The great thing is that we have slashdot to post stories such as these, so we can all chuckle at our own cleverness and collectively attack the effigy.
Seriously, why is this on slashdot? What about this is "news for nerds"? Where is the link to science, or where even is the new information? All we have is that someone decided to satirize a part of the government. Whoopdie do, how novel. Thats totally why I come to slashdot, to listen to someone else soapbox about the government and label it "news".
Just to clarify, as Im sure people will link to this study or that: I would hazard (and it appears to be the case based on the first report I looked at) that noone has proof of an earthquake "caused" by fracking, as much as one where an already stressed fault line was induced to give way due to fracking.
Its sort of like saying a doctor "caused" the baby to come about because they induced labor early: the baby was coming one way or another, the doctor just sped its delivery. You can argue whether fracking should be allowed or whether its a good or bad thing to induce higher frequency but lower intensity earthquakes, but dont pretend that we have even the slighest chance of causing an earthquake to form on our own.
fracking has nothing to do with global warming, melting ice caps, "climate change", or anything else. It something people do to extract natural gas, and is independent of the amount of methane, CO2, or water vapor in the atmosphere.
Similarly, earthquakes also have absolutely nothing to do with AGW, melting ice caps, "climate change" or anything else. They are a function of built-up tension between neighboring tectonic plates.
Finally, when you consider the amount of energy that it takes to shift that much earth, you realize that it is ridiculous to think that fracking could cause earthquakes-- unless you mean that the fracking somehow "released" the pent-up energy between plates, and caused an earlier, lower-magnitude earthquake than otherwise would have occurred. But the earthquake would have happened whether or not fracking took place.
Most of honest-to-goodness spam comes from virus-infected computers, and is blasted out to huge email lists. Who do you suppose is going to receive the mail? The user whose mailbox was compromised? Do you suppose that spammers use real, monitored reply-to addresses? Do you suppose they even care enough to refine their lists, when they control 100,000 computers and can send out 25mil emails per day?
Windows DOES have telnet, you know. But I agree, "sending fake postmaster messages" doesnt really sound like the job of an email client, it sounds like the job of a smtp toolkit or mass-mailer.
OP's request sounds kind of shady, TBQH; if you want to get off of the list, either unsubscribe, or block them as spam. Sending them a fake mesage is probably not the most effective way to do this.
Wrong, a 700mb DVD should burn faster than a 700mb CD; DVDs operate at faster speeds. Data rates on a DVD are about 10x faster, so not only will the disk write faster, but booting off of it on a LiveCD will be MUCH quicker.
No it isn't. Click the search icon in the address bar,
Thats ONLY in IE9-- IE8 HAD to go through internet options, then click "search settings", which opens a new window-- which STILL doesnt give you the option to add google, you have to then click the little blue text "find more search providers..." down at the bottom left (its not a button, its a hyperlink), which THEN opens that webpage.
scroll right until you find the Google provider and click to add it
The scroll right part is new, too, i believe-- you used to (6 months ago?) have to click onto the 2nd or third page. Its still kind of far over.
No it isn't. My own mother figured out how to do it and she's about the least computer literate person I know. Stop being so hyperbolic.
Hyperbolic? They list alphabetically and have about 10 search engines (with multiples per site-- "AmIgo (labs)", "Amigo (term)"-- just so that Google is sufficiently far over. What the hell, google is the most popular search engine in the world. How come Ask-- which NEVER gets the search right and is blatant scamware-- gets included in internet explorer, and google doesnt make the cut?
Im glad theyve made it easier, but its just fixing some of the nightmare that was IE8. That stupid "lets set preferences on IE8 that you dont care about, but not look at the fact that Bing is forced on you", as well as the incredibly tedious process to locate the Google addon, was heinous. And replacing "having to go to page 3" with "you have to wait for the slow-ass auto-scroll to get to google" is only a slight improvement-- people can figure it out now, but its still tedious and a PITA.
Theres no way you can defend their IE8 behavior, and including ask (but not google) with IE9, as anything other than anticompetitive. At least chrome has had the balls-- since pretty much its inception-- to include yahoo and bing, and since about a year ago to ask you once on install "what search engine do you want". And basically every other browser in the world has figured this out and had an easy, 2 click process to switch to google or bing for years. Why the heck are you giving a pass to MS for their ridiculous shenanigans? Noone wants their search engine forced down their throats constantly.
And while Im ranting about this, why the hell did installing Live Mesh on my computer give MS permission to try to change Chrome's search to Bing? Why does it think thats even remotely OK?
The gigantic issue-- aside from calling someone stupid in a supposedly respectable forum-- is that "smart people know angels dont exist" is true only if God doesnt exist, and therefore angels do not. If God DOES exist, than that whole statement is both rude AND wrong; and the question at stake under all of this is "does God exist"-- thats the basis of everything that Coyne was arguing. But the debate was never about the existence of God, but the reconciliation of Science and Religion, so it was an Ad Hominem attack AND begging the question AND off topic, to boot.
And that comment hardly stands alone in his speech. It really was an awful speech, and Im suprised that Coyne has the nerve to crow about his performance and declare victory; Haught's refusal to post the video could be said to have been for Coyne's sake as much as anyone elses.
Courts once started fining Microsoft $1mil per day for failure to comply with a court order.
I dont care how big you are, that starts to hurt pretty quickly; and if you think that is the upper limit that a court can nail you for if you continue to be belligerent, you are wrong.
LOTS of oems do this. To be fair, it used to be google, but that doesnt make it any more acceptable or any less obnoxious. At least google is honest-to-goodness popular, and most people probably didnt mind; the bing bar is about as useful IMO as the Ask toolbar.
If you install any part of Live Essentials (such as mesh), it appears that it tries to alter your search for all your browsers-- including chrome. Luckily chrome is wise to those shenanigans, and asked me whether I really wanted that automated change.
It seems like every time I try to give an MS consumer product a try, they turn around and stab me in the back. Thats a real great way to garner my support, sneak in unwanted changes unrelated to the requested functionality.
Firefox includes bing and yahoo as built in search providers (which makes sense, given that they are sizable competitors), and it takes all of 2 clicks and 0 menus to switch. IE does NOT include google by default (IE9 MIGHT change this), and to get google you have to go through about 3 menus, then load up a webpage where google is like the 53rd option down.
You cannot tell me that it makes sense to hide the most popular search engine (by a significant margin) under that much obscurity and difficulty. Its absolutely designed to scare away average users-- even a lot of techies that I know find it too much of a PITA to do it. Ive seen folks keep bing as their default search-box provider, and just manually type in "google.com" to avoid the pain.
If its set to bing, its a phenomenal PITA to switch-- Google isnt "built in", and you have to go to their "choose search provider" webpage, which has about a zillion search engines that noone cares about. And to even get there you have to navigate through internet options, under "programs".
Its incredibly user-hostile, and theres no excuse for not including the largest search engine provider by default, even if its not set as the active one.
Every time bing is the default on a computer I happen to be using, I invariably say to myself "well, surely its the same as google", and try my search thru bing. And when it fails to produce what Im looking for, I reword it again. By the third search attempt, I usually say "screw it, Im using Google", whereupon I immediately find what I was looking for.
In fact, I just hit this today, where I was looking for a network throughput tester for windows. Google correctly found iperf for windows quickly, while bing threw me off to sites like cnet and networkthroughputtesterdownload.awesomechina.com. Thanks for that, Bing, thats super helpful.
there should be stiff penalties for frivolous lawsuits and
There are, if you can prove that its frivolous and/or using the court systems as an anti-competitive hammer. If the court really decides that youre a nuisance, they can nail you pretty hard.
Watch the video before making snide comments. Haught had very good reason to do so-- Coyne acted like an unprofessional child, calling names, using fallacies, etc. It was a mockery of the forum, and it was a waste of time to watch.
If he had used quotes from other theologians the response would have been "Coyne rebutes other peoples claims but not the ones I was presenting.
One of Coynes initial remarks was along the lines of "people like Coyne believe in angels, which all smart people know dont exist". What about that sounds acceptable for the forum they were in? Is calling your opposition stupid by way of begging the question now acceptable rhetoric?
Haught was wrong to try and have the video censored, I'm fairly sure he is aware of that now.
I STILL dont get this censorship language. The video wasnt public and then redacted, nor was there an agreement to release it-- NOONE disputes this. ALL the censorship implication came from Coyne's rather unfounded assumption that the video would be released; no is claiming that anyone told him that, nor has anyone explained why it would be expected that it would (coyne's explaination basically amounts to "well, I feel like its the kind of thing to release").
Haught, however, gave a very clear reason why he did NOT want to release it-- Coyne was incredibly unprofessional in his remarks, especially launching into a tirade about how catholocism is the cause of all the world's evils: that had NOTHING to do with the discussion, and was totally out of line.
All of those reasons you listed that people should be ashamed of Coyne are the very reasons that Haught didnt want to release the video. I would myself feel a little ashamed to release it, as if I were claiming that were the best the opposition could offer. And honestly, I wish I hadnt wasted the time watching it.
If religion is true, and is the study of Theology (that is, of God), you wouldnt expect "advances". Of course, we DO have them, and we call them liberal.
Taken another way-- the constitution has barely advanced in 200 years! Surely its not worth understanding, because if it were of value, it would have a new, modern interpretation. Of course, we all see what that kind of thinking gets us regarding the freedoms guaranteed in the BoR.
It is a mistake-- one that Coyne himself repeated-- to think that the goal of christianity is the same as the goal of quantum mechanics. One tells us about our relationship with God and our status, the other seeks to find out how the universe operates. One is a static, unchanging thing, the other changes as our knowledge advances. Hence why "evangelicals" are marked by their fierce resistance to the tides of change that sometimes sweep through the church (like abandoning any concept of "truth" in the bible).
Watch the video, and read Haught's response to Coyne's blog, and THEN tell me that Coyne has any credibility to spare. Hes a militant athiest who presented something much less like rational argumentation and much more like a rant about how stupid religious people are, backed by either "evidence" that is mostly the opinion of one or two liberal scholars, or by simply declaring religion to be "obviously" stupid.
Wait, you insist that the Bible really should be taken to mean "species as defined in the last few hundred years", rather than "kind" as it actually says?
Most people Ive ever talked to understand that insisting that "Kind=species" is ridiculous.
Slashdot Mirror
The great thing is that we have slashdot to post stories such as these, so we can all chuckle at our own cleverness and collectively attack the effigy.
Seriously, why is this on slashdot? What about this is "news for nerds"? Where is the link to science, or where even is the new information? All we have is that someone decided to satirize a part of the government. Whoopdie do, how novel. Thats totally why I come to slashdot, to listen to someone else soapbox about the government and label it "news".
Just to clarify, as Im sure people will link to this study or that:
I would hazard (and it appears to be the case based on the first report I looked at) that noone has proof of an earthquake "caused" by fracking, as much as one where an already stressed fault line was induced to give way due to fracking.
Its sort of like saying a doctor "caused" the baby to come about because they induced labor early: the baby was coming one way or another, the doctor just sped its delivery. You can argue whether fracking should be allowed or whether its a good or bad thing to induce higher frequency but lower intensity earthquakes, but dont pretend that we have even the slighest chance of causing an earthquake to form on our own.
fracking has nothing to do with global warming, melting ice caps, "climate change", or anything else. It something people do to extract natural gas, and is independent of the amount of methane, CO2, or water vapor in the atmosphere.
Similarly, earthquakes also have absolutely nothing to do with AGW, melting ice caps, "climate change" or anything else. They are a function of built-up tension between neighboring tectonic plates.
Finally, when you consider the amount of energy that it takes to shift that much earth, you realize that it is ridiculous to think that fracking could cause earthquakes-- unless you mean that the fracking somehow "released" the pent-up energy between plates, and caused an earlier, lower-magnitude earthquake than otherwise would have occurred. But the earthquake would have happened whether or not fracking took place.
Most of honest-to-goodness spam comes from virus-infected computers, and is blasted out to huge email lists. Who do you suppose is going to receive the mail? The user whose mailbox was compromised? Do you suppose that spammers use real, monitored reply-to addresses? Do you suppose they even care enough to refine their lists, when they control 100,000 computers and can send out 25mil emails per day?
Windows DOES have telnet, you know. But I agree, "sending fake postmaster messages" doesnt really sound like the job of an email client, it sounds like the job of a smtp toolkit or mass-mailer.
OP's request sounds kind of shady, TBQH; if you want to get off of the list, either unsubscribe, or block them as spam. Sending them a fake mesage is probably not the most effective way to do this.
Well, to be fair, hes taking the packet checksums, but in theory those could be predictable as well. They probably wouldnt be "ordered", however.
Wrong, a 700mb DVD should burn faster than a 700mb CD; DVDs operate at faster speeds. Data rates on a DVD are about 10x faster, so not only will the disk write faster, but booting off of it on a LiveCD will be MUCH quicker.
Rule 1 of the internet:
Dont Feed The Trolls.
Yall is postin in a troll thread....
No it isn't. Click the search icon in the address bar,
Thats ONLY in IE9-- IE8 HAD to go through internet options, then click "search settings", which opens a new window-- which STILL doesnt give you the option to add google, you have to then click the little blue text "find more search providers..." down at the bottom left (its not a button, its a hyperlink), which THEN opens that webpage.
scroll right until you find the Google provider and click to add it
The scroll right part is new, too, i believe-- you used to (6 months ago?) have to click onto the 2nd or third page. Its still kind of far over.
No it isn't. My own mother figured out how to do it and she's about the least computer literate person I know. Stop being so hyperbolic.
Hyperbolic? They list alphabetically and have about 10 search engines (with multiples per site-- "AmIgo (labs)", "Amigo (term)"-- just so that Google is sufficiently far over. What the hell, google is the most popular search engine in the world. How come Ask-- which NEVER gets the search right and is blatant scamware-- gets included in internet explorer, and google doesnt make the cut?
Im glad theyve made it easier, but its just fixing some of the nightmare that was IE8. That stupid "lets set preferences on IE8 that you dont care about, but not look at the fact that Bing is forced on you", as well as the incredibly tedious process to locate the Google addon, was heinous. And replacing "having to go to page 3" with "you have to wait for the slow-ass auto-scroll to get to google" is only a slight improvement-- people can figure it out now, but its still tedious and a PITA.
Theres no way you can defend their IE8 behavior, and including ask (but not google) with IE9, as anything other than anticompetitive. At least chrome has had the balls-- since pretty much its inception-- to include yahoo and bing, and since about a year ago to ask you once on install "what search engine do you want". And basically every other browser in the world has figured this out and had an easy, 2 click process to switch to google or bing for years. Why the heck are you giving a pass to MS for their ridiculous shenanigans? Noone wants their search engine forced down their throats constantly.
And while Im ranting about this, why the hell did installing Live Mesh on my computer give MS permission to try to change Chrome's search to Bing? Why does it think thats even remotely OK?
[/rant]
The gigantic issue-- aside from calling someone stupid in a supposedly respectable forum-- is that "smart people know angels dont exist" is true only if God doesnt exist, and therefore angels do not. If God DOES exist, than that whole statement is both rude AND wrong; and the question at stake under all of this is "does God exist"-- thats the basis of everything that Coyne was arguing. But the debate was never about the existence of God, but the reconciliation of Science and Religion, so it was an Ad Hominem attack AND begging the question AND off topic, to boot.
And that comment hardly stands alone in his speech. It really was an awful speech, and Im suprised that Coyne has the nerve to crow about his performance and declare victory; Haught's refusal to post the video could be said to have been for Coyne's sake as much as anyone elses.
Courts once started fining Microsoft $1mil per day for failure to comply with a court order.
I dont care how big you are, that starts to hurt pretty quickly; and if you think that is the upper limit that a court can nail you for if you continue to be belligerent, you are wrong.
LOTS of oems do this. To be fair, it used to be google, but that doesnt make it any more acceptable or any less obnoxious. At least google is honest-to-goodness popular, and most people probably didnt mind; the bing bar is about as useful IMO as the Ask toolbar.
If you install any part of Live Essentials (such as mesh), it appears that it tries to alter your search for all your browsers-- including chrome. Luckily chrome is wise to those shenanigans, and asked me whether I really wanted that automated change.
It seems like every time I try to give an MS consumer product a try, they turn around and stab me in the back. Thats a real great way to garner my support, sneak in unwanted changes unrelated to the requested functionality.
Firefox includes bing and yahoo as built in search providers (which makes sense, given that they are sizable competitors), and it takes all of 2 clicks and 0 menus to switch. IE does NOT include google by default (IE9 MIGHT change this), and to get google you have to go through about 3 menus, then load up a webpage where google is like the 53rd option down.
You cannot tell me that it makes sense to hide the most popular search engine (by a significant margin) under that much obscurity and difficulty. Its absolutely designed to scare away average users-- even a lot of techies that I know find it too much of a PITA to do it. Ive seen folks keep bing as their default search-box provider, and just manually type in "google.com" to avoid the pain.
If its set to bing, its a phenomenal PITA to switch-- Google isnt "built in", and you have to go to their "choose search provider" webpage, which has about a zillion search engines that noone cares about. And to even get there you have to navigate through internet options, under "programs".
Its incredibly user-hostile, and theres no excuse for not including the largest search engine provider by default, even if its not set as the active one.
Every time bing is the default on a computer I happen to be using, I invariably say to myself "well, surely its the same as google", and try my search thru bing. And when it fails to produce what Im looking for, I reword it again. By the third search attempt, I usually say "screw it, Im using Google", whereupon I immediately find what I was looking for.
In fact, I just hit this today, where I was looking for a network throughput tester for windows. Google correctly found iperf for windows quickly, while bing threw me off to sites like cnet and networkthroughputtesterdownload.awesomechina.com. Thanks for that, Bing, thats super helpful.
there should be stiff penalties for frivolous lawsuits and
There are, if you can prove that its frivolous and/or using the court systems as an anti-competitive hammer. If the court really decides that youre a nuisance, they can nail you pretty hard.
Watch the video before making snide comments. Haught had very good reason to do so-- Coyne acted like an unprofessional child, calling names, using fallacies, etc. It was a mockery of the forum, and it was a waste of time to watch.
If he had used quotes from other theologians the response would have been "Coyne rebutes other peoples claims but not the ones I was presenting.
One of Coynes initial remarks was along the lines of "people like Coyne believe in angels, which all smart people know dont exist". What about that sounds acceptable for the forum they were in? Is calling your opposition stupid by way of begging the question now acceptable rhetoric?
Haught was wrong to try and have the video censored, I'm fairly sure he is aware of that now.
I STILL dont get this censorship language. The video wasnt public and then redacted, nor was there an agreement to release it-- NOONE disputes this. ALL the censorship implication came from Coyne's rather unfounded assumption that the video would be released; no is claiming that anyone told him that, nor has anyone explained why it would be expected that it would (coyne's explaination basically amounts to "well, I feel like its the kind of thing to release").
Haught, however, gave a very clear reason why he did NOT want to release it-- Coyne was incredibly unprofessional in his remarks, especially launching into a tirade about how catholocism is the cause of all the world's evils: that had NOTHING to do with the discussion, and was totally out of line.
All of those reasons you listed that people should be ashamed of Coyne are the very reasons that Haught didnt want to release the video. I would myself feel a little ashamed to release it, as if I were claiming that were the best the opposition could offer. And honestly, I wish I hadnt wasted the time watching it.
If religion is true, and is the study of Theology (that is, of God), you wouldnt expect "advances". Of course, we DO have them, and we call them liberal.
Taken another way-- the constitution has barely advanced in 200 years! Surely its not worth understanding, because if it were of value, it would have a new, modern interpretation. Of course, we all see what that kind of thinking gets us regarding the freedoms guaranteed in the BoR.
It is a mistake-- one that Coyne himself repeated-- to think that the goal of christianity is the same as the goal of quantum mechanics. One tells us about our relationship with God and our status, the other seeks to find out how the universe operates. One is a static, unchanging thing, the other changes as our knowledge advances. Hence why "evangelicals" are marked by their fierce resistance to the tides of change that sometimes sweep through the church (like abandoning any concept of "truth" in the bible).
Watch the video, and read Haught's response to Coyne's blog, and THEN tell me that Coyne has any credibility to spare. Hes a militant athiest who presented something much less like rational argumentation and much more like a rant about how stupid religious people are, backed by either "evidence" that is mostly the opinion of one or two liberal scholars, or by simply declaring religion to be "obviously" stupid.
Apparently, judging by the comments posted thus far, the ruse worked.
Wait, you insist that the Bible really should be taken to mean "species as defined in the last few hundred years", rather than "kind" as it actually says?
Most people Ive ever talked to understand that insisting that "Kind=species" is ridiculous.