You're actually getting the HTML code to produce a result, right? I tried copying your code into a file of my own and built a microsized database to go with it, but I can't get the HTML tags to produce any results.

Are you getting some kind of error, or is it simply not updating the information in the database?

[QUOTE=ithelp;489553]Thanks for the insult, You remind me of the heroes of world war II.[/QUOTE]

From the thrust of the comment, I'm assuming you're tapping at the boundaries of Godwin's Law. I am also presuming you are being sarcastic here, but I wish to ask you this:

How many people here and now, do you think, would agree that those [I]doing[/I] degrading acts to others might qualify as somehow unhuman? At the very least, they would have had to desensitize themselves to the results of their actions. There's a reason the name for that action is 'dehumanizing'.

Is it even possible to change thread titles beyond marking them as solved?

[QUOTE=Ezzaral;469358]Perhaps we are already in the trash. Perhaps we started out in the trash to begin with and grew and developed in the manner of unchecked mold. Does it really make any difference at this point?[/QUOTE]

Yes. If we're not in the trash yet, then the experiment still has worth. If we are, as you put it, an 'unchecked mold', then we'll need to worry about when the Lysol and fungicides get broken out.

[QUOTE=jasimp;469225]He already did once, if you believe the Bible.[/QUOTE]
Technically, not [I]all[/I] of mankind.

Might be interesting...although in such cases I'm reminded of a quote I saw once.

"Software engineering is a race between programmers, who strive to produce fool-proof software, and the universe, which strives to produce bigger fools."
(Underneath: "So far, the universe is winning.")

[quote=Ezzaral;464722]As an atheist, why should I fear the end of existence more than any other? Because I have no delusions of "something better" to look forward to after death?[/quote]

How about because of the probable consequences if you have chosen incorrectly in this issue?

[quote=Ezzaral;464722]Should I regret the lack of what I feel are false hopes and mollifications? It can't be changed - being human is 100% fatal. You are going to die. Get used to it.[/quote]

Should you regret the lack? Probably not; if you're wrong, you'll be regretting them enough in the end.

[quote=Ezzaral;464722]If anything, you are obviously much more afraid than the atheist, as you cannot even think about facing the end of existence without a promise that something better awaits beyond it.[/quote]

Are you sure that's fear? I'd call it simply expectation, possibly eager expectation.

[quote=Ezzaral;464722] Live your life now as best you may. Do what is right for the sake of it being right, not just for marks on some after-death scorecard towards imagined rewards.[/quote]

And how do you determine what is right in the first place? Pretty much every version of right/wrong I've seen stems from religious beliefs.

[quote=Ezzaral;464722]If you look at the time you have on earth as all that you're going to get, you might just be more inclined to value it more and do something worthwhile with it. On the other hand, if you think of it as a waiting and evaluation period that you must endure to reach that "something ...

[quote=Salem;464691]Did you worry about your non-existence before you were born?[/quote]
No. By definition, if I'm not there, then how would I be able to worry about it? And I'm not going to worry about my end either; I know the final score, even if others will immediately accuse me of being a fanatic for saying so.

[quote=Salem;464691] When your time is up, choose one of the following sentences which sums up your life.
The world is a better place because you lived (he will be missed).
The world is a better place because you are now dead (good riddance).[/quote]

Who's getting to speak? My friends and family, or those who hated me while I was alive? I'm not well-enough known, nor do I ever plan to be well enough known, that there will be neutral parties in that equation.

[quote=Salem;464691]Should you be afraid if you [URL="

[quote=Salem;457206]> There's also potentially severe economic affects that may have come into play by signing the Kyoto Protocol...

or so I've heard...
Or so you've been told by those with a vested interest.
But those with a different view might regard it as an opportunity to be capitalised on.[/quote]

Would that not indicate that they, too, have a vested interest in the issue? You seem to be implying that we shouldn't believe those who say it would be economically bad...why then should we regard the other side's arguments?

And exactly which opportunity are you expecting them to capitalize on? The only one I can see in the Kyoto treaty and its like is the 'chance to expand power' opportunity.

[quote=Lardmeister;454712]The good news for 2012 is that the Koyoto Protocol will come to an end.[/quote]

Agreed...very good news. Which means, of course, that the Kyotophiles will be looking for a way to either increase the duration, or else get a new, probably even more-restrictive 'agreement' in place.

[quote=Lardmeister;454712] The USA did not sign the protocol because it would have levied a carbondioxide tax on countries regardless of the fact that some countries like the USA are net corbondioxide consumers. The USA is a net carbondioxide consumer because of its large forests and agriculture.[/quote]

How are you defining 'signed' in this case? It is my understanding that President Clinton did in fact sign something related to the treaty (not sure if it was the treaty itself or not, although I think it was), but never sent it in to Congress for ratification. If I am incorrect in this understanding, please point me to a source of correct information.

Please also note that I will be skeptical of the 'correct information' content of any clearly cyannic sites.

[quote=Salem;453917]I predict that come the date in question, this long-dead thread will be bumped with some pithy "still here" one-liner tag.[/quote]

I volunteer to be the one who does it, assuming I am still around.

[quote=FragFighter;451551]no offense, but this just sounds like some people who are very paranoid made this up...[/quote]

It can't be made up! The [I]I Ching[/I] verifies it! They said so right on the Television!

[Note: I do not acknowledge the [I]I Ching[/I] or any other divinatory tool as a valid source of information. And these days, I also have serious doubts about televised broadcasts as a valid source of information as well...]

twomers commented: Heh. Self contradiction! Gotta love it! +3

Quick lesson in Mathematics:

< Less Than

Greater Than
= Equal
<= Less Than or Equal
= Greater Than or Equal
! Not/Negation.

!(<) = (>=). !(<) != (>)

Yes, it is. A prayer doesn't require a sacrifice. The last sacrifice required by Christianity was called in ~2k years ago.

[quote=Ancient Dragon;428943]Isn't it somewhere in the book of Revelations (Bible) that indicates we are in our final days when people are required to have a number tattooed on the forehead? I'm sure you said that in jest, but then ....[/quote]

Revelation 13 is the reference you're after. The specific verses are 16-18, listed below.

[quote=Revelation 13:16-18] 16And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:
17And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.
18Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.


Note: the 'He' in verse 16 refers not the the beast who's number is being given, but to a second beast who basically exaults the first one. The scriptures refer to him as a beast coming up from out of the earth, as opposed to the (number) beast rising from the sea at the beginning of the chapter. I do not know if this beast from the earth is the same as the False Prophet listed in scripture; the two seem to have similar functions, at least. I'll look into that.

And what number, precisely, would that be?

Nah, just put the 'Re' on it where it belongs.

[quote=TheNNS;424045]yeah, i like mayo on the bun. it's good. and then you put mustard and lettuce and little onions and chips and chesse, it's the best hotdog you'll ever have.[/quote]

Chips...[I]on[/I]...the hotdog?

No, mashed potatoes deserve butter. And maybe a small serving of gravy if you like gravy. I don't.

In my opinion, the only condiment worth using is mustard, and that only on hamburgers, hotdogs, and ham sandwiches. So no, no ketchup on my eggs...[I]nothing[/I] on my eggs.

Agreed 100%. However, doing that may depend on whether or not the vast majority of researchers are willing to cast aside the current blind spot they're working under.

[quote=christina>you;404718]Well I'm sure it must be, unless the American Cancer Society, Center for Disease Control, and WHO are all wrong.[/quote]
I'm not sure about the ACS, but I've heard some questionable stuff on the CDC, and considering that I've seen evidence that WHO rewrote the African definition of the disease AIDS so that it doesn't require any of the three key components that make up the American definition, merely some of the same symptoms, I'd be a bit suspicious on that as well.

[For those who care, the three components are: Presence of Human Immunodeficiency Virus {HIV}, T-cell count below a specific mark {Sorry, can't recall what it is at the moment}, and presence of an 'opportunistic' disease.]

[quote=christina>you;404718] The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services says that, "There is no risk-free level of secondhand smoke exposure. Even brief exposure can be dangerous."[/quote]

Due to the fact that it's smoke, laden with CO, CO2, etc...sure. But given the earlier argument about the substances that remain inside the discarded butt, how much of the toxins are even being turned into smoke in the first place? And I refer you again to the issue of hormesis on the 'no-threshold' argument.

[quote=christina>you;404718] Secondhand smoke exposure causes heart disease and lung cancer in nonsmoking adults.

Nonsmokers who are exposed to secondhand smoke at home or work increase their heart disease risk by 25–30% and their lung cancer risk by 20–30%.[/quote]

Were all other risk factors taken into consideration when dealing with these values? ...

Does it have to be cigarette smoke, or would, say, secondhand fireplace smoke serve as well?

[quote=vegaseat;404385]A discarded cigarette butt can contain enough nicotine to kill a small child or animal![/quote]

Would that not indicate, though, that the individual who smoked and then discarded the cigarette didn't get very much of the nicotine within it themself?

And about those dosage factors: Assuming a direct scaleup from rat mass to human mass, and an equivalent percentage scaleup from the rat dose, what would be the equivalent human dosage?

[quote=hamada_1990;403147]thanx ppl i am flattered and that english is called shortcutting ha ha ha excuse me for being realistic ha ha ha[/quote]

What you are calling 'shortcutting' is an attempt to recreate the English language in a manner more preferable to you. The problem is, to those who are more used to the English language as it is now, you come across as either confused, or confusing. It becomes difficult to parse your writing, and the main result is that most people would rather make fun of you than attempt to understand what you are trying to say. Please make an attempt to respond in normal English, with proper grammar. I would appreciate this, and I believe that most of the other people who post on this site would appreciate it as well.

Ezzaral commented: Exactly +2

[quote=jbennet;401409]because you can set up a simple experiment which im sure about every high school student has seen.

put a cigarette at one end, and crate a vacuum at the other and in between put your tests in test tubes. using glass pipes to connect them

the lime water goes cloudy (shows presence of carbon dioxide)

the other thing changes colour (shows presence of carbon monoxide)

the indicator solution changes (cant remembder if it went acid or alkali)

the cotton wool went black / yellow in very little time at all due to tar, much likes ones lungs do

ive seen a pair of smokers lungs cut open, there was so much tar in there (tar is a carciogen too)

theres all the scientiic evidence you want to prove that smoking is, on the whole, bad for you.[/quote]

Several questions, not necessarily given in the order they're brought up.

  1. Would you please define 'very little time at all' as regarding color shift in the wool?
  2. [I]What [/I]'other thing' are you referring to regarding CO?
  3. You specify 'tar is a carciogen(sic) too' in your post. I was under the impression that the substances in the tar were the [I]only[/I] carcinogens in play here; would you mind telling me what others are present?
  4. Exactly how much of the tar is found in the smoke exhaled by a smoker? From what you've said, most of it appears to go into producing the discoloration in the lungs; however, I was ...

[quote=joshSCH;401114]Okay, perhaps you guys are taking this a little bit out of context. A [I]little[/I] bit of anything is good. Ever heard of vaccines? Injecting a [I]little[/I] bit of a virus into a human is enough to enable the human to build a sufficient immune response. If we look at things at such a microscopic level then just about EVERYTHING is good for you.[/quote]

The term is Hormesis. It's a commonly observed trait, mostly among chemical substances although there is some evidence that it occurs with radiation as well. The basic idea is this:
The generally held, so-called 'no threshold' theory behind toxicity is incorrect. 'No threshold' means that there's no such thing as a 'safe' dose; the slightest bit could prove to be deadly. Instead, according to the hormesis theory, very low doses of a substance may have beneficial effects, even when higher doses of it prove to be dangerous. The key is in the dosage size, which is why it stands directly against the 'no threshold' theory. The main problem is that the effects of hormesis have been observed experimentally in multiple cases, but the 'no threshold' idea is the one that gets politico-sciency backing (meaning government funding or 'official' recognition from various well-known scientific research bodies).

Again, the problem lies in dose size. Would you (yes, you, the person reading this message) be able to properly measure out a drug dosage within the admittedly small dosage range where hormesis occurs? Or are you likely to go over ...

Same reasons you've been throwing out for restaurants, somehow given magically more emphasis because it's children who're being 'targetted' by the smoke.

Which reason do you want? The 'secondhand smoke veddy bad fol patient' one? Or the one about how the smoke might somehow damage the delicate machinery of someone's life support (or the pre-lifesupport vital sign readers)? Or how about the one where it's a [I]really[/I] bad idea to keep any kind of open heat source near compressed oxygen or highly-oxygenated atmospheres? Which of those did you want?

[quote=jbennet;396091]our government gets like 60% of its taxes from alcohol and tabacco so i doubt they would ever have an all out ban. here a small pack of cigarettes is like £5 (£10?)[/quote]

Of course. I don't remember who said it, and I'm probably going to mangle the quote some, but I recall seeing something once along those lines.

"If the government says they're going to tax something to make it rare, you know they're lying. They're making money off of it, so they'll want it to be as common as possible."