Cap'n Refsmmat

Define "controlled." Linus may control what gets in to the kernel in the end, but that's irrelevant to the definition of "open source." Open source means I can release my own kernel, fully compatible with the Linux kernel, with a few extra bells and whistles. Or whatever I want. Without receiving a cease-and-desist notice. Wrong. When you contain tags like "lineWrapLikeWord6," and don't specify what Word6 did in line-wrapping, you still have an advantage over other implementations of the file format. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Office_Open_XML#Criticism

How did it emerge in bonobos if it could not emerge due to evolution? But is that deviation something worthy of correction?

So it's closer to a compound bow, then?

It's done in bonobos, and they're related to us. Then we'll follow through with the bonobo example. Perhaps bisexuality was the original trait, and homosexuality emerged when we didn't have to worry as much about having lots of offspring. You're assuming homosexuality == lots of sex. That may be true in some cases, but not necessarily all. "Malfunctioning" implies "bad." You're ignoring the possibility that homosexuality and heterosexuality are two equally viable possibilities. You're not making a great case to the contrary, anyway.

Fair enough. Following from that, nobody's really qualified to make the judgement better than anyone else, because heterosexual people will be biased the opposite direction. So if the biases are equal, than the best-qualified person for judging personal effects of the choice is the person directly affected by them. Don't panic - you were right in the first place.

Yes, like a crossbow, but Killa Kown says "Unlike a crossbow it doesn't have a trigger mechanizim, instead the bow string is pulled back like a normal bow."

Please do. Although the New Scientist article I referenced was recent (the latest issue), I'd like to read whatever else there is available on the topic.

If it's big enough, it may be an advantage to have a trigger mechanism. Using a longbow required enough strength as it is. Trying to pull back a ballista-sized bow would be even more fun.

You're assuming homosexuality == lots of unprotected sex. It may in some cases, but not necessarily all. And how does homosexuality affect your judgement? It's not like rabies or something.

Not really. Treatments aren't recommended to patients if the patient would not benefit from them enough to warrant the cost. If the patient doesn't care if he's gay or not, why recommend giving him a treatment?

Godwin's Law has taken effect, and that's when we know a thread is really down the drain. This thread is now, to borrow a term from geoguy, a pile of cow dung. Insults, no matter how subtle, are not tolerated. I guess I should have watched this more carefully from the start. Closed.

That's what he said. Scientists try to avoid exaggerating the data.

Find a base of a known concentration and add a measured amount to it until the pH hits 7. If you know how much acid you had, concentration of acid * its volume = concentration of base * its volume. I think. More: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titration

Weird. You're presumably getting the Florida servers, same as me, and it works fine here.

That's not exactly certain. Quantum theory, according to that article and other books I have read, essentially says "it doesn't have a definite position unless someone looks." If there's a particle in a closed box, not only do we not know where it is in the box, it doesn't either, until we open it up and look. The question is "what defines 'observer'?" Look, I read the books, I'm the expert here This is really a separate topic, anyway.

Works for me. Where are you (in terms of country)? Might be one of their local clusters. Unless, of course, the library doesn't want you to use Wikipedia.

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/mg19426091.600-the-second-quantum-revolution.html Quantum mechanics says "not so fast, partner."

[math] f(x) = \left\{\begin{array}{cc}sin(x) & 0 \leq x \leq \pi \\e^x & \pi < x \leq 2\pi \\ 2 & x>2 \pi,x\neq 3\pi\end{array}\right. [/math] Click to see what I did. (Go Google!)

Does Vista have a built-in firewall that's blocking them all?

Evolution isn't just "what makes you have more kids." It's also about "what keeps you alive," and even "what makes your group beat the other groups" (group selection). And perhaps homosexuality evolved as a way to establish bonding between members of a group, therefore providing an advantage over other groups by giving the group members a motivation be more altruistic. Just look at bonobos.

Right. So instead of arguing on and on about relativity and tests and all sorts of fun stuff, I think we can instead agree on a simple statement: Relativity works for most things we've tried it on. The trouble is when you apply relativity to things like individual particles or high-gravity environments (hence the search for a "final theory"). So it's fair enough to say, "relativity works, to a point." The real question is whether Zanket's rebuttal of relativity is right or wrong, and this discussion is not relevant to that at all. We know relativity could be improved upon (to say the least), but is Zanket headed in the right direction? note: correct me if I'm wrong here, because I probably got bits wrong. But you get my point.

How about now?

Update: SFN 21, JarJarBinks 2.

According to my logs, you have been pwned 13 times. By an automated program. Score: SFN 13, JarJarBinks 2.