kind of, but not really. The higher EAL levels require things like proofs on your enforcement algorithms in the context of the machine (CPU feature set) it runs on. There are a lot of musty corner cases where user-based security fails. Thus it is impractical to retrofit existing OSes that rely on user-based security, because the security methods have fatal design flaws.
as far as practicality, consider denial of service attacks using the confused deputy problem. Linux, like windows, is full of mutexes and spinlocks. The answer is priority inheritance, and even that is only a partial answer.
The EAL is only half of the equation. The Target of Evaluation (device under test) is subjected to EAL appropriate documentation and verification against a design document called the Security Target. This ST specifies the threat environment. For example the windows ST specifies that all authorized system users are benign and thus not a threat.
2. what religious propaganda was in the original ender novella/novel? As to the other series(es, or whatever the plural of series is) of books he admits the bent and one is free to not read them. I certainly didn't.
3. sorry i meant "circular definition" not "circular argument". the GGP's very sentence was of that cute type "x is because x"
while i agree with the first part of your post, you go on to contradict yourself.
i'd say he's "filthy stinkin' rich" because of his writing skill and *despite* his opinions which he sometimes manages to keep veiled enough in his writings and the rest of the time admits.
2. what pleasure do you get from trolling around/. looking for any possible angle to malign groups you are not a member of? Because you seem in danger of embodying the sort of intolerance most atheists accuse religions of.
3. just because you can make a circular argument does not make you some sort of mental giant. such things are only aesthetically pleasing when they express some truth or fact concisely. yours does not.
I find the Pavlovian branch to be very nearly (and in some cases very truly) unethical, and unlikely to continue bearing fruit. In short I view neurologists and psychiatrists as hedge wizards, experimenting on such a hugely complex system that it is unlikely they will ever arrive at full understanding of it. I have much more hope for the molecular upwards computational modeling of life processes, such as the atomic / molecular model of a simple virus that currently occupies the compute time of a modern supercomputer. (I can't remember the source, sorry.) Also potentially useful are the purely utilitarian efforts to interface brain to computer current;y being pursued for the benefit of the disabled.
As to the psychoanalysts, I believe that their accumulated tools from their philosophical / epistemological background are themselves useful and can provide patients with important help in introspection. Simply teaching how to step back from a situation and attempt to view one's actions from other perspectives is worthwhile on its own.
you mean you didn't have 5 years of ASP experience 2 years after it came out, either? if you're a representative sample of America's information workforce, we're in deep trouble... Time to build another Technology business park in a rural county. That'll fix it.:P
As a fiscal conservative, I'd prefer less aggregate government spending because it is an inefficient way to accomplish the ends it is put to. However, given the spending spree the government is on, I find NASA far less objectionable than writing checks to citizens, bailouts, or WPAish "dig a ditch. now fill it in." economic "stimulus" plans. At least spend our money on something that might one day help us.
Context is a beautiful thing, isn't it? The verse you quote really does your argument no good. The burning was voluntary on the part of new members who had become disgusted with their prior ways. It was by no means a support for the church to compel anyone to burn their books or to censor other groups.
11 Now God worked unusual miracles by the hands of Paul, 12 so that even handkerchiefs or aprons were brought from his body to the sick, and the diseases left them and the evil spirits went out of them. 13 Then some of the itinerant Jewish exorcists took it upon themselves to call the name of the Lord Jesus over those who had evil spirits, saying, "We[a] exorcise you by the Jesus whom Paul preaches." 14 Also there were seven sons of Sceva, a Jewish chief priest, who did so. 15 And the evil spirit answered and said, "Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are you?" 16 Then the man in whom the evil spirit was leaped on them, overpowered[b] them, and prevailed against them,[c] so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded. 17 This became known both to all Jews and Greeks dwelling in Ephesus; and fear fell on them all, and the name of the Lord Jesus was magnified. 18 And many who had believed came confessing and telling their deeds. 19 Also, many of those who had practiced magic brought their books together and burned them in the sight of all. And they counted up the value of them, and it totaled fifty thousand pieces of silver. 20 So the word of the Lord grew mightily and prevailed.
That aside, nearly all social / political power structures that i am aware of have censorship in their past. While I agree it is foolhardy to ignore or forget episodes of evil in one's own groups, I would like to point out that areligious power groups also have this in their histories, and sometimes in the current efforts of their members. Fortunately for all of us, Christianity also sparked its own reformation, egalitarian groups like the Quakers (who were persecuted, yes, but their ideas won out it seems), and the philosophies of free will and natural rights which form the (currently neglected and crumbling) foundation for US governement.
You envision Christians as members of some monolithic Christendom. That is oversimplified to the point of naivety. Even well-known Christian apologists from 50+ years ago like CS Lewis refused not only calls to suppress evolution, but even to argue against evolution. A slightly more granular statement on your part might be that biblical literalists (which I am not) might want to censor evolution. But you'd have to go even finer granularity than that. There are literalists who still subscribe to the philosophies of free will and natural rights. These people would disagree with evolution, and even object to it being forced down their throats, but would not try or even support censorship.
by your standards then are there any posts on/. which aren't straw men? I see quite a few (understatement) which are rank speculation and regurgitation of prejudices (from all sides of all arguments) which aren't challenged in the fashion you challenge me. Where are your responses to them, because I feel rather singled out.
I stated my premises, leaving out for brevity evidence backing them, since in my experience the premise is evident by the preponderance of anti-religious screed spewed by atheists, including the majority of posts on this/. article. You disagree with my premise, or take me to task for not spelling it out. Please provide some evidence of your own that suggests that I am wrong in the broad case, rather than simply trying to offhandedly derail me because you don't care to confront the argument itself.
it's not a straw man, it's abbreviated for clarity and politeness.
1. Nearly every atheist I've met wants a world without religion. 2. Why else the constant preoccupation in the atheist community (and on forums like/.) denegrating religion / spiritualism?
aside from my disagreement with the premise of religious belief being a delusion, even if it were, what drives your desire to enslave^H^H^H^H^H^H^H err... treat their (our) "problem" with straight-jackets? What injury have I done you?
The Roman and Greek authors were hardly in accordance with christian dogma. By your logic, none of those works, except for the occasional bit of poetry should have survived. You argue viscerally without supporting your arguments at all and employ hyperbole. Have you got an axe to grind? It would seem if were to continue the discussion, likely that you would refuse to grant religious groups any positive attributes. What makes you try to make bogeymen out of religions and not other groups with not-entirely-positive histories? Why not governments? Or companies? I think a case is far easier to build against large political power structures (of which the dark ages church qualifies, but so too do most governments, excepting possibly that of the US in its formative years, Iceland, and Switzerland.) Why have you no such visceral revilement of governments? Or do you?
only if the person was educated... and many of the nobility were just as uneducated as their subjects.
More likely a person would either be put to work in the fields or kept warehoused away from society with attendants looking after them depending on their rank and the depth of their family's pockets.
And many of the great pagan works (Plato, Aristotle, etc) were cared for and perpetuated by the church during the dark ages. You can thank organized religion for their stewardship of the ancient authors at least. Alternatively, every European work that predates the dark ages must have its integrity called into question: after all, someone's crazy uncle could have been intentionally mis-transcribing the work from the deteriorating copy into the new one.
Relativism and materialism are also indefensible philosophies as Nietzsche pointed out. What evidence do you really have that anything you percieve, or indeed your very self actually exists at all?
Also, many atheists / materialists believe that society would be better off if everyone subscribed to their beliefs. However many of these same people do not credit the rest of humanity with the enlightened self interest necessary to bootstrap and sustain what we commonly hold to be an ethical society. (My argument here is essentially that if most members of society were to drop their religious beliefs and yet not have the capacity for enlightened self interest that society would be unsustainable, essentially making broad case atheism / materialism parasitic.) And the best thing is that many atheists / materialists is that they cannot stand scrutiny of these autocontradictory beliefs they hold. "It would just all be better if no one believed in God(s)."
Well, that wasn't even much of a flame... more of a reasoned argument. I'll have to try harder next time.
next thing it will be right- or left-wing. i mean they're charging too much for SQL queries... it's not like they're cooking up germ warfare agents. they're not even canning badly and accidentally creating botulism. sleazy, yes. evil, no.
last i checked a $46 mil company with 500 employees does not qualify as vast.
sure, 30 years ago you'd have a point, but inflation really tears down that amount until there's just the psychological remnant of "million"
Number Two: "Don't you think we should ask for *more* than a million dollars? A million dollars isn't exactly a lot of money these days. Virtucon alone makes over 9 billion dollars a year!"
Slashdot Mirror
"I hope you die a miserable death."
nice one AC.
kind of, but not really. The higher EAL levels require things like proofs on your enforcement algorithms in the context of the machine (CPU feature set) it runs on. There are a lot of musty corner cases where user-based security fails. Thus it is impractical to retrofit existing OSes that rely on user-based security, because the security methods have fatal design flaws.
as far as practicality, consider denial of service attacks using the confused deputy problem. Linux, like windows, is full of mutexes and spinlocks. The answer is priority inheritance, and even that is only a partial answer.
The EAL is only half of the equation. The Target of Evaluation (device under test) is subjected to EAL appropriate documentation and verification against a design document called the Security Target. This ST specifies the threat environment. For example the windows ST specifies that all authorized system users are benign and thus not a threat.
i thought the flamebait modifier was not for things you merely disagree with.
i cited sources and made reasoned arguments. apparently not something /.ers like to see unless the conclusion is one the herd agrees with.
nice cheap shot moderator.
1. yes religious nuts do criticize works of fantasy by religious people. especially in sects where there are few educational requirements for pastors. e.g. these idiots: http://www.heavenisopen.com/newsletter/narnia2.html
http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/tolkien-lordoftherings.html
2. what religious propaganda was in the original ender novella/novel? As to the other series(es, or whatever the plural of series is) of books he admits the bent and one is free to not read them. I certainly didn't.
3. sorry i meant "circular definition" not "circular argument". the GGP's very sentence was of that cute type "x is because x"
while i agree with the first part of your post, you go on to contradict yourself.
i'd say he's "filthy stinkin' rich" because of his writing skill and *despite* his opinions which he sometimes manages to keep veiled enough in his writings and the rest of the time admits.
and here's your flame:
1. sci-fi / fantasy is an object of much overwrought disapproval from many religious groups. While I had thought the issue to be mostly smoldering rather than active, the Christian Children's Fund declined a large donation from the estate of the late Gary Gygax one of the inventors of the Dungeons and Dragons game. http://arstechnica.com/journals/thumbs.ars/2008/11/04/charity-declines-money-from-group-associated-with-gygax
2. what pleasure do you get from trolling around /. looking for any possible angle to malign groups you are not a member of? Because you seem in danger of embodying the sort of intolerance most atheists accuse religions of.
3. just because you can make a circular argument does not make you some sort of mental giant. such things are only aesthetically pleasing when they express some truth or fact concisely. yours does not.
~= 500/1 by inspection. :p
I find the Pavlovian branch to be very nearly (and in some cases very truly) unethical, and unlikely to continue bearing fruit. In short I view neurologists and psychiatrists as hedge wizards, experimenting on such a hugely complex system that it is unlikely they will ever arrive at full understanding of it. I have much more hope for the molecular upwards computational modeling of life processes, such as the atomic / molecular model of a simple virus that currently occupies the compute time of a modern supercomputer. (I can't remember the source, sorry.) Also potentially useful are the purely utilitarian efforts to interface brain to computer current;y being pursued for the benefit of the disabled.
As to the psychoanalysts, I believe that their accumulated tools from their philosophical / epistemological background are themselves useful and can provide patients with important help in introspection. Simply teaching how to step back from a situation and attempt to view one's actions from other perspectives is worthwhile on its own.
pretty please
i didn't expect my government to suspend habeas corpus... maybe i should have.
besides, what limits do you see on the government? now that the constitution's just a piece of paper i see none.
except that brick wall of reality at the end of our inflationary credit driven fiscal policies.
you mean you didn't have 5 years of ASP experience 2 years after it came out, either? if you're a representative sample of America's information workforce, we're in deep trouble... Time to build another Technology business park in a rural county. That'll fix it. :P
Double jeopardy is delicious. And illegal. Scumbags.
As a fiscal conservative, I'd prefer less aggregate government spending because it is an inefficient way to accomplish the ends it is put to. However, given the spending spree the government is on, I find NASA far less objectionable than writing checks to citizens, bailouts, or WPAish "dig a ditch. now fill it in." economic "stimulus" plans. At least spend our money on something that might one day help us.
Context is a beautiful thing, isn't it? The verse you quote really does your argument no good. The burning was voluntary on the part of new members who had become disgusted with their prior ways. It was by no means a support for the church to compel anyone to burn their books or to censor other groups.
11 Now God worked unusual miracles by the hands of Paul, 12 so that even handkerchiefs or aprons were brought from his body to the sick, and the diseases left them and the evil spirits went out of them. 13 Then some of the itinerant Jewish exorcists took it upon themselves to call the name of the Lord Jesus over those who had evil spirits, saying, "We[a] exorcise you by the Jesus whom Paul preaches." 14 Also there were seven sons of Sceva, a Jewish chief priest, who did so.
15 And the evil spirit answered and said, "Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are you?"
16 Then the man in whom the evil spirit was leaped on them, overpowered[b] them, and prevailed against them,[c] so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded. 17 This became known both to all Jews and Greeks dwelling in Ephesus; and fear fell on them all, and the name of the Lord Jesus was magnified. 18 And many who had believed came confessing and telling their deeds. 19 Also, many of those who had practiced magic brought their books together and burned them in the sight of all. And they counted up the value of them, and it totaled fifty thousand pieces of silver. 20 So the word of the Lord grew mightily and prevailed.
That aside, nearly all social / political power structures that i am aware of have censorship in their past. While I agree it is foolhardy to ignore or forget episodes of evil in one's own groups, I would like to point out that areligious power groups also have this in their histories, and sometimes in the current efforts of their members. Fortunately for all of us, Christianity also sparked its own reformation, egalitarian groups like the Quakers (who were persecuted, yes, but their ideas won out it seems), and the philosophies of free will and natural rights which form the (currently neglected and crumbling) foundation for US governement.
You envision Christians as members of some monolithic Christendom. That is oversimplified to the point of naivety. Even well-known Christian apologists from 50+ years ago like CS Lewis refused not only calls to suppress evolution, but even to argue against evolution. A slightly more granular statement on your part might be that biblical literalists (which I am not) might want to censor evolution. But you'd have to go even finer granularity than that. There are literalists who still subscribe to the philosophies of free will and natural rights. These people would disagree with evolution, and even object to it being forced down their throats, but would not try or even support censorship.
by your standards then are there any posts on /. which aren't straw men? I see quite a few (understatement) which are rank speculation and regurgitation of prejudices (from all sides of all arguments) which aren't challenged in the fashion you challenge me. Where are your responses to them, because I feel rather singled out.
I stated my premises, leaving out for brevity evidence backing them, since in my experience the premise is evident by the preponderance of anti-religious screed spewed by atheists, including the majority of posts on this /. article. You disagree with my premise, or take me to task for not spelling it out. Please provide some evidence of your own that suggests that I am wrong in the broad case, rather than simply trying to offhandedly derail me because you don't care to confront the argument itself.
it's not a straw man, it's abbreviated for clarity and politeness.
1. Nearly every atheist I've met wants a world without religion. /.) denegrating religion / spiritualism?
2. Why else the constant preoccupation in the atheist community (and on forums like
"Oh, snap."
Hope that was the saying, not the sound of Vinnie breaking your leg.
aside from my disagreement with the premise of religious belief being a delusion, even if it were, what drives your desire to enslave^H^H^H^H^H^H^H err... treat their (our) "problem" with straight-jackets? What injury have I done you?
The Roman and Greek authors were hardly in accordance with christian dogma. By your logic, none of those works, except for the occasional bit of poetry should have survived. You argue viscerally without supporting your arguments at all and employ hyperbole. Have you got an axe to grind? It would seem if were to continue the discussion, likely that you would refuse to grant religious groups any positive attributes. What makes you try to make bogeymen out of religions and not other groups with not-entirely-positive histories? Why not governments? Or companies? I think a case is far easier to build against large political power structures (of which the dark ages church qualifies, but so too do most governments, excepting possibly that of the US in its formative years, Iceland, and Switzerland.) Why have you no such visceral revilement of governments? Or do you?
i still owe three or four of them money...
classmates.com aren't a collection agency for them...
guess it's not that bad.
It's on topic.
It's balanced.
Oh, wait, a moderator couldn't stand to examine their assumptions about the world.
only if the person was educated... and many of the nobility were just as uneducated as their subjects.
More likely a person would either be put to work in the fields or kept warehoused away from society with attendants looking after them depending on their rank and the depth of their family's pockets.
And many of the great pagan works (Plato, Aristotle, etc) were cared for and perpetuated by the church during the dark ages. You can thank organized religion for their stewardship of the ancient authors at least. Alternatively, every European work that predates the dark ages must have its integrity called into question: after all, someone's crazy uncle could have been intentionally mis-transcribing the work from the deteriorating copy into the new one.
and here's your flame:
Relativism and materialism are also indefensible philosophies as Nietzsche pointed out. What evidence do you really have that anything you percieve, or indeed your very self actually exists at all?
Also, many atheists / materialists believe that society would be better off if everyone subscribed to their beliefs. However many of these same people do not credit the rest of humanity with the enlightened self interest necessary to bootstrap and sustain what we commonly hold to be an ethical society. (My argument here is essentially that if most members of society were to drop their religious beliefs and yet not have the capacity for enlightened self interest that society would be unsustainable, essentially making broad case atheism / materialism parasitic.) And the best thing is that many atheists / materialists is that they cannot stand scrutiny of these autocontradictory beliefs they hold. "It would just all be better if no one believed in God(s)."
Well, that wasn't even much of a flame... more of a reasoned argument. I'll have to try harder next time.
vast global conspiracy. feh.
next thing it will be right- or left-wing. i mean they're charging too much for SQL queries... it's not like they're cooking up germ warfare agents. they're not even canning badly and accidentally creating botulism. sleazy, yes. evil, no.
last i checked a $46 mil company with 500 employees does not qualify as vast.
sure, 30 years ago you'd have a point, but inflation really tears down that amount until there's just the psychological remnant of "million"
Number Two: "Don't you think we should ask for *more* than a million dollars? A million dollars isn't exactly a lot of money these days. Virtucon alone makes over 9 billion dollars a year!"
whatev.