Uh. I fully believe the Theory of Evolution to be correct, at least in its generalities (most theories can be improved), but that doesn't mean it's not a theory. It is no more a fact than Newtonian theories of motion (which turned out to be wrong!)
What's wrong with them representing it as the theory it is?
You know, they haven't yet explored the brave new world of cable television! There are greedy, greedy people who watch tv ALL DAY! Maybe they should pay extra also. You could have a "3-hour plan" and a "5-hour plan", etc.
When did the consumer become the enemy? RIAA and MPAA clearly think that is the case. As does Apple, it seems. And obviously Comcast and Time Warner.
I want a company that says "thank you for your business." I know they need to make profit, that's fine. Price accordingly. If you really don't like consumers and think they're all out to rob you, it's time to go out of business (like SCO!!)
I do not doubt the numbers this (and other) studies found concerning how secure machines are. HOWEVER, I believe they are testing the wrong thing. Let's compare their claims to a real-world security issue. Do you feel secure in your home? The majority of people would say "yes". But wait! We could conduct a study and discover that the vast majority of homes do not have break-proof glass windows. Many people do not engage the dead-bolt on their door when they leave. Many doors are not credit-card-proof on the simpler lock. For that matter, many doors are not solid enough to prevent being forced with enough of a running start by an invader. Oh my! Lots of people leave their doors completely unlocked and maybe wide open when they go check the mail out at the street!
LOOK AT ALL THESE SECURITY HOLES! People are so very confused about the security of their houses!
I think the example shows that the only real test of whether a machine proved "secure" is whether it got compromised or not. "Could be compromised" does not matter. The only way to fully secure a machine is to detach it from all networking, sink it into a 20-ton block of concrete, and drop that into an undisclosed location in the middle of the Pacific. No, wait... you also have to kill all the witnesses and arrange for tectonic activities to have the block go under into the magma too. Once the computer is goo, I have reasonable expectations that it will be safe!
Since "secure" is an unrealistic goal, a better goal would be "secure enough", which is very dependent upon the person, their practices, and their needs. If I burn a full backup of my system every few months, and everything I do between the backups is reasonably recreatible, I argue that my system is "secure enough" for my needs. Whether it has glaring holes or not. I think, however, that doing a study on whether people's machines are "secure enough" would present some serious challenges.
The age of the universe (based on scripture) was not first done by Bishop Ussher in the 17th century. That's a small-world view.
Rabbi Yossi ben Halafta in the 2nd century made the calculation (perhaps more accurately).
Biblically, you can go from Adam to the destruction of the 2nd Temple with "begats" and the length of rule of the kings. So you can figure out when Adam was born, since we know the Temple was destroyed in 70 CE.
It is possible that Bishop Ussher's date does not agree because the Christian bibles included a serious abridgement of Torah.
Has anyone read more about this to see if their dating techniques make any sense at all?
I went to the ASU site and read the blurb, but I'm too lazy to search further (for a possible journal article, for instance).
Seriously, though... it looks to me like they dated the age of the _cave_ and then declared that the hominids that had visited it must also be that old. Uh huh. That puts an upper bound on the age of humanity... it doesn't place a particular age. One dating technique talked about stalagmites, and the other talked about how long since sand had seen daylight. What do either of these have to do with the people in the cave?
I had a similar experience with (I think) CompUSA in Knoxville, TN a few years back. Mine was even more straightforward, though, and ended up in no hardships like this gent faced.
Basically, I went in and bought _one_ thing. I even said "no thanks" to a bag. I head for the door with the receipt in one hand and the item in the other.
On the way out, this woman appears out of nowhere, surprises me, and says "sir, I need to see your receipt." After a shocked step back, I say, "uh, no." I walk around her and keep going for the door. I guess she was surprised that I said no, because she didn't even follow for a few seconds.
I get about half way across the parking lot before she catches up, yelling she has to see my receipt. I say, "no." She says, "why not?" I say, "I have *one* item in my hand. You can see that. I have a receipt in my other hand. You can also see that. What on earth do you think the receipt is for? Why would you need to see it to verify that it is for the one item I clearly just bought at the cash register I just left inside your store?"
She says, "I need to make sure the item is on the receipt. We have problems with our cashiers ringing the wrong thing sometimes." I respond, "that is between you and your cashiers. I paid for the item I am holding. Your choices at this point are to call the police, in which case I will happily wait for their arrival. OR, I am going to get in my car and drive away."
She just stood there, which I took for her choosing not to call the police, so I left.
So the moral of my story is that sometimes saying "no" doesn't really cost you anything, and clearly in these cases it is the right thing to do.
OH! I would also note that if everyone said "no", there would be no reasonable way for them to arrest everyone.
Slashdot Mirror
Uh. I fully believe the Theory of Evolution to be correct, at least in its generalities (most theories can be improved), but that doesn't mean it's not a theory. It is no more a fact than Newtonian theories of motion (which turned out to be wrong!) What's wrong with them representing it as the theory it is?
You know, they haven't yet explored the brave new world of cable television! There are greedy, greedy people who watch tv ALL DAY! Maybe they should pay extra also. You could have a "3-hour plan" and a "5-hour plan", etc. When did the consumer become the enemy? RIAA and MPAA clearly think that is the case. As does Apple, it seems. And obviously Comcast and Time Warner. I want a company that says "thank you for your business." I know they need to make profit, that's fine. Price accordingly. If you really don't like consumers and think they're all out to rob you, it's time to go out of business (like SCO!!)
LOOK AT ALL THESE SECURITY HOLES! People are so very confused about the security of their houses!
I think the example shows that the only real test of whether a machine proved "secure" is whether it got compromised or not. "Could be compromised" does not matter. The only way to fully secure a machine is to detach it from all networking, sink it into a 20-ton block of concrete, and drop that into an undisclosed location in the middle of the Pacific. No, wait... you also have to kill all the witnesses and arrange for tectonic activities to have the block go under into the magma too. Once the computer is goo, I have reasonable expectations that it will be safe!
Since "secure" is an unrealistic goal, a better goal would be "secure enough", which is very dependent upon the person, their practices, and their needs. If I burn a full backup of my system every few months, and everything I do between the backups is reasonably recreatible, I argue that my system is "secure enough" for my needs. Whether it has glaring holes or not. I think, however, that doing a study on whether people's machines are "secure enough" would present some serious challenges.
Rabbi Yossi ben Halafta in the 2nd century made the calculation (perhaps more accurately).
Biblically, you can go from Adam to the destruction of the 2nd Temple with "begats" and the length of rule of the kings. So you can figure out when Adam was born, since we know the Temple was destroyed in 70 CE.
It is possible that Bishop Ussher's date does not agree because the Christian bibles included a serious abridgement of Torah.
Has anyone read more about this to see if their dating techniques make any sense at all? I went to the ASU site and read the blurb, but I'm too lazy to search further (for a possible journal article, for instance). Seriously, though... it looks to me like they dated the age of the _cave_ and then declared that the hominids that had visited it must also be that old. Uh huh. That puts an upper bound on the age of humanity... it doesn't place a particular age. One dating technique talked about stalagmites, and the other talked about how long since sand had seen daylight. What do either of these have to do with the people in the cave?
I had a similar experience with (I think) CompUSA in Knoxville, TN a few years back. Mine was even more straightforward, though, and ended up in no hardships like this gent faced. Basically, I went in and bought _one_ thing. I even said "no thanks" to a bag. I head for the door with the receipt in one hand and the item in the other. On the way out, this woman appears out of nowhere, surprises me, and says "sir, I need to see your receipt." After a shocked step back, I say, "uh, no." I walk around her and keep going for the door. I guess she was surprised that I said no, because she didn't even follow for a few seconds. I get about half way across the parking lot before she catches up, yelling she has to see my receipt. I say, "no." She says, "why not?" I say, "I have *one* item in my hand. You can see that. I have a receipt in my other hand. You can also see that. What on earth do you think the receipt is for? Why would you need to see it to verify that it is for the one item I clearly just bought at the cash register I just left inside your store?" She says, "I need to make sure the item is on the receipt. We have problems with our cashiers ringing the wrong thing sometimes." I respond, "that is between you and your cashiers. I paid for the item I am holding. Your choices at this point are to call the police, in which case I will happily wait for their arrival. OR, I am going to get in my car and drive away." She just stood there, which I took for her choosing not to call the police, so I left. So the moral of my story is that sometimes saying "no" doesn't really cost you anything, and clearly in these cases it is the right thing to do. OH! I would also note that if everyone said "no", there would be no reasonable way for them to arrest everyone.