|
Post by grashtel on Apr 21, 2007 8:18:13 GMT -4
Ok, they are working for me now, seems like the server was under a heavy load or something before, maybe its a time of day related problem.
They are very impressive, if you hadn't said they were carved from soap I wouldn't have thought that was what they were.
|
|
|
Post by grashtel on Apr 21, 2007 0:05:13 GMT -4
The server seems to be dead, are you sure you have got the URLs right Lionking?
|
|
|
Post by grashtel on Mar 20, 2007 15:52:01 GMT -4
read them. A bit hard to understand. If I understood well, Dark Matter is 1- found in the whole universe 2-can be detected by its gravitational effect on matter And by definition only by its gravitational effects, if we could see it in other ways it wouldn't be dark. The evolution of the universe, ie how the large scale structures we see today came to be. It had no effect on the evolution of life (except by taking part in setting up the conditions for life to come into existence)
|
|
|
Post by grashtel on Mar 20, 2007 14:31:16 GMT -4
A good start is reading the various links and references from the Wikipedia article, also a visit to your local library to get some books on cosmology would be a good idea as well.
|
|
|
Post by grashtel on Mar 20, 2007 16:26:14 GMT -4
gillianren listen well to the site: the lawyers saw documents that proved that the company new about it. after showing these documents to the U.S gov, they demanded it is drawn from the market, but allowed it to be sold outside. also, governmentals in france allowing this went to jail as the video said. if the medicine is not harmful, why would the FDA ban shipping it outside (but as in the video, the man responsible for the medicine asked for quite solving of the problem)? why would they ban it in America in the first place. the video says Americans were dying from that. I'll try to research other sites. Researching it from other sources is a very good idea, just because something is claimed in a video doesn't make it true. I could easily put up a video on YouTube claiming that you ate live babies for breakfast, that wouldn't mean that you did.
|
|
|
Post by grashtel on Mar 20, 2007 15:46:30 GMT -4
yes, but if you have scars in the mouth or the stomach, it can go through them. Not in any significant amount, particularly as HIV is a fragile virus that has a viable lifespan out side the body of something like 15 minutes. Also don't you think that the Spanish, French, and Japanese equivalents of the FDA might have something to say about it? Plus the claim that the FDA would allow something like that is not IMO credible, they are smart enough to realize what it would do to their reputation once it came out (and the odds of it not doing so are small at best).
|
|
|
Post by grashtel on Mar 20, 2007 14:20:39 GMT -4
What is it? I (and the other people here) have better things to do with my time and bandwidth than watching random YouTube videos. Providing a brief summary of the claims made by the video makes it much more likely to get people's attention.
|
|
|
New Ad
Mar 19, 2007 21:32:01 GMT -4
Post by grashtel on Mar 19, 2007 21:32:01 GMT -4
As I understand it, the ads we see (unless we're using some kind of ad filter) are triggered by what words get used a lot on the board, right? I mean, do correct me if I'm wrong in that. So what, exactly, are we saying that triggers a McCain campaign ad? Good question, I've not seen it (being in the UK I get a generally different mix), it depends on what words whoever brought the ad decided would be good ones for it.
|
|
|
Post by grashtel on Jan 28, 2007 10:42:54 GMT -4
I think that comfortably falls under "Not even wrong"
|
|
|
Post by grashtel on Jan 24, 2007 15:47:07 GMT -4
A big problem with the idea is the velocity difference between the cargo vessels and the manned one. In order to collect them either the manned vessel will have to decelerate and accelerate -which is extremely impractical- or the cargo vessels will have to boost to match the course of the manned one -which defeats the object of prepositioning them along the way as it will be less efficient than simply launching them at the same time and have them travel with the manned vessel or have them waiting for it at Mars-.
|
|
|
Post by grashtel on Nov 7, 2006 16:06:10 GMT -4
No, but I fail to understand why something that advertizes for your site and helps spread the ideas in your site should be treated as such. Unless, as LO said, you r going to pay for it even if it is put on another site (I didn't know that before), then I understand why you don't want it posted on another site. A) Bandwidth isn't free, hotlinking the image on another site uses the original site's bandwidth (and is commonly referred to as bandwidth theft) so it costs them money. B) People like to retain control of their content, just because something is online doesn't make it public domain.
|
|
|
Post by grashtel on Nov 7, 2006 15:33:59 GMT -4
O.K I understand it now, althaugh I dont think it is stealing. I found the image while searching the image icon at yahoo or google. Did you get permission from the site to use it? As you said in your original post it wasn't hard to find the fossils so there are going to be lots of other people bringing them in to sell so the price won't be high for the common stuff.
|
|
|
Post by grashtel on Sept 25, 2006 19:31:13 GMT -4
Courses in sex education are important - you do want teenagers to get their info from a more reliable source than other teenagers - but do you really want them to be sexually active at that age? If you don't then handing out condoms is counter-productive. Do you really think you can reliably stop them being sexually active at that age? With all the hormones sloshing around their system and the changes their brains are going through there just isn't any effective way of stoping at least a large minority of them having sex. At least by providing condoms you are reducing the chances of their actions screwing up their entier lives.
|
|
|
Post by grashtel on Sept 22, 2006 21:51:26 GMT -4
"for example promoting abstinence rather than providing condoms. " Al, just out of curiosity, would you agree that your sister does protected sex if it is possible to escape AIDS, or would you not agree. Yes or no? The problem is that you assume that the abstinence programs are reliable, they aren't. Unless your abstinence program consists of welding chastity belts on to them at thirteen (or younger) and not taking them off until they are twenty its not going to work for the majority of teenagers. Teens tend to be horny with a disregard for long term consequences of their actions, no matter how much you tell them not to have sex most of them still will. So your question should be "Would you prefer your sister to have protected sex with a very small risk of AIDS, other STDs, or pregnancy or would you prefer her to have unprotected sex?"
|
|
|
Post by grashtel on Sept 16, 2006 15:26:21 GMT -4
There's lots of them. No one ever said they were any good. name some, if you would be so kind. I never heard of any others. Google is your friend
|
|