mooeypoo

You don't need them "hardcoded" then... the entire point of "hardcoded" is that you *can't* change them. What you can do, though, is create a file with your configuration variables. Same as mirc has mirc.ini or wordpress has configuration.php .. in this file you define whatever you want as your variables. And then, your program reads this file. Using XML or .ini is most comfortable, because they have "comfortable" structure to read. One of the variables should be version number. That way, if you add a 'script' to your program to check a remote server for version number and compare with teh version you have - if the server has newer version, just create a script to "download" a new config file, or to update the config file (by writing into it).. That's one of the ways I can see, but perhaps there are more... Hope that helped ~moo

Aren't the 'speed' / amount of heartbeats related to metabolism too, btw? I can't find anything about this, but I'm sure I've heard this metabolism-lifespan relationship... anyone heard the same or knows about any resources for or against? ~moo

I believe it has a lot to do with metabolism. Smaller animals have faster metabolism, usually, and they die faster. Larger animals have slower metabolism, and they live longer. I'm not entirely sure it is the only cause, though.. I will try to find resources when I wake up, but seeing as no one answered, I thought to pitch in. ~moo

I, too, recommend you learn the basics. HTML isn't hard at all, it's a presentation "language", it's very easy (same point as the 'BBCode' in the forum), and it will help you do a lot more than what the average template-site offers. But anyways, what type of site are you talking about? Single page / database / dynamic / fixed-amount of pages? includes pictures? who is going to update it? These might help me, at least, recommend either systems or templates for you to use. For that matter, joomla is userfriendly even for non-htmlers (though, again, html is VERY recommended, at least), but it's an entire system for dynamic db-driven websites... if you require a 'static' site, there are much simpler solutions like googlepages or the likes.. what do you need, exactly?

Ad hoc explanations are not science.

There's another experiment that is REALLY cool, btw, extracting DNA from your cheek cells. It's up and running here: http://www.smarterthanthat.com/experiments/dna-madness/ I have to say, ending up looking at your own DNA in a bottle is one of the best things I've done... it's really awesome Enjoy it! ~moo

"Research for Unlimited Lifespans" -- is this a humorous way of saying it, or is that just another kooki website? .. ambitious. Is that even considered possible!? Extending, sure.. but immortal? er.. my Skeptical mental lightbulbs light up with I hear this. ~moo

No problems I just noticed that I didn't FULLY answer it though.. you should probably avoid the switch, since you want to use only "before" thing, but I guess you can figure it out by only using the third case. also, don't forget to use some security anti-SQL injection in there, because this is still a GET command. So, to summarize, your code should look something like this: $baseTerm = "%" . [color=red]mysql_real_escape_string([color=Black]$_GET["term"][/color])[/color]; $sql="SELECT * FROM table WHERE field LIKE '".$baseTerm."'"; // etc Don't forget the mysql_real_escape_string thing, it's VERY important if you're dealing with direct-field injections to the SQL database g'luck

iNow, the way to do it is set up a condition in the code itself. For instance: URL: http://www.whatever.com?search=term&type=1 Code: <?php switch ($_GET["type"]) { case 1: //wildcard both sides: $sTerm = '%' . $_GET['term'] . '%'; break; case 2: //wildcard before only: $sTerm = '%' . $_GET['term']; break; case 3: //wildcard after only: $sTerm = $_GET['term'] . '%'; break; default: case 4: //no wildcard: $sTerm = $_GET['term']; break; } //do whatever in the SQL search: $sql = "SELECT * FROM tbl WHERE field=".$sTerm; ?> You can play with the search terms like that. If your intention is to ALWAYS add a wildcard, then just tell the code to automatically add it (instead of switching) and use the new variable for the search. Hope that helps ~moo

yup but it's not the same as my idea.. this is more of a similar project to "SourceForce" -- groups of people start a project and collaborate on it. My idea was more of a "everyone collaborate" thing, not just a closed group. I started it up btw, I just didn't have time to put into it.. if you happen to stumble accross interesting (and free) code, feel free to add up: http://www.codlaborate.com

Okay, look. This is the summary of the thread: You made claims and premises. We've READ THEM and took the time to respond. We're trying to explain that your given claims are illogical, and you claim we are stuck-ups. We give examples to why they are illogical and unfit to serve as premises, and you say they're analogies. We ask he speaks straight forward, and you claim we are stuck ups. We try to ask you to stop saying that and make more substantiated claims we can actually start debating and analyzing, and he you make more analogies. During all that time, regardless of not finding the quote tab, you pick and choose what to respond to. (I beg your pardon but you only answered SNIPPETS of my posts, which were NOT MY MAIN SUBJECT. Picking and choosing what to respond to so that you can "show" us as stuck ups does NOT help your theory to become better scientific). It's borderline Trolling. It's unscientific. Are you here to lecture or to share ideas and analyze them? I believe you need to examine your motivation and reconsider the audience you have chosen. We are not the ones to stop arguing against non-specific circular logic analogies. ~moo

Well, I didn't say that, and I *DID* point out errors, you just ignore them, in a continous attempt to try and accuse us of not trying. We did make some good points about your claims (from what was possible to understand), so stop with the "You're a bunch of science snob" rants and start PARTICIPATING in the conversation YOU started. Okay you have to stop being analogous and start being PRACTICAL and straight forward. No one understands what you mean in your theories, and when we point out irrationalities and illogical claims you jump back into "it was an analogy". You're either here to have us work on your theory together, or you're here to show yourself that scientists are snobs, and you'll do everything you can to prove it. We're participating in the debate, and we;'re reading your text. We don't just "waste our time" like that to be snobs. Most of us, at least. We try to analyze your claims to get an understanding of your theory and to help you improve it, but we can't if you don't follow simple rules of logic. Don't make analogies, okay? It's confusing. Before the analogies, speak STRAIGHT FORWARD. What, exactly, is it that you are claiming? There's a huge difference between a *Scientific* Theory and a *Philosophical* theory. Someone "trying to unprove science" is someone whod oesn't know what science IS. Science is a *METHODOLOGY*, it's not a claim, you don't "disprove" science, you either follow the methodology or you don't. Having an imaginative idea is not against science. A lot of discoveries came from an imaginative "breakthroughs". HOWEVER -- There's no such thing as "stepping out of science". If you step out of science, you stop analyzing the world around you. Science is the *METHOD* by which to analyze the world; it's the method to state how to make the analysis as accurate as possible. Stepping "out of science" is like saying you are solving an Math Integral by "stepping out of math".. it's no longer relevant. Instead of using quote tag, just click the "QUOTE" button under the specific post you are answering to ("reply"). It will quote the entire post and at least we would know who you are referring to. Go read about logic and logical fallacies, before we continune this. It's pointless otherwise, and I'm getting a bit tired of you trying to make a mishmash of subjects. I was talking about the *LOGIC* (or lack thereof) of your premise. It's ILLOGICAL because it's CIRCULAR and I gave an example.. what does it have to do with 3-D, 5-D or structures? Before you develop a claim you need to make sure it follows the rules of logic and that you can base a premise on top of it. Read logical fallacies, i think that'll explain a lot more than any of us can in one post. Where's an answer to my question? Where is a relation to what *I* took the time to answer you? You keep claiming that we are the ones who are snobs, but look at how you're answering us: "I would agree if it is flawed" ? WHAT? Agree what? What is flawed? if you disagree that your premise is flawed, how about EXPLAINING WHY. Get off your high horse already. You're the one who came to a *SCIENCE* forums, don't complain now that we insist you use LOGIC, RATIONALITY and SCIENCE. you accuse us of not noticing an analogy, and you yourself are ignoring my *CLAIM*. I didn't claim the skies are actually blue BECAUSE of reflecting the ocean, I claimed that this "unsubstantiated rant" as you so skillfully put it, is the EXACT SAME CONCEPT and logic as YOURS. No answer on that too? You agree? Disagree? Why disagree? Dear mister Firefighter. I have the utmost respect for your profession, and I have nothing against you. I will not debate logic with you until you show at least a small consideration of what a logical debate is. It tried to show it, but you ignored it... if you don't understand what I tried to say, say you don't understand. I'll explain myself again. but this is getting quite ridiculous. I am reminding you that you are in a SCIENCE FORUMS. And that we demand rational and logical premises. <sigh> Stop yelling around that everyon think you're a crackpot and start ANSWERING OUR QUESTIONS. Don't convince us of something we didn't think of in the first place, hm? (hence, convince us there's merit in your claims instead of convincing us you're a crackpot. How's that?) ~moo

Physia, there already *ARE* contradictions in the Quran (like there are in the bible, tanach and any other mythical ancient book). That never stopped the "true believers" from devising imaginative ways of overcoming these contradictions. Violence is never the answer to violence. Specifically not such huge generalized response in a place where a lot of *INNOCENT* people are. If you want to find the terrorists, fight the terrorists, not the people they are using. When you fight the innocent people ('brainwashed' against the west or not) you are letting terror win. terrorists don't fight a "regular" war (for territory, for example), they fight a psychological one. Innocent people are still *LIFE*. ~moo

It's tautological, it makes no new statement of "knowledge", it just repeats itself. It's the same of me saying "What is blue, regardless of the colors that make it so, is still blue". It's circular, it is scientifically (and logically) meaningless, because reaching any sort of conclusion based on that premise is risking (to say the least) flawed logic. "The skies are blue because they reflect the ocean. The ocean is blue because it relfect the skies." That, too, is circular, tautological, and makes no difference in the sense of reaching conclusions. And about your second sentence, it is simply very very simplified. Too simplified to reach a cocnlusion from. A sand castle is not just sand. It is has water, for example (damp sand, otherwise it won't "hold"). What else? The sand is not just "sand" it is particles of something. What something? There are many kinds of sand (look here, for example: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006AGUFMED51D..03N) So you see, these statements are okay, but they're not proper to *base* your conclusion upon. They're just too simplified and circular. And about my previous post -- I didn't mean to offend you, I meant to respond on your allegation that we repeatedly "assault" your theory. That *IS* science. You play devil's advocate, you question the heck out of a theory, and if it STANDS that process, it might have merit. You do that to *find* the holes, so that you can perfect the theory and/or devise others that are more substantial. You shouldn't take it personally, but requiring we stop is like requiring we stop thinking scientifically. That won't happen. ~moo

I don't mean to offend, my friend, but you can be the king of the world - but with no evidence, logic or the scientific methods, your theory is not even a theory, it's an unproven rant. Remember that you are in a science forums. We don't have any rules about the people we accept, but we do have rules about the theories we accept. It's called the Scientific Method. p.s (EDIT): Another point is that we don't intend to "shoot down your theory", but part of the scientific method is to poke holes in a theory to see how stable it stands in relation to *REALITY*. It's like playing "Devil's advocate" - if the theory passes criticism, it may be valid. If it fails, it's obviously invalid. Don't take this so personally, we wouldn't have been good Science-minded people if we wouldn't have done that.

Source? Forget about source... -- RELEVANCY!? ~moo

Good god, will you STOP mixing subjects together already. This thread is about Obama's association to the Pastor and whether or not it affects his campaign. it's not about the Jews, it's not about Islam, it's not about black, white, female or males, and it's NOT about science vs. religion. Stick to the subject and stop confusing and generalizing EVERYTHING together. ~moo

If I do make that video, I should probably split it in half - 1 part for this concept, and the other for a short explanation/demonstration about Pareidolia...

http://www.kloonigames.com/crayon/ This is just beyond awesome... I feel like getting a touch-screen computer JUST for this game... finally, science education *FUN* game. brilliant. Had to share. ~moo

Oh my god, dude.. can I use this for my smarterthanthat project? That would be so awesome, I'll do it on cam... I'll give you credit, too!

Well, isn't That's racism, no matter how you flip it. Not liking someone for his skin color and/or/meaning race, is racism. and that would be 'being logical' -- I don't mean to say that voting for obama is logical, I mean to say that voting for the best candidate is. So whoever votes for what he considers to be the best candidate is a matter of logical choice. Disliking someone for his color, regardless of streaks of logical thinking in between, is still racism. *Thoughts*, however, are a person's own business. So are feelings. If someone dislikes blacks because they're blacks, that's their right, as long as that person doesn't do anything to hurt anyone. But that person is still racist. A quiet one, maybe. And his liberties allow for it, sure. But the point is that making a decision about someone due to their *RACE* is RACIST. That's the point of the definition. Saying Obama shouldn't be voted because he's black is racist. Saying Obama shouldn't be voted because he supports this-and-that causes/laws/issues is not racist, even if those issues are related to black people. Despite politics, and political correctness and whatever else, this is a really big distinction. REALLY. Big. ~moo

Just like not all men are the same, or all women are the same, or all asians are the same, or all black people are the same, or all religious people are the same, or all humans are the same. What difference does it make, then, these distinctions, if they make no true distinction, other than to incite and raise racist and sexist remarks?

Ignoring all the other prejudices and claims in this thread, I'll just make a point for the sake of science (since this is a science forums, though a politics thread): ("strong evidence" for mercury being the cause of autism): http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/02/john-mccain-ent.html http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2008/03/john_mccain_panders_to_the_mercury_militia.php (not "believing" in evolution): http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2007/05/evolution_and_the_hand_of_god.html (on abortion, endangered species, stopping the spread of HIV): http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2008/03/john-mccain-man-of-science.html I am not too well versed in American politics, I am learning as I go, but all I *do know* is that if we have another anti-science president, we are all in trouble. This actually might be good as another discussion, I just had to insert it in, as the voice of science in a science-forums place. Woman president... "dark skin" (...okay..) president... is America ready? I don't know. We do know what happens when we have a religious zealot anti-science President, though. ~moo

If they prove the shroud is relatively young, then it's definitely not jesus.

No of course I don't, I am surprised it is raised up again (in "Discovery News"!!) as "might be" true... That thing is the biggest hoax/fraud/myth ever, and yet this article makes it "sound" like it might be the real deal. Of course, just reading a bit through it you see that the TITLE is misleading -- scientists want to *re check* the age, not because it might not be right but because of contaminants that might have been evident in the check 20 years ago. I was just surprised that discovery news (which is supposed to be pro science non-dramatic-crap usually) is putting up such a title. ~moo btw -- I don't think there's any DNA left after 20 years. On the other hand, I believe the initial age-check found that this *cloth itself* is about 1000 years old or so.. which.. hehe... invalidates the entire thing with no NEED for dna check.