Sayonara

I suspect this means tonight, after midnight.

Or i need to read the question more carefully

Really? Can you see him from where you are? I am attacking his reasoning, not his person. Please don't add fuel to the flames, ta.

What? Essentially, you added specific details to what I said. Unless you're proposing that pressure changes aren't the same as pressure changes.

http://www.explodingdog.com/january2/warning2.html

Because there is a time lag while the pressurisation system catches up with the change in pressure outside.

I am not disagreeing with you, I am upholding the disagreement from the guy who has the PhD in Atomic Physics. Stop spamming.

Cap'n specifically asked for forums to be hosted on your own space (well, he actually said on the 'domain name', but we know what he means ). If you check out his other thread about forums (now the "Join my Forum!" thread) you'll see he wants to get away from hosted solutions. Not in any current release version. I am running several instances of 2.0.10, which is the latest public release, and there are no ads in that. Never have been, and seeing as phpBB Group have said it will always be free I don't see why they would see the need to introduce ads. There is nothing about ads in the changelog, nothing in the news section, and nothing on the forums. If you are talking about 2.1.x, this is an unsupported rolling alpha test and you should not be surprised if it has over-enthusiastic branding and stops working at the drop of a hat. There is no way they could make it stop working if you remove ads, and it would be a breach of the license under which the forum is distributed if they did. If you are talking about 2.2.x, it doesn't actually exist yet, and won't rule out using 2.0.x when it is finally released. Are you sure you mean phpBB?

What ads are these?

Can you clarify the challenge?

Because, as you have now been told twice already, no information was passed faster than light in the example you posted.

Each forum software package has different technical requirements, but obviously they all require that you have access to web space and ftp.

That makes no difference. Your request was to close the religion forum because YOU didn't want to see part of the discussions. You showed no interest in the fact that it is (a) also a philosophy forum, (b) already moderated quite well enough, and © enjoyed by dozens, if not hundreds, of members and guests. If you think there are unfriendly and uncaring posts on the boards, engage your imagination and have a think about what the posts we do remove must be like. Believe me, there's a hidden forum that is packed with them. See it as harsh if you will. I see it as being a statement of fact, and I can't be held accountable for how you interpret it. You seem to be suggesting that because a science forum expects to deal in facts, that is all people can and/or will post here. That's a ludicrous position. I do not know what this means. We already do moderate the forum, perhaps more stringently than any other. If you are asking for tighter checks, which you are, that can only be achieved by policing what people can and can't say. Meaningless analogy, badly constructed. Please try to argue your point based on its own merits, rather than random issues of law or safety in unrelated areas of reality.

In what way exactly? Cameras record visible light. If there were "demons" there, you'd be able to see them. I suggest you look into the optical properties and behaviour of cameras instead of mystical speculation.

Which, the posts and their offspring which were moved because they were actually off-topic, which you are now duplicating despite the rules?

I think if one assumes the domestic market is the most important in helping technology to proliferate, that is a big mistake. Does anyone realise just how many server rooms there are on the planet? Try and think of some reasons why network admins wouldn't want to be able to back everything up onto a couple of discs.

^

And I want you to as well. Not just despite the fact I know what you'll do to them, but because of it.

You were wrong.

^ That looks like imposing your views to me. I agree with you that people could be more respectful of others beliefs, but we can't force people to only say or think certain things, and we don't have a magic bucket in which we grow moderators who know everything about every religion.

Yeah, like Jesus would condone American Football.

The problems with the education system have little to do with the current cabinet, and everything to do with the attitude towards education that is being adopted by pupils and society alike. Realistically, the situation you described above is already in effect, because pupils do pick and choose what they will bother to learn. And it's AWFUL. So I don't see how institutionalising that is meant to help.

That would be a spectacularly bad idea.

How can you tread into quantum mechanics without those concepts?

By not getting infected with browser hijackers, which you can accomplish with any of the fine products mentioned above.