Sayonara

It's possible the smell of the cut grass attracted them. It would be similar to the concentrated scent of feeding aphids (iirc, the aphid is basically a tube, and the sap is relatively unchanged once it has shot through it) and conceivably would attract ladybirds en masse.

BTW, the "BIOS virus protection" you were talking about earlier is the capacity of the BIOS to operate a simple boot sector virus detection routine, it is not anything to do with protecting the BIOS itself. BIOS is stored in [acr=Read Only Memory]ROM[/acr], which is why it needs to be flashed in order to change the content. To protect from a "BIOS virus", all you have to do is disable flash writing when you aren't using it. The only viruses that can write themselves to flashable devices (and it turns out they do actually exist) cannot affect NTFS or UNIX machines, only work with certain chipsets in particular configurations, and are extremely uncommon. There are none that have no identity description in the AV industry. Citing these things as a reason to avoid flashable BIOS is no different to citing them as a reason not to have a computer.

Stating whether or not the law agrees ex post facto with your actions in [insert random country/state here] is not answering the question.

To keep it current. No. Unless you can think of a virus that can fish out a floppy from your box of obsolesence, write itself to it, stick it in the A: drive, reboot your computer, change your boot sequence to 1: Floppy, and then reboot again. I don't think you'll find many people who are willing to shell out a couple of hundred dollars every few months when they can just download an update.

It's not a very complex language - it's just that programming in it takes forever as you are at a very low level of abstraction.

I believe you can't prove how many spiders the average person eats during a lifetime. Score one for internet irony.

Well, yes. Really I should have phrased my previous as "he has given the wrong name to what he is attempting to describe". See above bit -^

I'm not saying there has to be - I'm saying what he described is probably not a black hole.

I would have thought "black hole" implies there is something surrounding the singularity.

Yes.

Their use of the word Armageddon lets them down a bit, seeing as it's a place and not an event. Oh well.

[hide]That's what it's for.[/hide]

What?

Err... not quite what I meant, but never mind.

And once again, False Dilemma solved everyone's problems.

If you didn't do what I was talking about, then I wasn't talking about you, was I? I'm not sure what you mean by "discover" in this context.

Well, you know, you can't be expected to know every popular cultural reference there is. However if one is going to slag off one of modern physics' most important minds, spelling his name correctly is merely a courtesy.

Use the

So. Very. Old.

I think the reason YT is having problems understanding your explanations is that you are explaining it in terms of "no absolute universal time" whereas he is seeing it from the complementary position; that of universally fixed simultaneity of event points.

Let's try to spell and capitalise Einstein correctly before we start calling him names, hey?

It's a thought experiment. You get what you're given.

AKA experience.

I bought these things partly so that I can observe their behaviour, and study the amazing adaptations that their progenitors have evolved over millions of years, and partly because it's in the nature of the human individual to look after - and take responsibility for - other life. So no, PersonCube, of course I am not going to fry them.

I am making it known now that if Boxhead continues to post annoying gibberish, he's going to be suspended.