One bad website makes you think poorly of an entire religious group who have no affiliation with said website? Wow, so do Comcast and Verizon cause you to feel scorn for the internet in general?
but that just shows you how important a strong and legitimate government is to the well-being of a society.
To be more fair, no, it doesnt. It shows you precisely how harmful a government gone wrong can be.
Dont get me wrong; I agree that a legitimate government is necessary. But it is not a panacea, and your examples in africa entirely ignore the fact that their problems are generally CAUSED by the government. A better government would likely fix things, sure, but thats not a terribly good argument for an expansive government. As has been said so well in the past, "absolute power corrupts absolutely". Anyone who knows anything about human nature knows that people are power grasping and not to be trusted with power unchecked. I see no reason to give more power to a government than absolutely necessary-- for every good that it can do with that power, there are about 3 bad things it will be tempted to do with that power.
Your ideas on economics are fatally childish and unrealistic
You cannot deny that a good many government systems (food stamps?) are unmercifully gamed. Private businesses DO have that benefit that they tend to watch their bottom line, and so if theyre being ripped off, they actually do something about it. Government does not; decisions made tend to be (in my experience consulting for gov't) arbitrary and based on how much money the gov't employee thinks he will get, and how much he wants to get budgeted next year. NOT the kind of attitude i want for someone handling my money....
If all of this libertarian horseshit were true, than the weak states across the world would be drowning in money and happiness. They are not.
Im not sure I've ever heard anyone defend the idea that a weak government leads to societal success, nor why you feel it necessary to argue with such absurdities. I HAVE heard (and to some extent, agree with) the idea that governments should be given extremely limited power sufficient to keep people from taking your life, property, and trampling on your rights. My thoughts would be, beyond that, any concessions should have to be backed up with some serious justification. I would agree, for example, that in the case of utilities (and possibly internet?) government has pretty good reason to get involved.
There are a lot of things I dont trust big businesses with, but for many of the same reasons I have a degree of mistrust for any government as well. Anyone who thinks the government can be unconditionally trusted with anything is naieve.
And guess what-- the "in 2010" comment doesnt really apply to an OS from 2002, does it? Win7 and Vista have basically the same sudo style controls that Linux has.
I mean really, these FUD comments have got to stop.
Yes, well, the fact remains that the Bible actually encourages (verses 1-5, also pretty much the entire book of Song of Solomon) quite regular sex within marriage, so that kind of puts a damper on the whole "church wants to repress sex to control you" discussion, I think.
Its possible that it stops malware because when you switch them to a new browser, all the crappy insecure plugins arent switched over (java, acrobat, flash, quicktime) unless you reinstall them.
Im all for lambasting IE8 for the awful awful browser it is, but lets lay blame where its deserved-- most malware is plugin-induced.
when you logged into gmail, there was a button that said "please let me use buzz" and one that said "no thanks, i dont want buzz" along with a brief description. That is, as GP stated, it was COMPLETELY optional, as is googles entire gmail service to begin with.
Noting that it was only 8.5 mil, really sounds like the opposition had very little ground to stand on and this was a concession to make the stupid thing go away.
Im not entirely clear here, can you explain how RIM will provide the NSA with an encryption key that they never saw? Is RIM somehow bruteforcing all the (encrypted) encryption keys? You do realize that to activate a blackberry (and thus get the encryption key onto it) you need to either
A) use a USB connection to get the keys transferred over or
B) do a wireless activation, which requires a pre-shared key to be input on both the handheld and the server
EVEN assuming that a wireless activation were performed, how exactly do you propose that RIM get a key which passed through their network 5 months ago, itself encrypted with a private key that they are not privy to?
Why not just take your arguments to the logical conclusion and remark that, while it may be unsafe if EVERYONE drives 90mph, by imposing a fee to do so you control the number of people who can do so and thus allow speeding to be done safely?
Why was parent upmodded? GP described 4chan/b/ quite accurately, and parent just seems to have an axe to grind with 4chan-- its not insightful to call someone a "fag" (gp is using an actual 4chan term with an actual meaning; parent just just being immature). Seriously, has parent ever been to 4chan, or do you even know how long GP has been on the internet?
Sounds to me like youre just firing flames off for no particular reason, and have no understanding of how 4chan actually works.
AFAIK that is not correct-- if you are in a public place with no reasonable expectation of privacy, then a photographer may photograph you, or your children, or house, or car, and then publish the resulting photo without any notice or permission to you. I am sure the same would doubly apply to articles or interviews barring any slander / libel issues.
Natural is generally used to mean "is accessible irregardless of the state of industry", as I understand it, and I think the implication is that its "tried and true", and unlikely to have bizarre side effects that we wont know about for 20 years. For example, asprin has been used thru willow bark for thousands of years, so its pretty likely that willow bark / salicylic acid isnt likely to produce bizarre birth defects. Artificial sweeteners on the other hand are newer, hence why people are able to claim all sorts of things about them-- true or not, they dont have a multi-thousand year track record.
Youre right that the word isnt terribly useful if you try to get technical, but lets be honest here, people usually arent that careful with their words. I was having a (pedantic) argument with someone a few weeks ago about intrinsic value, and whether gold has any-- in a very real sense, the word "intrinsic" is arbitrary-- does gold have any value in itself? Why would money-- that is paper-- not also? But of course when you talk of gold's intrinsic value people understand what you mean; we're not using technical language, but that doesnt mean the word is utterly useful so long as there is a general understanding communicated through it.
I assume, after all, that if someone said that yellow #5 (tartrazine / coal tar extract) isnt "natural" you would understand roughly what they mean and are getting at, and im sure if they said that glucose wasnt "natural" you would be quick to point out that it really is.
As soon as people tell you to stop questioning an idea
I dont know where you got your ideas, but that sounds an awful lot like a strawman to me. Im pretty sure most studied religious teachers welcome discussion and questions alike.
observations are fact, but jumping from the specific observation to a broad postulation (inductive reasoning) is not. To rephrase your own example, "In all observed cases CO2 has converted IR radiation into atmospheric heat (historical fact). Therefore, CO2 always converts IR radiation into heat (theory)."
Perhaps im simply being pedantic here, but it seems like people try to ignore this often enough that I think it is warranted. Strong evidence and a little inductive reasoning does NOT make something conclusively true.
The rootkit can be so configured (not providing instructions here) that it is effectively hidden from most methods of detection by active user. Killing the process is rather difficult when you know neither the exe name (it can rename itself and hide the binary) nor the PID. Additionally, a program does not need to install itself as a service in order to infect. It can very easily modify user accessible binaries, so that any UAC prompts appear to come from a trusted source.
It does not fit all definitions of "rootkit", but certainly has most of the notable attributes of one.
Gravity cannot be exhaustively proven either, though the weight of evidence is so strong in its favor that it is easier to use the shorthand "fact" for referring to it; nevertheless, to say "all things in all places experience mutual attraction based on mass" is in a different category (theory) than "Hurricane Katrina occurred in 2005" (historical fact).
AGW as it is commonly used is a theory-- it postulates that the current theorized deviations from the "norm" are caused to a significant degree by human activity. The "A" in AGW is "anthropogenic", refering to human causation. This is not a process, but a theory. Whatever the weight of evidence for or against it, it is NOT fact, and people need to stop pretending it is.
The operative word in my post was "implies". There is a strong implication by people using the term "denialism" that this has been exhaustively proven and there is no cogent argument that could be brought to bear in opposition to their viewpoint.
Such a stance might rarely be acceptable when dealing with recent history, but certainly not when dealing with meteorological and environmental theories.
1) In your view, when exactly does a zygote / embryo / fetus become a human?
2) What evidence leads to this view?
3) Do humans have innate value?
Until everyone agrees on points 1 and 2, there will be controversy around this. Until people agree on point 3, there will be confusion about why people are making such a fuss about things.
"deny" implies that there is no shadow of a question about the factuality AGW (or how significant it is), which is just not true-- hence why it is a theory. I would reserve the term denier for actual factual historical events, not theories which can never be more than theories.
If you dont understand or agree, it may be helpful to recall what the difference between historical fact and scientific theory is, and whether theories can ever be exhaustively proven.
Andriod IS Linux, as are ChromeOS and WebOS.
Windows Phone 7 is (according to wikipedia) windows CE. Xbox (the first) used the NT kernel; as best as I could tell, Xbox360 uses some kind of windows kernel as well.
iOS is based on Mac OSX, so again, not really a new OS here, just a modified one.
That basically leaves Blackberry OS, the playstation OS, and whatever your "few others" are. As Playstation doesnt really count (you cannot run anything but that software on your PS3-- hypervisors aside-- and you cannot run that software on anything else), and neither does Blackberry (ditto), that really doesnt add much to the list at all.
If we agree that this is about the use of tax money; and if we agree that republicans' votes are just as valid as everyone elses; and that republicans therefore have just as much say about how THEIR tax dollars are used as everyone else (and if you cannot, then you do not understand what "democratic" means).... how can you then say that they should not voice their concerns, especially when said concerns deal with laws that have already been passed?
Slashdot Mirror
One bad website makes you think poorly of an entire religious group who have no affiliation with said website? Wow, so do Comcast and Verizon cause you to feel scorn for the internet in general?
PDF is alterable with notepad++, to clarify TheRaven64's point. Its not terribly difficult if you want to alter straight up text.
but that just shows you how important a strong and legitimate government is to the well-being of a society.
To be more fair, no, it doesnt. It shows you precisely how harmful a government gone wrong can be.
Dont get me wrong; I agree that a legitimate government is necessary. But it is not a panacea, and your examples in africa entirely ignore the fact that their problems are generally CAUSED by the government. A better government would likely fix things, sure, but thats not a terribly good argument for an expansive government. As has been said so well in the past, "absolute power corrupts absolutely". Anyone who knows anything about human nature knows that people are power grasping and not to be trusted with power unchecked. I see no reason to give more power to a government than absolutely necessary-- for every good that it can do with that power, there are about 3 bad things it will be tempted to do with that power.
Your ideas on economics are fatally childish and unrealistic
You cannot deny that a good many government systems (food stamps?) are unmercifully gamed. Private businesses DO have that benefit that they tend to watch their bottom line, and so if theyre being ripped off, they actually do something about it. Government does not; decisions made tend to be (in my experience consulting for gov't) arbitrary and based on how much money the gov't employee thinks he will get, and how much he wants to get budgeted next year. NOT the kind of attitude i want for someone handling my money....
If all of this libertarian horseshit were true, than the weak states across the world would be drowning in money and happiness. They are not.
Im not sure I've ever heard anyone defend the idea that a weak government leads to societal success, nor why you feel it necessary to argue with such absurdities. I HAVE heard (and to some extent, agree with) the idea that governments should be given extremely limited power sufficient to keep people from taking your life, property, and trampling on your rights. My thoughts would be, beyond that, any concessions should have to be backed up with some serious justification. I would agree, for example, that in the case of utilities (and possibly internet?) government has pretty good reason to get involved.
There are a lot of things I dont trust big businesses with, but for many of the same reasons I have a degree of mistrust for any government as well. Anyone who thinks the government can be unconditionally trusted with anything is naieve.
It even degrades nicely in older browsers...
...And in any browser that doesnt state "internet explorer" in its useragent.
And guess what-- the "in 2010" comment doesnt really apply to an OS from 2002, does it? Win7 and Vista have basically the same sudo style controls that Linux has.
I mean really, these FUD comments have got to stop.
Yes, well, the fact remains that the Bible actually encourages (verses 1-5, also pretty much the entire book of Song of Solomon) quite regular sex within marriage, so that kind of puts a damper on the whole "church wants to repress sex to control you" discussion, I think.
Its possible that it stops malware because when you switch them to a new browser, all the crappy insecure plugins arent switched over (java, acrobat, flash, quicktime) unless you reinstall them.
Im all for lambasting IE8 for the awful awful browser it is, but lets lay blame where its deserved-- most malware is plugin-induced.
when you logged into gmail, there was a button that said "please let me use buzz" and one that said "no thanks, i dont want buzz" along with a brief description. That is, as GP stated, it was COMPLETELY optional, as is googles entire gmail service to begin with.
Noting that it was only 8.5 mil, really sounds like the opposition had very little ground to stand on and this was a concession to make the stupid thing go away.
Im not entirely clear here, can you explain how RIM will provide the NSA with an encryption key that they never saw? Is RIM somehow bruteforcing all the (encrypted) encryption keys? You do realize that to activate a blackberry (and thus get the encryption key onto it) you need to either
A) use a USB connection to get the keys transferred over or
B) do a wireless activation, which requires a pre-shared key to be input on both the handheld and the server
EVEN assuming that a wireless activation were performed, how exactly do you propose that RIM get a key which passed through their network 5 months ago, itself encrypted with a private key that they are not privy to?
Why not just take your arguments to the logical conclusion and remark that, while it may be unsafe if EVERYONE drives 90mph, by imposing a fee to do so you control the number of people who can do so and thus allow speeding to be done safely?
Why was parent upmodded? GP described 4chan /b/ quite accurately, and parent just seems to have an axe to grind with 4chan-- its not insightful to call someone a "fag" (gp is using an actual 4chan term with an actual meaning; parent just just being immature). Seriously, has parent ever been to 4chan, or do you even know how long GP has been on the internet?
Sounds to me like youre just firing flames off for no particular reason, and have no understanding of how 4chan actually works.
AFAIK that is not correct-- if you are in a public place with no reasonable expectation of privacy, then a photographer may photograph you, or your children, or house, or car, and then publish the resulting photo without any notice or permission to you. I am sure the same would doubly apply to articles or interviews barring any slander / libel issues.
Taken from http://krages.com/phoright.htm
Regardless of how you feel about her stances, it does sound like she makes rather foolish statements that dont inspire a lot of confidence.
Natural is generally used to mean "is accessible irregardless of the state of industry", as I understand it, and I think the implication is that its "tried and true", and unlikely to have bizarre side effects that we wont know about for 20 years. For example, asprin has been used thru willow bark for thousands of years, so its pretty likely that willow bark / salicylic acid isnt likely to produce bizarre birth defects. Artificial sweeteners on the other hand are newer, hence why people are able to claim all sorts of things about them-- true or not, they dont have a multi-thousand year track record.
Youre right that the word isnt terribly useful if you try to get technical, but lets be honest here, people usually arent that careful with their words. I was having a (pedantic) argument with someone a few weeks ago about intrinsic value, and whether gold has any-- in a very real sense, the word "intrinsic" is arbitrary-- does gold have any value in itself? Why would money-- that is paper-- not also? But of course when you talk of gold's intrinsic value people understand what you mean; we're not using technical language, but that doesnt mean the word is utterly useful so long as there is a general understanding communicated through it.
I assume, after all, that if someone said that yellow #5 (tartrazine / coal tar extract) isnt "natural" you would understand roughly what they mean and are getting at, and im sure if they said that glucose wasnt "natural" you would be quick to point out that it really is.
As soon as people tell you to stop questioning an idea
I dont know where you got your ideas, but that sounds an awful lot like a strawman to me. Im pretty sure most studied religious teachers welcome discussion and questions alike.
observations are fact, but jumping from the specific observation to a broad postulation (inductive reasoning) is not. To rephrase your own example, "In all observed cases CO2 has converted IR radiation into atmospheric heat (historical fact). Therefore, CO2 always converts IR radiation into heat (theory)."
Perhaps im simply being pedantic here, but it seems like people try to ignore this often enough that I think it is warranted. Strong evidence and a little inductive reasoning does NOT make something conclusively true.
The rootkit can be so configured (not providing instructions here) that it is effectively hidden from most methods of detection by active user. Killing the process is rather difficult when you know neither the exe name (it can rename itself and hide the binary) nor the PID. Additionally, a program does not need to install itself as a service in order to infect. It can very easily modify user accessible binaries, so that any UAC prompts appear to come from a trusted source.
It does not fit all definitions of "rootkit", but certainly has most of the notable attributes of one.
I see no reason not to call "observations" historical facts if they are indeed accurate.
Gravity cannot be exhaustively proven either, though the weight of evidence is so strong in its favor that it is easier to use the shorthand "fact" for referring to it; nevertheless, to say "all things in all places experience mutual attraction based on mass" is in a different category (theory) than "Hurricane Katrina occurred in 2005" (historical fact).
AGW as it is commonly used is a theory-- it postulates that the current theorized deviations from the "norm" are caused to a significant degree by human activity. The "A" in AGW is "anthropogenic", refering to human causation. This is not a process, but a theory. Whatever the weight of evidence for or against it, it is NOT fact, and people need to stop pretending it is.
The operative word in my post was "implies". There is a strong implication by people using the term "denialism" that this has been exhaustively proven and there is no cogent argument that could be brought to bear in opposition to their viewpoint.
Such a stance might rarely be acceptable when dealing with recent history, but certainly not when dealing with meteorological and environmental theories.
Until everyone agrees on points 1 and 2, there will be controversy around this. Until people agree on point 3, there will be confusion about why people are making such a fuss about things.
"deny" implies that there is no shadow of a question about the factuality AGW (or how significant it is), which is just not true-- hence why it is a theory. I would reserve the term denier for actual factual historical events, not theories which can never be more than theories.
If you dont understand or agree, it may be helpful to recall what the difference between historical fact and scientific theory is, and whether theories can ever be exhaustively proven.
A user without administrative access cannot install a rootkit.
Thats inaccurate. A non-admin can very easily get infected with a userland rootkit with no exploits necessary. Google "n00bkit".
Andriod IS Linux, as are ChromeOS and WebOS.
Windows Phone 7 is (according to wikipedia) windows CE. Xbox (the first) used the NT kernel; as best as I could tell, Xbox360 uses some kind of windows kernel as well.
iOS is based on Mac OSX, so again, not really a new OS here, just a modified one.
That basically leaves Blackberry OS, the playstation OS, and whatever your "few others" are. As Playstation doesnt really count (you cannot run anything but that software on your PS3-- hypervisors aside-- and you cannot run that software on anything else), and neither does Blackberry (ditto), that really doesnt add much to the list at all.
If we agree that this is about the use of tax money; and if we agree that republicans' votes are just as valid as everyone elses; and that republicans therefore have just as much say about how THEIR tax dollars are used as everyone else (and if you cannot, then you do not understand what "democratic" means).... how can you then say that they should not voice their concerns, especially when said concerns deal with laws that have already been passed?