mooeypoo
-
Posts
5698 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Everything posted by mooeypoo
-
Want to know stuff about BPD
mooeypoo replied to zombieSquirrel's topic in Psychiatry and Psychology
Is that a factual statement defended by actual evidence, or is it just your way of provoking an argument? If it's the first, we expect some evidence. If it's the latter, you should go over our rules and refrain from doing it again. ! Moderator Note Also, in case it wasn't clear, we *require* civility in arguments here. That's not a nice request or a sweet hope. It's a requirement. Stop making personal attacks and patronizing statements. I'm quite sure that if you have something to say, you are capable of saying it in a civil manner and argue properly. After all, we are in a science forum. -
! Moderator Note Enough. Personal attacks will not fly, no matter how much you think they're benefiting your argument (which is none at all), ccdan. Debates are done in a civil manner or not at all here.
-
Duplicate thread closed.
-
I started listening to "A Song of Ice and Fire" about a week ago, and I just *can't* stop... I'm about to finish Book II, and I can't even wait for my Audible credits, I'm buying now! now now now now!
-
Please copy & paste this to your status if you are constantly being asked to copy & paste something to your status by friends who copy & paste things to their status. Many people won't copy & paste this but my true sarcastic friends will copy & paste it because they know this was copied & pasted from a dear friend in need of more stuff to copy & paste...thank you! And don't forget the heart..♥
-
Start by opening it up, sysD.
-
Do you have this code up online on a test server somewhere? I'd like to see the problem first-hand. It can be so many things (from bad syntax to bad location of image, etc). If you give me the place it's on I can use Firebug to help out on the problem specifically. If not, I'll try to do this myself at home but that will have to be later when I get a bit of time. Also, if I do it myself I'll have to install 960grid and all that to check how ti works with that system rather than standalone... if you can upload this somewhere I can see it, it'll be the best solution.
-
Yep, it'll work in a div. Try changing the code a bit to this: <head> <style type="text/css"> .example { background-image:url('img_tree.png'); background-repeat:no-repeat; background-position:right top; margin-right:200px; } </style> </head> <body> <div class='example'> <h1>Hello World!</h1> <p>W3Schools background no-repeat, set postion example.</p> <p>Now the background image is only show once, and positioned away from the text.</p> <p>In this example we have also added a margin on the right side, so the background image will never disturb the text.</p> </div> </body> </html> See I only added a 'div' with class 'example', and then changed the CSS from "body" to ".example". ~mooey
-
Can you give me the url for the original box example you gave ? If I can examine their CSS, I'll be able to help more. Also, check this link out: http://www.w3schools.com/css/tryit.asp?filename=trycss_background-image_position Play around with the code on the right, change "background-position:right top;" to "background-position:left top;" and "margin-right:200px;" to "margin-left:200px;" The picture is obviously not the one for you to use, but you can see that if you create a picture of the horizontal text with a bar that's longer than the box, and put it stationary on the left-top side, let it go all the way down.
-
I didn't have a chance to work with 960 grid system yet, although I have started reading about it. From what I understood, it's more for the general outline of the pages rather than the styles inside those boxes. That is, in this case I don't think the particular box has anything to do with 960gs. I am pretty sure the vertical text is an image. I see two options that are probably the easiest: Create the headings as its own separate <div> with purple background and a no-repeat background (top, left) for the text, then another div for the text. Make the vertical text with its background a long bg, and just make it the no-repeat top left background for the text box, with wide left padding. There are ways to make vertical text, by the way, using CSS, but I am not sure I'd bother with this one. ~mooey
-
Swimming in your post-Irene flood-pond? Maybe not such a good idea after all http://j.mp/nuOOqE
-
We all live in a yellow submarine, a yellow submarine, a yellow submarine, everybody now! http://bit.ly/n4Smk5
-
Seeing the #hurricane in NYC, I think it's clear: The FSM is getting ready 4 a second coming. Warm water is a first step 4 good pasta.
-
I was talking about the "Rare Earth" hypothesis, which you brought up, linked to, and talked about in your post. I'm going to step out of this thread for a bit. It's quite clear I'm not getting through with my points, and you seem to be changing the goal post all the time. It's not about what you have or don't have against me, I have nothing against you either, it's about your seeming insistence to lecture instead of debate. You say X, we answer with Y, and you change the goalpost and claim X is not what you said. It's not just with me, either, so perhaps you should go over your own posts and see if you should make them clearer. ~mooey
-
Those videos were made by people who are not scientists, who took on the fancy term "Quantum Physics" and decided to make money misinterpreting it as part of the "New Age" revolution. Any and all science behind these videos is accidental. You should keep an open mind, 36grit, just don't let your mind fall out. Your idea is nice, but you need to be able to show how it works in reality (and therefore, how these behave, how we can detect them, experiment, and predict upon them) otherwise it's not science, it's imagination. ~mooey
-
Getting ready for a Hurricane is weird. I think I have everything "just in case" (specially since they're anticipating power outages and no subway) but in these cases, there's always something you go totally "D'oh!" about just when you have no stores, no water and no electricity.
-
Which is why this analogy is false. Something that is repeatedly told in this post. Progress, at last. I didn't chime in with this earlier because it was a bit off the main point, but "Rare Earth" is a hypothesis, not a full fledge theory. It is not substantiated to a level that it explains all we have, it's not mainstream common thinking. As I told you before, and as many others tell you, scientists cannot state whether the earth is rare or not since we have no data either way. Therefore science in general does NOT make that assertion. The theory you quote is a *hypothesis* made by certain scientists that try to convince people they are corrrect. They may have some validity but that doesn't mean it's mainstream. And Bignose made very good points about the statistics. You should consider them more seriously. ~mooey
-
What does anything have to do with purpose? We are talking about chance. Don't move the goalpost. You say that the earth is one solitary object -- without proof. We don't know that. There might be a million earths out there. There might be billions. We don't know. that said, I will really appreciate it if you stop getting personal and offensive. People answer you, you may disagree, but do so in a civil matter. These are the rules, and you've been warned about this 3 times already. It's very hard to keep in topic when every time we make a valid point you seem to deteriorate the argument into personal attacks and jabs.
-
I agree. My point was to try and get him to see that himself.
-
I think you assume that behavior in quantum level is chaotic and unpredictable. That's not true, though. It is much more energetic (a lot more 'events' happen a lot faster in the quantum level) but there ARE rules of conduct so-to-speak. The main thing is that it's probability-based. So while if you look at a SINGLE particle you can't tell where it is 100% but rather where it is according to some probabilistic equation (also, either where it is or what it's velocity, if I simplify things a bit) -- still, these are probabilistic, and when you talk about billions and billions of particles, the behavior of the *system* in general goes towards the average. It balances itself out. Does this explain things better?
-
There are tons of collisions going on in space EVERY day. At the time the moon was created, there were quite a lot of them all over the solar system every day. When something happens a lot? It's not "by chance". It's obvious. Our moon isn't the only moon to form the same way either, so that isn't remarkably amazing chance as well. As you were told in the thread, when events happen a lot maximize the chance of something "out of the ordinary". There's a baby born somewhere in the world as you read this post. How extraordinary! Isn't it? Well.. it should be, right? A baby! And yet, the reason I say this is because there are so many babies born around the world, that a baby born while you're reading this is not really a surprising "chance" event. It's pretty much a given. The same is true to our solar system. If you look at the events most of them are truly remarkable if you ignore the fact that (a) our universe is huge, (b) those events happen a *lot* in our universe and © they keep happening quite a lot and repeat themselves in other solar systems. These transform the remarkable chance event into an interesting pretty expected event. the other thing is that you can't really compare the fact it didn't happen (life, I mean) anywhere else in the universe, because it would be necessary to compare ourselves to a similar solar system -- and we only found handful of those. If science would consider this "pure chance" then we wouldn't have looked for life on planets that are under the same conditions as our planet, because "chance" is inconsistent. But we do look for life on planets in the Goldilocks zone -- where the earth is -- because we anticipate that these events, while not happening 100% of the time, are still semi predictable. That's not chance. Finally, I don't mean to be a nag here, but your posts are popular-science articles; these aren't really what science SAYS, it's what the media says that science says. They're written for the laymen to get people awed and excited, so the use of "omg! we're a miracle" is abundant, even if inaccurate. That's why I asked you for properly scientific articles. Peer reviewed ones. You claim science says it's a chance -- find me a paper from a scientist - peer reviewed, to show that other scientists agree with him (as in "science says" and not "this guy says" - that says the solar system was created by chance. That is simply not the scientific view of things. It is the popular science laymen-media view, but it's not what physics and astronomy actually say on the matter. ~mooey
-
Wow, seriously? NYC considers evacuation due to the hurricane? Eek.. okay, well, off I go to get groceries for the weekend...
