusive. However evolution deals with change, not creation, so you might want to reconsider the compromise that you have taken to be your conclusion.

If by "totally different", you mean one is a child group of the other, then yes.

How does a script identify what's relevant to the term "YT2095"?

There are plenty more, but those are the ones that immediately spring to mind. This isn't bad: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/

How?

Game Theory, Hardy-Weinberg Equilibria, Mendelian population geometry, Haldane's rule.

I rule.

We had a discussion a while ago where most people agreed that if "it can't interact with anything in our universe, there's no point considering it a part of our universe". Goodness only knows which thread it was in.

You != we, and mobility != accessibility.

There may be a mod for it on the vb site.