Laura

Any word on what OSs are going to be hit?

The Ultimate Game Card or the Runescape giftcard available at Target. The first being available at Military PXs, Walmart, 7/11, and various other areas.

I'd just mail it, that's the easiest solution for teenagers.

OS X 10.5 Leopard

It should be, theoretically, possible with all elements as well, save hydrogen.

How do you discern that from the picture?

The vast majority of preservatives legally defined as acceptable for use in food/drug have been tested thoroughly. Food safety is taken very seriously in North America. Regardless, an additive's addictive qualities would become apparent almost immediately. Entire populations that are physically dependent on a burger would not go unnoticed by health professionals. I'm beginning to wonder whether you understand addiction at all... As I've said a number of times now: if burgers are being laced with addictive substances, there are much more pressing matters at hand than the worry that marijuana (a recreational drug) may also be laced with addictive substances. These claims are absolutely laughable... I most certainly know what addiction is - physical and emotional - and how they tie into drugs and food. I am in no way suggesting that food manufacturers do such nor did I mean to suggest so. Preservatives are added in foods all the time that it's no big deal to the consumers. Supporting you statement on addictive qualities, I do agree. At which point, should a company do such a thing, the item in question would be removed from their ingredients list. A Different Kind of Lunch (PDF) "The introduction of a diet policy which lowered sucrose, synthetic food color/flavors, and two preservatives (BHA and BHT) over 4 years in 803 public schools was followed by a 15.7% increase in mean academic percentile ranking"

I was never much of a belligerent and I doubt I've yelled a day in my life, but good job. I've always fantasized about punching the people I labelled as "irrational" in high school. They were those kids telling you who you could and couldn't date, told you how spoiled you were for having the things you had when they spent their money on fashion, the kids that brought lighters and knives to school, and the ones that constantly disrespected authority in demeaning ways. I still remember that day in 10th grade when my Trig teacher told a kid, politely, to take of his hat. The kid responded with "Shut up [bleep]" and I swear the teacher was about to cry.

Says....?

its 1:24 am in the morning therefore i have little to no idea what the hell you just ment, but it sounds very smart, so i will have to go by that. **wow i have alot of comma's in my sentencess. :) Do you use Wikipedia (or rather, should you) on school/work assignments? Same concept except worse because no one checks to see if your data is correct or even looks correct.

Its that its not 1/200 its more like 1/10000 But that cannot be determined. It's based on a wide assortment of references and user experience.

I don't understand why you guys are trying to even scratch the surface. The drop rate is near incalculable in a game where killing over 100,00 dragons is close to impossible. Guesses are fruitless in this situation, because data from a reference greater than one is unreliable and therefor false. That said, until someone one kills and logs each kill at any given point for over 100,000 dragons we will not know the drop rate. And even logging those kills would provide little to no evidence on the reliability and accuracy of the drop rate let alone evidence supporting the user's claims.

I was wondering, because I cannot smith adamant bolts as a F2P'er, what would be the most efficient item to smith at level 83. If anyone has any advice, it would be helpful. Thank you.

Avira Antivirus from Download.com.

Control Panel/Java/Clear Java cache.

Any folder-tools(should be near the top)-folder options-view tab-show hidden folders-apply. OR Right click any item-properties-hide-apply.

I Wanna Be the Guy.

Yes you can ;) :uhh: I usually can't say no. Uhh, what ?! Private joke :) She's a right mischief maker off the forums I tell you that now :lol: Says RIck. :lol:

The first source has no need to be updated. It is a discussion of events that took place well in the past. The article immediately proceeds to note that "Three recent epidemiological studies found no convincing evidence of increase in risk of cancer or any other disease with use of mobile phones." The entire article couldn't be more clear... Simply because you underline words like "unclear" and point out a single contradicting study doesn't mean its conclusions are vague or unsupported. You seem to have misunderstood. Neither the FDA or WHO are suggesting that it's "proven" that cell phones do not cause health problems. I agree that the FDA website can do with a re-write and some citations, but these are flaws on the part of the FDA (more specifically, their website). It's completely unrelated to the discussion at hand. I completely agree. Full legalization, which is unlikely to happen anytime soon, would probably lead to the sale of modified weed. Companies would use additives and specific production techniques to make the weed more potent, less harsh, give it more taste, etc. We already see this happening with fruits, vegetables, burgers, coffee, and most other foods/drugs that you can think of. However, most of these companies are careful not to use addicting/dangerous additives for two primary reasons: a) The public would inevitably find out, and intense public backlash would ensue, followed by hostility toward the product (if not the entire corporation) and a huge drop in profits. B) The company would likely receive legal backlash, e.g. from agencies such as the FDA or, in Canada, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. I don't have a online subscription to the New England Journal of Medicine so I'm assuming it doesn't. The study later goes on to say, as it's conclusion: Nothing has been proved, as you also said, which is exactly my point and is something that can be easily manipulated by deceptive business practices. While not nicotine, who's to say they don't put some sort of subtle additive that is addictive? Have there been tests on every "preservative" they use? No, of course not, they're simply "preservatives."

Our school had a field trip to the farm back in middle school. When we went up to milk the utter, I passed out. Cute calves though.

"While we are currently doing studies, there is no evidence that "Chemical-X" causes "[insert hazard]." Those same words are repeated hundreds of times when lobbying. The FDA buys into this crap; have you seen what's been happening with cigarettes, cellphones, and WiFi? The FDA has argued for decades that cigarettes are harmful and addicting. In the 90s, they investigated a number of tobacco companies and found manipulation of nicotine content, which prompted them to tighten regulations on the sale and advertisement of tobacco[1]. Which claims, exactly, are the FDA buying into? As for cell phones and WiFi, are you referring to the concern over radiation? The FDA's conclusions -- that cell phones have not shown to cause significant health problems[2] -- is consistent with mainstream scientific consensus[3][4]. The hundreds of independent studies and their conclusions is by no means "crap" fed to the FDA by malicious cell phone companies. Even if your argument were to hold weight, how is it at all relevant? This is a flaw in the United States' Food & Drug Administration, not an issue of marijuana legalization. If the FDA is truly as flawed as you imply, then there would be an immediate need for concern over common and currently regulated foods and drugs. edit: I saw it. It was alright, but nothing to write home about. Your sources are very unclear, being my main point. One, being the first source, was updated over 10 years ago. The third source takes note of the following: Despite the fact, as you say, that the terms are defined by the FDA, words simply hold value; they can be twisted and disheveled. And the FDA does the same thing: Meaning, it hasn't proved that they don't and there is no mention said said studies. Businesses want what's best for their wallets and with an over-hyped drug such as marijuana, something is bound to be manipulated.

Yes you can ;) :uhh: I usually can't say no.

So you can't adore him for certain aspects? For example, Hitler was a great leader. Depending on your stance, his actions might have been perceived as acceptable as well. Saying that they can't be adored because they killed people is, in my opinion, absurd.

My suspicions are confirmed. Laura, you frighten me. Yeah. After you said that, I thought about all the pains I didn't like, and well, the list was pretty slim. Ya know when your tooth hurts and feels somewhat wiggly? Do any of you grind it or push on it? That's gotta be one of my favorites.

"While we are currently doing studies, there is no evidence that "Chemical-X" causes "[insert hazard]." Those same words are repeated hundreds of times when lobbying. The FDA buys into this crap; have you seen what's been happening with cigarettes, cellphones, and WiFi?