mooeypoo

Watch from the wind. My mom used pepper spray when she was younger and although the guy panicked and ran away (thank god), it wasn't because of the pepper spray itself - the wind braught it all back to her face and she came back home with teary eyes and boiling face Just be careful

Someone once told me the exact number of pages in the original bible (yes, the hebrew one) and i don't remember. In short - there are a LOT. And alot of words. And a lot of letters. And the code keeps changing - sometimes it's "every 6 words" sometimes it's "the second letter of every third word" bla bla bla The options are infinite. If you want to find words in the bible by a certain CODE it's the easiest thing to do. I have LOTS of similar words that show that the bible code is a complete hoax, but most of them are in hebrew. If you insist, I'll translate them but I don't think it's that important to the thread ~moo

Is that thing even legal? OR Ethical!

http://www.vbrezq.com/ Surprised? So was I. The program is a bit limited, but it does the work. Mostly. I was also told that the program called "RACE" (not usually found in search engines, but can be found here: http://www.exetools.com/ ) is good to extract images and files from a VB exe file. It isn't as good in code extracting, but oh well, better than nothing. This: http://www.decompiler.org/ might help too. And in general, try to google for "Decompile VB EXE" it might show some good results. Hope that helped. ~moo

[*] Where did you reach the 11' tall person? I didn't know that one, I'd love to get the source. [*] Yes, the theory of evolution has flaws. That's why the THEORY of evolution is a THEORY. of Evolution. [*] I'd also like to see where you got the "The moon moves further away from the earth" fact, 'cause I didn't know that one either. I'm not being cynical, I'm serious - I'd like to know the source to enrich my mind. [*] Escuse me, but your claims are empty. a) Even if you are right in all you say, it doesn't disprove evolution. It just shows it has some holes. EVERY theory has some holes in it. Including (and gosh if i start i will never finish!) the GOD theory. I think the god theory is probably the flawed'est one of 'em all. Doesn't mean its untrue, doesnt also means its true. It only means its a THEORY. T-H-E-O-R-Y. b) you say "do your research" while you obviously haven't done yours. "Mucky soup"?? My four year old cousin explain it better than that. I can also say "If we were made by a 'superpower control freak'" well duh. We can both diss each other's claim. This is not the point, is it? The point is to make VALID and LOGICAL claims. Otherwise go to http://www.creationismforums.net if that even exists. And no, I didn't intend to offend you by the 'control freak' statement, sorry if i have, it was just to make a point. c) You keep marking "billion" in brackets. We didn't say billion, we say a few millions, thats one, and two, we can also explain that through valid logical explanations like the size of the earth's crumb (surface), the age of certain fossils, the process we assume has happened through watching existing animals today and ancient diggings of bones and such. We are not CERTAIN about those things, but we assume - logically - that they are right. How? by making logical claims. [/list=1] Instead of trying to throw empty claims into the air and patronnize us, why don't u try explaining LOGICALLY why you think "billions" of years after our emmerging from the "mucky soup" is illogical to you. If you believe differently - then explaining this logically shouldn't be a problem.. ~moo

I was just thinking, after watching CNN and the news here about a really bothering question. There's no doubt that the media (in all its various shapes and appearances) has incredible ammount of power over the world's population. The media, theoretically (god, I hope not practically) can state flat-out lies and the population of the world would believe it, if it's convincing - or "visual" enough. If any of you has seen "Wag the Dog" - you'd know what I mean. If not, think about this hypothetical question (I stress: HYPOTHETICAL. I don't deny any event occuring in Bosnia even for a second, this is just to prove a point) -- What if the war didn't really happened AS it was presented in the news. Say, there was a war, but not as many killings, or not as much violence, etc. Theoretically - we'd never know. The only reason we do know about what happened - at least partially, since no one will know the ENTIRE length of the violence until he spoke personally with a survivor (something that I did actually..) - is because of the physical evidence of speaking to survivors and hearing the same testimonial from multiple people. My question, therefore, is how can we - for a second - trust ANY kind of media feed? Even if we see the pictures, we can never know if they were "taken out of context" to make the subject appear to the benefit of the media group itself. Isn't that thing the WORST irony of the century?? We live in a world that is completely supported and lies on the roots of communications and Media... Can we even TRUST it? ~moo

Hi, this is quite important to me -- I'm making a company site, and need to make some sort of administrator's console, in which - among other things - the admin adds News, users and so on. In teh "Add News" thing, I want to make the news "HTML" based, means that if there's <b>NEWS TITLE</b> it will appear bold on the news marquee. Obviously. the thing is that the Company's site admins (they're not really admins, they'll just use the admin CP i am making) don't ahve much of a clue in HTML, so I want to make some simple buttons like "B" and "I"... much like there are in this site (when writing a reply or a new thread) -- VERY simple one, not an entire editor, just three or four actions that they can add. So that if they mark "NEWS TITLE BLA BLA" inside the textarea and click on "B" then inside the textarea will appear the text <B>NEWS TITLE BLA BLA</B> Anyone knows how I do this? I have no clue how to even start, since I'm not that good with Javascript. If anyone knows of a good resource about changing textarea text, I'll appreciate it!!! Thanks a lot!! ~moo

MAAAAN install VB6!!!! but anyways, magically enough here are VB4 sites. http://vbnet.mvps.org/index.html?code/faq/ (and a whole bunch of File/Text TODO here: http://vbnet.mvps.org/index.html?code/faq/ ) by the way -- I just googled "VB4 +text +file" and found a whole bunch. ~moo

Okay, thanks guys I've solved it. I have no idea how, I just did it all over again - SLOWLY - with debugging practically every line - and it WORKS. Yey. If you're interrested in my solution, btw, let me know, I'll paste it here or something. ~moo

I have an ANNOYING problem in PHP - I'm SURE it's something I'm missing, but if anyone can help, PLEASE. I'm dying here. I've done a DB (it's odbc TEMPORARILY.. when i get my mysql server it'll change, but since that's not the problem it doesnt really matter) that contain the Menu items on the left-hand side. The thing I wanna do is that the code will read the db and compile the Menu with its submenu items. Why? 'cause i want the company to be able to add menu items and submenu items without bothering me, that's why In anycase -- it's only HALF working, and I don't know WHY. here's my code: <?php //get the menu: //------------- //connect to database $connectionstring = odbc_connect("schotDB", "", ""); //SQL query $Query = "SELECT * FROM MENU WHERE Classification='upper';"; //execute query $queryexe = odbc_do($connectionstring, $Query); while ($Row = odbc_fetch_array($queryexe)) { //put into array, to extract later: $UpperMNUItems[]=odbc_result($queryexe,"CatName"); } $MNUUpperCntr=1; //so the DIV parts would get right foreach ($UpperMNUItems as $MNUItem) { //upper subj: print "<table width='100%' border='0' cellspacing='0' cellpadding='0'>"; print "<tr>"; //Category Name -- UPPER MENU ITEM print "<td><a href='javascript: DisplayI(this." . $MNUUpperCntr . ")'".odbc_result($queryexe,"CatName")."</a></td>"; print "</tr>"; print "</table>"; //now check if there is anything in the SUB menu: //---------------------------------------------------------------- //SQL query $Query = "SELECT * FROM MENU WHERE Classification='".$MNUItem."';"; //extract the submenu items that are related to the UPPER menu item. //execute query $queryexe = odbc_do($connectionstring, $Query); if ($queryexe) //there ARE sub menu items: { print("<DIV ID='" . $MNUUpperCntr ."'"); print(" style='display:none;' class=NoMargins>"); print("<table width='100%' border='0' cellspacing='0' cellpadding='0'>"); while ($Row = odbc_fetch_array($queryexe)) { print "<tr bgcolor='#006699'>"; if (odbc_result($queryexe,"URL")=="") { print " <td align='center'>" . odbc_result($queryexe,"CatName") . "</td>\n"; } else { print "<td><a href='".odbc_result($queryexe,"URL")."'>".odbc_result($queryexe,"CatName")."</a><td>\n"; } print "</tr>"; } print "</table>"; print "</DIV>"; } //---------------------------------------------------------------- $MNUUpperCntr++; } ?> and the page is here: http://moriel.schottlender.com/NewSchottlenderSite/index.php For some ODD reason it doesnt extract all the UPPER menu items AND it mixes up the upper ones with the subitems ... :\ It's a PHP mess, in short. and I REALLY don't see why, the code theoretically is okay... HELP. Seriously. :help: ~moo

In less than two seconds, in the middle of the night, here are a few sites i googled up for ya: http://www.sfsu.edu/~jtolson/textures/textures.htm http://www.iconbazaar.com/backgrounds/ http://www.ozones.com/backgrounds/ http://www.marketwizz.com/backgrounds/ but mannnnnn I hate non originals. Go to photoshop, 2 seconds and you have an original beautiful simple background. Or just pick a color ~moo

A few things (sorry if it sounds stupid): No, it doesn't.. or, well, it shouldn't be. A centrifuge is some sort of tool - usually a tool that represents 2 dimentions. The matter is being twisted in ONE AXIS *and* the edges of that tool prevents it from being thrown "up" and "down". I don't know whats the other tool you mean, it might solve up my current confusion, if you can show me an example, a picture, or send me to a place that explains it I'll appreciate it. What axis?? The movement should be spherecal not circular. There shouldn't *be* one axis, there should be N axises. Endless ammount. And the forces should be equal, too, since it's a sphere. There *is no* center, it's sphere. It's SUPPOSED to be a perfect sphere. The only reason EARTH has a 'center' is because we speak about a relative center to the SUN -- and plus it's not a perfect sphere, it's an oval. It still doesn't make much sense... I've heard once that there's a theory about the turning of the galaxy - explained by the existance of a black hole in the middle. Well , even if that's true - a black hole is ALSO spherecal. Not circular. BASICALLY the movement should be a bit more chaotic, not circular. A WHAT !? I lost you Other than all that - the forces that exist in the atom are SUPPOSED to be similar - why then the electrons move in a "chaotic" form, unlike the stars? It's *supposed* to be similar according to the forces and physical laws. At least similar... Sorry to make it hard but I'm really confused on this. If you can even send me to some sites or books on the subjects, or well... ANYTHING else, I'd really appreciate it. I migth be wrong (I'm not all that good in astronomy as you might have noticed, but I know at least the BASIC physics) but it seems like there's another force that we're missing here... somethign that gathers everything towards one plane. We can't even call that plane the "Center Axis" since the sun and black holes are spherecal. There are even asteroids that move in a cheotic movement in relation to the planets and the sun... thanks ~a confused moo p.s: If you look at Asynchronous Satellites, they behave in a chaotic way since each of them has a different "starting point", even satellites with the same height move in different orbital paths... they're not "flat".

Is this for real? I mean... it's not really concidered to be another "moon" is it? is it even big anough to fit the term? btw, I wonder why no one's teaching that in school. Sounds important enough to me.. hah.. ~moo

I know I've asked before but I didn't settle for the answer, I'm sorry... This is REALLY bothering me lately - to the extent of actually dreaming about someone squashing the entire universe with his dirty shoe. HELP me. Please. I'm a geek, yes, but all hell -- this is too much even for me!! ) In any case. PLEASE, I have to understand this. Three basic assumptions, I hope you all agree: [*] Our universe "exists" in more than 3 dimentions. [*] The universe began with an explossion (The big bang). [*] The stars in the solar systems are probably material of the sun - the result of an ancient explosion of the sun. [/list=1] WHY, then, is the solar system (and, by what the observations tell us, the entire galaxy) is moving in a 2Dimentional path!? it's a CIRCLE!! it doesn't make sense. If there was an explosion, the planets were supposed to move in a "chaotic" movement around the sun - much similar to what happens in atoms - the nuclae and the electrons around it -- but they DON'T. They all move around the sun in a 2D matter - like they're all layed down on a plate. I don't understand. If there was an explosion - then there should ahve been another force -- a REALLY powerful one -- that "placed" them all in the same dimention.... I'm sorry for asking this for the second time - but I really didn't settle for the answers the last time. It just doesn't make sense, explosions doesn't act this way - or aren't SUPPOSED to act this way in space. Besides, my physics teacher once told me that there's a theory that compares huge "objects" in space (like galaxies and solar systems) to miniature atomic reactions - like the atom, electron and so on. If that's the case - then the flat orbit movement is even LESS logical. What's going on??? ~moo

Uhm excuse me I might sound stupid but aren't black holes supposed to have such a huge gravity that NOTHING "escapes" their 'grab' ? What's the basis of this theory?

Look at the first message in the thread, ed84c, there are some sites there...

I think the most important thing (might be just me because i'm closer to the subject) Is not the data - we can REAQUIRE data. It's the *way* we treat the information. Its true that if we dont use it then theres no point to the deaths of those people. But you know what? THERE IS NO POINT. No matter what you do - there's no point t six million deaths. Finding a rational behind a bunch of scientific data is what neo-nazis are doing. Not us. So I think the entire debate about giving a POINT to the victim's suffering and death is not valid in this case. The data should be used, in my opinion of course, if the COST of reaquiring is much higher than the cost of using it (and the cost of using it is extremely high, as u can see brielfly just by this argument!) You just need to know that when you USE this information taken from the nazis - you open a much much bigger issue. Its (even by little) supporting the "cause" and "good intention" and "good results" of the Nazis. And you know what? Even for only THAT reason I wouldn't use the data. And I strongly doubt holocaust victims and their families will disagree that much. ~moo

Okay, okay, wow. Lets start with the simple announcement, though being a bit not-scientific, i think everyone would agree: YOU are not GOD. I'm not saying that in a religious zealut kind of way, i'm saying that as a human kind of way. YOU have no right to decide that another person is sterilized. In fact - no one does. LUCKILY. Whether it's "helping" the worlds population or not - FIND ANOTHER WAY. I dont think this is a serious way of talking about stabilizing the population of the world. In fact, I was SO CERTAIN you're kidding, I joked about finding a husband. Don't worry about me, darling, I'll make my way around the universe. YOU however - There are so many consequences to this, I dion't know where to begin. I'll try: The psychological aspect - People would be "SUPERIOR" if they would be able to breed. Go watch movies, man, it's the oldest story in the universe. "Natural" aspect - if you take every "third child" how do you know you're not causing the distruction of the human race? perhaps those you prevented from reproducing are exactly those you WANT to reproduce. Social Limits - you are now playing god with third of your population. Why not taking it further? Like killing all blind and deaf - not everyone can reproduce ANYWAYS right? So why not just destroy them at the very beginning? They're taking valuable spot in the "To Be Reproduced" List. And there's so many other Social (and "government") threats, I think I'll need an entire thread just for that. The bottom line is that this is just plain WRONG. You want to contol your population - try thinking of better ways like teaching third-world countries how to use birth prevention. Or try to make sure that the population in those third world nations are being fed right, and treated right. Hell, try to find extra space for more people on Mars or Jupiter for all I care - but just know that if you start with THIS SORT OF THINGS most odds that you're never done with them. ~moo

Now we know where the tabloids get ideas from, Cap'n thanks guys anyways I thought maybe there's a bigger base to this, maybe a picture (like the one with "GOD" and the WTC) but appearantly there isn't one... Had to check though ~moo

ooooh thanks but she's a bit small. And she doesn't have that naughty look... muahaha I'll try looking for more Didi pics, but with my luck, I'll end up finding nude pics of her. The internet is macho schauvinist, no doubt. <off to look for pics> Thanks Sayonara³ ~moo

I actually liked the line saying "Distributed by Internet Broadcasting Systems, Inc. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed." Out of the entire article, this was the spooky part.

I knew I'd get laughed at. I meant - was there any pictures (like pics of gas clouds) that COULD HAVE (maybe, perhaps, by accident) be mistaken for aliens or anything like that... I might be stupid but I'm not blonde-- wait no, that's not right. Just answer me ~moo

That's... quite an alarming post, I'd say. I can't believe we're talkinga bout STABILIZING population with... THESE measures. Besides, it would be HELL to find a decent husband this way.

by the way personal stuff, is it just me or am I really the only woman geek in this forum? (I wanted to find a picture of DIDI but i didnt so Dexter was my next choise if you happened to ask yourself about why i put a male pic if i'm a woman. made no sense, i know. deal with it ;p )

I'm Moriel. Hi