Sayonara

I'd like to add, that even if it did have a purely genetic basis with a direct link to successful fecundity it would still be unlikely to be selected against (the evidence is that it obviously has not been, or there would be very few gay people). Arguments against this position are undermined by even the most rudimentary grasp of Mendelian genetics.

Good old Bokanovsky's Process.

It would be useful to you if you were to read the other threads on this site where people have claimed that relativity is incorrect or incomplete.

If that were so, why would heterosexual men be just as repulsed by the thought of a sexual relationship with another man as many homosexuals are by the thought of one with a woman? I'm sure there are people who chose to be gay or bisexual; whether for variety of sexual experience, getting attention or whatever - I really can't say. But I am certain that the average person - straight or gay - no more chooses their sexuality than they do the colour of their eyes.

That relies on you being there at the time though. Why not rig up some "sentry guns" by connecting pepper sprays to some kind of passive sensor.

Here you go: http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/bltidalplants.htm

My post was more to do with "pot, kettle" than generalisations. Top marks for paying attention.

Hydroelectric dams and tidal generators seem to do quite well from it.

Hey I know, let's combat baseless generalisations by making generalisations about the people who made the original generalisations. GENIUS.

- Evolution is not 'just' natural selection - No, humans have not stopped evolving - No, there is no such thing as "devolution" WB Aardvark You not in work tonight?

We've been over this so many times.

Mandrake had no probs with my PC - I made the mistake of swapping out the ethernet card last week though... PCMCIA cards aren't exactly a ubiquitous, high-priority piece of kit for a Linux install. It comes as no surprise that it isn't detected by default.

Not that I know of.

You're more likely to get help by asking the same questions in a Linux community than you are by asking here. There are only a handful of Linux users here, and the ones who can answer your questions probably don't have the time to teach you how to use a new operating system. Most likely you will be able to get by with any build of Linux by identifying problems and getting the correct help as you go - there's always a post from someone who's had exactly the same problem knocking around somewhere on Linux forums.

I think I've said this before... in fact I know I have: If you want support with Linux, particularly getting a certain piece of hardware to work with a certain Linux build, you need to use the correct support facilities. No Linux or Unix package will support all of your hardware out of the box, but every package has support communities that are packed with people who can help you.

That's just admiral_ju00's opinion. From my own experience I have to say that Mandrake is nothing like Red Hat.

Because the admin tools and permissions system for version 2.1 of phpBB just aren't anywhere near good enough, whereas the admin and mod tools for VB are very well-developed. The previews of the new phpBB admin system look very encouraging though.

2.2 is the next major version, and they recently got over half way. So they are making some progress.

Again, 17 shells are not "WMD" no matter what you put in them. Also, since the shells are from before the last Gulf War you might want to ask yourself "if Iraqis are so gosh-darned evil, why did they not use these shells when they invaded Kuwait?"

"Spazio web", lol.

Oh I see. Their historical behaviour. I thought you meant right now, and that I had not seen the news reports yet. Isn't it a little early in the day to be piling the USA's misgivings with Hussein and his cronies onto the newly-installed and West-hailed democratic government? Is it not so that "the previous regime did not tell us where these weapons are, we have been here for a year and found nothing, and you guys probably would not know anything about them even if they did exist for sure; but we aren't leaving until you tell us where they are" is still the same as proof that santa does not exist?

I wasn't aware that they were. In what way are they doing that?

I think we need to get this straight: If Iraq has no WMD, they will say "we have no WMD". If they do have WMD, and can't be trusted to disclose them, they will say "we have no WMD". US.gov will either accept their word and call them accountable if they forswear such weapons, or will assume deceit. It doesn't matter how many political buzz-words get attached to the end of it, that's basically still "prove santa doesn't exist".

The 36 shells found abandonned in the southern desert, that were ten years old and shown to have contained no chemical agents? Hardly weapons of mass destruction. Does that mean that - should Iraq fail to disclose any information about their chemical weapons - the coalition forces will stay regardless of whether any such weapons exist? Or does the President see occupation and peace as being the same thing?

No.