jhsmurray

I don't follow the finite/infinite or bounded/unbounded concepts, but I do believe that by definition the universe is all space and time. In other words, if we discover something "else", wouldnt we would just classify it as part of the current universe we never found before? Or we would redefine the term "universe", or even just call it something else.

In that case, have you tried ignoring him? You know, always be preoccupied or something when he comes around taunting you. I know that this may be difficult, but it's worth a shot. If you're right about him, this might work - but remember if it works you may lose him as a friend.

The strip in Las Vegas is is geared towards older people, and the rest of Las Vegas isnt very interesting at all. I'm sorry you feel hurt, and I can understand why you feel hurt. Maybe at some point you can convince them to take you somewhere that is more fun.

This discussion is biased towards *person* sapiens as the superior species. When considering evolutionary theory, if you qualify a succesful race to be: A succesful race that can reproduce the most (and most viable) offspring then my money is with bacteria First of all, thanks for bringing up such an interesting topic. Sorry, but how is *person* sapiens the correct terminology for humans? Some anthropologists call us h_o_m_o sapiens (both modern humans and anatomically modern humans - our immediate predecessor), while others assert that we modern humans are h_o_m_o sapiens sapiens. I like your point. Our technology plays a major role in what defines us. A popular theory is that we basically overran any competition hundreds of thousands of years ago with the distinct advantage of better tools and use of fire, among other things. A side note: One of Michael Crichton's books (I think it was "Prey") points out that if we homogenize all our global cultural and intellectual facets then we doom ourselves, because it is diversity which protects us as a species. This danger leveraged with technology (eg the internet). It's an interesting read. I think it's important to remember that evolutionary theory is based on struggle. That is how the representatives of genetic drift (thanks for pointing out the term, morosophos) are "selected" to survive and pass on their genes to the next generation, but only if they meet the requirements to survive. WIth technology to help us survive many environmental challenges, then this drift will not be quite so hindered. But there are many ways to die (as a race), and mother nature can be a very real threat. But this doesnt really apply to the current thread - I mean how can people evolve and be "selected" to survive a massive meteor collision?

It could be that he enjoys the attention more than the fear of inflicted pain. Or maybe he is masochistic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masochistic Or maybe he just enjoys rough-housing. <= That would be my guess.

The simple answer is no. And it's not terribly bad to leave it switched on for the "7" part of it either. I have WinXP and I leave my computer on for a week at a time sometimes, without too much trouble. After a couple of weeks though, I begin to see signs of trouble. For example, when mousing over the system tray clock the popup stops showing- a reboot fixes the problem. I can't seem to find the link for this at the moment... Once I had to open up the case and air-blast the fans to get the dust out of it - the noise was this awful screeching, but that was a quick fix. I also set my flatscreen to turn off in about 5 minutes of inactivity - from what I understand, this helps increase the lifetime of the backlight. The upside to leaving the computer it on is that you can have it do it's defrag, scanning, updates etc while you are away. Ultimately, it's probably best to reboot once a day - but I guess I'm too lazy to do that

I don't normally go to plays, but I met Gabriel Byrne and Cherry Jones briefly after a play in NYC. It was pretty unexpected to see Cherry ride off down broadway on a bicycle afterwards lol.

Good point - my post was not made as clear as I initially thought. I guess what I was trying to say here is that if the situation was just based on a flat statement, that specific point would/should be more thoroughly outlined ahead of time if it was in a publication (if it was written well, that is) - effectively eliminating much of the guesswork. Otherwise, one would need dialogue to actively explore the issue, as we are doing now But of course we should all read any and every publication with critical eyes...

I have read (from Jared Diamond) that fruit is an adaptation that which helps propagate the plant. Considering that fruit is highly colorful, often sweet, and always has seeds (with a tough shell), its not hard to imagine the following scenario: An animal passes by, sees the enticing fruit, eats the fruit (seeds and all), moves along, later passes the seeds on in excrement to an entirely different location. This would be a beneficial adaptation to the plant. Your point is that we just throw away the seeds, which effectively nullifies this adaptation, so I can see your point there. But losing the fruit at all was a biological "write-off" to the parent plant to begin with. Indirectly, this adaptation helped the type of plant immensely if it was brought into agriculture. I agree with me_boxer_dude about how important eating meat was in our history. Eating meat was the method by which biologically modern man spread from Africa to other parts of the world. It's part of our success story. Man's ability to take advantage of a huge diversity of food sources got us to the point where we could start agriculture and domestication. (By the way, some say that the invention of agriculture was the downfall of society - seeing as how it enabled cramped living conditions and helped diseases to be more effective) Chimps are omnivorous as well, but since they don't have the skill to get alot of nutrition in one sitting, they spend pretty much their entire day eating what's available nearby just to try to get the nutrition they need. Humans have set themselves up so that all you need to do is three squares a day (vegetarian or not), and then it's off to other business. I have a friend who has been a vegetarian for years. The reason he is a vegetarian is because he is disgusted by the way animals are treated in slaughterhouses. While I am not a vegetarian myself, I can respect his decision. I just don't feel as strongly about it. But I also have a vegetarian neice who is six years old. I am concerned because the nutritional requirements for a growing child is different - yes it is healthy to be a vegetarian in many ways, but IMO there are circumstances in which you also have to be more careful.

It seems like your concern is over what this person *meant* when he compared you to a homeless person. You were well within your rights to simply ask your friend's father "what do you mean by that?"Or, if it was obvious to you what he meant, then you are in the realm of contextuality, and you probably already have the best idea of what to do (or not do) next.I beleive jlhaslip was right in calling it out as "critical thinking". In general, the critical thinking process will help you greatly, especially for more important endeavors, and is always a good habit to get into. But I wouldnt recommend agonizing over what a person *might* have meant, especially when they are apparently trying to be funny or facetious or just plain insulting. Rather, I would conserve your critical- thinking-energy for ideas that have been well thought out before they were put forward, say for things like books, articles etc.IMO the onus of having the statement make sense _always_ lies with the person who made the statement.Just my two cents there.

That's a really handy tutorial there, Rob! btw, I originally got a "cannot open file or stream" error,so changed the image source file format from GIF to JPG in order to get it to work.

I havent used them, but from what I hear (apart from here ), Dreamweaver MX is the way to go. i don't know if the other IDE's handle PHP, so you may want to consider that in your decision. If you dont code PHP now, it is a definite possibility that you will consider it in the future. I may be stating the obvious here, but don't overlook the free trials. GoLive and Dreamweaver are $400.00, while the price of Frontpage 2003 (the latest version that I can see) is just under $200.00. That's a lot of money for a hunch. So, do up the free trials first, making sure you have a list of all the features you need now (and possibly in the future) first, so you can try them out. Another thing to watch for is how these programs handle code when in wysiwyg mode. For example, Visual Interdev completely mucks up code when you dragNdrop... Personally, I use Notepad++, which is essentially notepad with syntax highlighting for a bunch of languages. Little overhead Checking out W3E2000 now. Hope it helps a little.