Sayonara

I like it when the only scientist in the film decides to carbon date a brick.

This is true. Individuals adapt very poorly in an ecological sense, and not at all in the sense of improving genetic fitness - a species as a whole may adapt over time, but there are instances where it just won't happen. And yes Cap'n Refsmmat, heat is a problem. Particularly to organisms with a narrow temperature range in which the biochemistry can possibly work - IE, most of them.

SPAM

I wasn't talking to you, but seeing as you stuck your oar in you can qualify that statement. And use proper reasoning, not "I just think it is" crap.

Even if it was a free country, and even if opposing guns was "treasonous", the above argument would still be pretty stupid. Oh right.

Don't you think maybe people are having trouble understanding it because you are presenting it in a subjective and imprecise way? Learn how to reduce your theory into its mathematical form and people will know precisely what you're talking about.

Actually I could just save you some time, and refer you to these religious folks who'd like to debunk the penguin claim for me: http://www.christianforums.com/t91370

There's a theory here that the majority of buttons are just placebos and don't actually do anything. The only reason I can think of that would support that is that it would be abit stupid to give the throngs of random pedestrians arbitrary control over inner city traffic flow.

Who are these "people"?

That one broke their labs.

Rule 1 Kedas: http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=972 We tell them how, not the actual answer

Saying what's good or bad is not in their mandate. Intercepting terrorist and seditionist communiques is. Somehow I don't think they're interested in who Kyle kissed behind the bike sheds, or who's got the biggest MP3 collection.

The traffic lights that are there for the benefit of pedestrians. You press the button and wait for the lights to change, then cross the road. Those things.

Who are "they"?

They are two different multiple choice questions, clearly.

Well one proton (positive charge) "cancels out" one electron (negative charge), and neutrons (effectively no charge) won't make any difference either way, so the first question should be fairly simple to work out. For the second question it will help to think about what electrical charge actually is. Electrons are the only subatomic particles that are free (under normal conditions) to carry a charge around, and they have a negative charge. If a body is packed with extra electrons it will be negatively charged, and in contact with a conductor some of those will "want" to leave. If a body has an electron deficit it will be positively charged, and on contact with a conductor it will try to "get" more electrons. That's a bit simple, but it should put you on the right track

This is a good point. Even smart mines will blow if trodden on by a civilian while they are active. The US and UK response will be to claim "we consider anyone in the combat zone to be a combatant". There are a couple of problems with this: 1) I'm guessing the plan is to disarm mines as ground is gained, when the combat zone shifts away from that particular minefield. If this is the case...: - How do you define the combat zone? - When all is quiet, how do civilians know whether what was a combat zone last week is still live? - Who will go around the area telling civilians "don't go over there or you'll get blown up by our hidden mines. Oh yeah, and don't tell our enemies where they are please"? 2) Just saying "anyone in the combat zone is a combatant" won't actually make it true. It's a way of assuaging guilt and shedding responsibility for the [unnecessary] extra casualties. The idea of making mines inactive when the combat force leaves the area is a very good one (due to the unpleasant nature of mines as a weapon - they are designed to remove limbs and shatter organs, forcing massive support demands onto units that fall prey to them). But it's not going to completely remove all the problems. And by problems I don't mean "hitches with the plan". I mean the fact that they are fundamentally nasty pieces of kit.

I'm bored by the way, that's not a parody of yours

I always keep the db connection in a separate file anyway, and include it to scripts that need it. So even if someone did manage to get the code for a user-viewable page somehow, they'd not (immediately) have the db details (and hopefully not have the smarts to work out that it was almost within reach).

I already asked why a couple of times and didn't really get a satisfactory answer, although Blike did make the important distinction that he'd choose a gun if he needed to impart lethal force. I can't accept training as a reason to have a gun - it's begging the argument, almost to the point of tautology. "But I need a gun." "Why?" "So I can train for using guns."

Mine's better.

Are you saying that it's not just ok to occupy other countries and oppress the government, but it's also funny? Perhaps opinions like that are why the NSA want a system like Echelon?

Seems to work quite well in pelican crossings.

Have you ever heard of "remixes"?

mana