Evolution based medicines?? You'd rather just let your body handle it then?
Put another way: religious people are scientists too. Maybe you'd rather have a doctor who knows that there is no God, but I'd rather have one who keeps their mind open, who will try anything to save my life, including prayer. First give me the medicine though... those pharmaceuticals are evil for a reason: so the pills will work.
Evolution is actually a field of study, it's not a theory. You can't "debunk" it. Which is unfortunate, because it's not a very sound field of study. It only really applies within the span of a couple of generations, and has no explanation for the massive leaps in the structure of life on this planet, which basically have occured overnight. Nor does it provide a sound explanation for the origins of life, which creationism at least can do.
Finally I want to remind you that it quite logical based on our (scientific!) conceptions of causality to believe there is a creator. In fact it's infinitely likely, given the acceleration of computers, the compression of information, and the massive urge we seem to have to produce life... think about it. How long do you suppose it'll be before we create our own virtual worlds with inhabitants who entirely believe they are real, and argue over whether or not WE exist?
It might make the difference between him voting for a fundamentalist catholic shill acting republican versus a real republican.
Maybe having a poor class with no education that believes in creationism is the way to go? Oh man, your name is so appropriate. You devil you! But seriously, get off your high horse and go get killed in Iraq.
Intelligent design is faith. Evolution is faith. Neither one is falsifiable, and both have evidence both for and against. So don't teach either one in my classrooms, please! I'd rather you just be honest and tell the students you don't really know wtf happened:/ let them do a report about it or something. Whatever! Just don't preach lies, whether they come from the Science church or the Catholic one.
But global warming and human cloning? Now come on... in my critical teaching class they taught me about equivocating... clearly, the word 'critical' in 'critical thinking' has changed to simply mean 'against'.
Cool, thank you for clearing up the DNA in the brain thing, wasn't quite sure how that worked. Very clever, makes perfect sense.
Hm, yeah, I don't really buy those alternative origin theories though. The PNA system or something like it seems more plausible than DNA randomly appearing on earth, but still needs a long leap, as does the other solution. See, they both need each other - nucleic acids don't just reproduce themselves, and metabolic systems aren't typically self-perpetuating. More like self-destroying. Entropy anyone? Even if such a metabolic system somehow existed, it would ALSO have to be sensitive to PNA or some form of information store, AND said information store would have to contain instructions for replication. Come on now... isn't this stretching things a bit. Science is supposed to be what about what we KNOW.
About this stuff possibly forming in the ocean... the essential structure of DNA at least is hydrophobic... Hydrophobic and it came together in the deep ocean? Um. Maybe I just don't know enough, I am after all not a biologist, just a wikipedia reader (like you:P lol)
This study is trying to tell us that if we find life on the moon, we can still be the center of the universe. But 3800 million years ago, our planet was still mostly a molten rock. This is evidenced by all the dating methods we have (IE, there are no rocks older than 3800 million years).
How does a molten rock have life to spew onto its moon?
If we find some tiny bit of life on the moon, make no mistake: it means life is not from here. And why should anyone be surprised?
Evolution feels pretty weak these days. Intelligent design (without the "I know who God is" part) is a much better model. Look I'm a programmer: I like models. The one that is the best reflection of reality wins, regardless of its origin. I don't like the Church any more than you do, but DNA is too much like a computer program for me to ignore.
And to think it developed here, spontaneously!? Look at all the instructions it is capable of: brains, lungs, socialization? Did you know DNA is what makes a lot of the choices in your brain? Right, in every neuron, every time it fires, messages go into the nucleus (that's the dna's housing and equipment) and get translated by RNA and DNA... the resulting parts of the neuron that fire are due to the response from the DNA!
We use this same thing to make RNA computers that can do massive calculations in a fraction of the time it would take our current PCs to do it (well, the setup takes a while, yuk yuk.) This building blocks of life, which came about in a cave as the world cooled off from its volcanic eruptions, just randomly have supercomputing ability?!
... come on. It's incredible. That means unbelievable. Don't believe it. They're feeding you lies. Look behind the lies, look to the motivation.
This article is definitely a troll... they all are... that's how they make money: by asking you what you think. Not such a bad thing, honestly, for you to tell them and let them make a sixpence from the ads. This is an important topic of conversation, as you obviously agree from your strong opinions.
Which I will now debunk. When will you realize that...
1. You were once a sperm too. Or do you think you didn't exist until mr sperm met mrs ova?
2. A sperm is not a plaything to be spat all over your keyboard. It is a living organism that happens to be the beginning stages of a human being, who would have grown up to have a family, friends, a real personality, who would experience love and life.
If you think it is OK to masturbate, I suggest you do some deep soul searching. If you believe in God, you better switch to catholicism, because otherwise you're just being a pansy and going for the religion that doesn't ask you not to masturbate.
I guess I got suckered into this... but I have strong opinions too. Obviously those aren't them... the real opinions follow:) don't get sick now...
Aside from such formatting jokes, it really concerns me that you are thinking so narrowly. It's like all you care about is human life, and haven't considered the quality thereof. How many children do you suppose you'll have? 2, maybe 3? If your condom breaks and you impregnate your wife just as your last child is turning 18, what will you do? Have another child? Give it up for adoption? My point is that there is a certain number of children people want to have, and they're not likely to have more or less than that.
In fact it's really important that people don't have too many or too few kids, as the world has plenty of problems with population density already. Given that a person only wants two children, shouldn't they pick the healthiest, most likely to succeed embryos?
Finally since I'm feeling charitable, let me blur the lines for you a little more: how is a human life more valuable than, say, that of a cow? Or an ant? Or even a virus? It's not. In fact it's less valuable than a cow, when it's an embryo.
Sure, the embryo has the possibility of human life, and what could be more valuable than that? But if you're not willing to consider a cow as equally valuable to a human, how can you say that the embryo which dies after 27 years of pain is more valuable than the one that dies after 90 years of happiness?? Just because it came first? That makes no sense. Or perhaps it's because God's plan was for that baby to be born? Keep in mind, you can never change or go against God's plan, by definition.
Make no mistake: the number of kids I'm having isn't going to change. I'll have an abortion or a divorce if she wants more children than I can afford. (I think it's her body and her choice... so won't force an abortion... but my life is also my choice, and I reserve the right to leave. thank god i'm not christian...) So if you think I won't murder as many children as necessary to find the best ones, you're wrong. I'll kill 'em when they're six years old if they're going to be living a life of pain. There's simply no justification great enough to bring a disabled child who is going to live in pain into this world when you could have made a healthy one who can enjoy it in its stead.
Okay, if you're still with me, take a deep breath, because this next one is a doozy, and I'm probably going to lose you.
You say you feel sick because of something someone said here... so I have to tell you, it is because of cognitive dissonance - their ideas do not match with your ideology. You don't have the same basic assumptions they do (IE, most of us can't make reach so far as to think of an embryo the same way as a developed human... sorry... it's just too different.) And so you say you're sick... but actually, what you are is afraid. Yes, that feeling is fear... fear for your way of life, because you see so many people who think a different way.
Let them have their perfect children. How can you worry about GATTACA when the world is already so sharply divided between the few in power and the many in need?
Perhaps this will make more people in power, and maybe they will be so thankful that they're not dead that they will want to help other people. Look on the bright side.
As for you not being able to get a job because you might keel over from a heart attack... you're talking about a far-off scenario quite a ways in the future, which requires a totalitarian regime run by genetically engineered children.
Currently we have a totalitarian regime run by a monkey. Let's see, which way should we travel along the evolutionary timeline for our rulers??? Because make no mistake, we are all peasants, the king's bloodline reins supreme, and no amount of genetic engineering is going to change that. If we're lucky, it will catch on in time to avoid another idiot like Bush.
too bad the world will end far before any of that.
PS
Is it just me or do "ethical" people just seem power-hungry?
Hi! My name's Scott. Ok now you know me. I run IE. Because. Listen carefully: it doesn't suck. That's right! It doesn't FAIL while playing videos. It doesn't LOCK UP while browsing the web. It doesn't SCREW UP MY FONTS. It doesn't MESS WITH BACKGROUNDS AND BORDERS. That's right.
I'm an open source advocate. Part of being an open source advocate is differentiating between "open source" software and "open sores" software. They're not the same thing. Linux is open source. Firefox is riddled with security holes, bugs, and unnecessary features. It is "open sores" software - there are a ton of things wrong with it, and anyone can see them.
Especially with firefox 3. I mean come on. EVEN THE FIREFOX HOMEPAGE DOESN'T RENDER PROPERLY, WTF IS THAT?!
So. Now you know someone who knows more than you. And I use internet explorer. So, now that someone has given you a hint, why don't you go compare IE7 and FF3 for yourself? Which is faster? Which is more secure? Which is more capable? Which renders the web properly? Which locks up and hangs?
The only thing that sucks is that IE doesn't have extensions... it needs them bad.
Right! But, it is possible to counteract the subliminal programming from a commercial. Every time you see a McDonald's ad on TV, just say, "I hate McDonald's." This not only counteracts the ad for you, but for anyone else within hearing range. Additionally, since they probably trust you more than the TV (and obviously you trust yourself), you'll actually have a net loss in your desire for McDonald's.
Oh, but you better say "I hate McDonald's" every time you pass one, or somebody mentions the place, or you see an article, or you see a billboard with a cute girl eating Micky Dee's. In fact, you better say "I hate McDonald's" even if you don't happen to SEE that billboard - because regardless of whether you're conscious of it, when you drive by a billboard, studies show its content does indeed enter your subconscious thought. So watch out for that billboard that you can't quite read - that one's the most dangerous!
Australia has this cool rule where you can let the govmit fund your education. The catch is that if you never make money in Australia, you never have to pay back your school loans.
So go to school, get to know your teachers, they probably know about Hex and the International companies that motivated it and will pay you peanuts to move to Canada where they can pay you more peanuts for your valuable (if somewhat vaporously) education.
Surely you are not saying that life can only exist on planets...?
What about this new interstellar medium we've discovered? Or a gas giant? A sun? Just because us fleshy carbon based lifeforms only live on solid surfaces doesn't mean ET has to.
FalconStor's IPStor software makes this problem go away by backing up the data to a remote datacenter. Lots of people do this; I spent three years wandering around the country installing the software and hacking it into blue chip companies. It was a blast to make people more secure than they'd ever been..
the software offers you instant disaster recovery on the remote site, with a backup that is only as old as the network data. It supports oracle and microsoft sql server and exchange server, clustering, linux, suse, solaris, hpux, aix... www.falconstor.com
It also comes in an active-active "failover" mode to provide full service to all the systems 2 pcs can (40 fileservers, databases, etc, or 200 desktop PCs)... with the ability for one server to take over in case the other one has a hardware problem. So you will always be functional, and so will your backups... anyway I don't work for them anymore, but your description of a fully secure datacenter makes me twitch!
Web 2.0 is great for collaboration. It's great when you want to share data.
I have a lot of data that I don't want to share.
I'm never going to replace my local computer with a "web desktop" unless it's incredibly secure and requires that my personal physical key is inserted into whatever access terminal I'm using.
But I'm fine if Microsoft and Yahoo and Google want to try to pursue that route - go ahead and waste money and pretend Linux doesn't exist, and I'll keep working with my free operating system and making it better than your privacy-violating nonsensical "all your data belong to us" strategy.
Who the fuck cares, everyone does it and it's no big deal. They tell you exactly what they're doing and they do it only when you say so. So what? Get over your puny idea that robots knowing your passwords is bad. It's a Good Thing(tm).
Watch, Microsoft will patent it, and then it will be another "great idea" microsoft has stolen from the world. *snrk*
Take a look at the votes on their "Big Board" and you'll quickly find that their methodology is a complete crock.
Comcast or Verizon or Microsoft could easily have won against the RIAA, given the appropriate competition on the big board. But, hahaha, to figure out who the "worst company" was they pitted the RIAA against United Airlines, U-Haul, Exxon, and Halliburton. Halliburton is the only one that was any challenge at all. Change the board around - make it RIAA against Microsoft, RIAA against Comcast, and you'll see different results.
Furthermore, the RIAA v. Halliburton... so funny... RIAA takes money away close to home, Halliburton kills everyone in the rest of the world - but who is hated more? America, you fail. Rot in hell.:)
Skype is evil! Skype is SkyNet in a diminutive disguise!
And your BIOS is totally a unique identifier of You (well, your machine). Ever noticed that your disks hardware etc are all listed there?
I don't know about you but I don't like the idea of giving all my preferences/traits/consumption habits to big corporate interests who might have the voice recognition software set on words like "money" and "bill gates" and "kill"... it just doesn't bode well for my future. The reality is that the amount of data you could glean from what a person talks about is worth a tiny amount, but when you have that data for a million people, it's a survey, and suddenly it's worth billions of dollars of investment revenue.
Investors, not lawyers, are the devil. Lawyers are your friend.
> like calling a filled gas can a "car in a can"...Yes... it's like that.. assuming that there are free tanks sitting around on the street all over the place.
I'm not trying to say 4 drinks is any magical number. When I'm depressed for instance, I can only have one beer before I'm unable to drink more. (Really a pisser, that is!) Other times, the golden drink is sometimes my 3rd, and sometimes my 6th...
I manage to stop. I've got decent control I guess? Or maybe it's just that I'm not seeking oblivion like some of my drinking friends do. They constantly go around trying to kill themselves with alcohol, and it will not surprise me in the least if someday they manage.
Statistics always piss me off for their inability to properly highlight causal relationships, and make shit up with absolutely no evidence.:) So I decry them...
Slashdot Mirror
Evolution is not a theory. Gravity can be proved wrong. Figure out what science means, please.
Evolution based medicines?? You'd rather just let your body handle it then?
Put another way: religious people are scientists too. Maybe you'd rather have a doctor who knows that there is no God, but I'd rather have one who keeps their mind open, who will try anything to save my life, including prayer. First give me the medicine though... those pharmaceuticals are evil for a reason: so the pills will work.
Evolution is actually a field of study, it's not a theory. You can't "debunk" it. Which is unfortunate, because it's not a very sound field of study. It only really applies within the span of a couple of generations, and has no explanation for the massive leaps in the structure of life on this planet, which basically have occured overnight. Nor does it provide a sound explanation for the origins of life, which creationism at least can do.
Finally I want to remind you that it quite logical based on our (scientific!) conceptions of causality to believe there is a creator. In fact it's infinitely likely, given the acceleration of computers, the compression of information, and the massive urge we seem to have to produce life... think about it. How long do you suppose it'll be before we create our own virtual worlds with inhabitants who entirely believe they are real, and argue over whether or not WE exist?
It might make the difference between him voting for a fundamentalist catholic shill acting republican versus a real republican.
Maybe having a poor class with no education that believes in creationism is the way to go? Oh man, your name is so appropriate. You devil you! But seriously, get off your high horse and go get killed in Iraq.
Intelligent design is faith. Evolution is faith. Neither one is falsifiable, and both have evidence both for and against. So don't teach either one in my classrooms, please! I'd rather you just be honest and tell the students you don't really know wtf happened :/ let them do a report about it or something. Whatever! Just don't preach lies, whether they come from the Science church or the Catholic one.
But global warming and human cloning? Now come on... in my critical teaching class they taught me about equivocating... clearly, the word 'critical' in 'critical thinking' has changed to simply mean 'against'.
Cool, thank you for clearing up the DNA in the brain thing, wasn't quite sure how that worked. Very clever, makes perfect sense.
:P lol)
Hm, yeah, I don't really buy those alternative origin theories though. The PNA system or something like it seems more plausible than DNA randomly appearing on earth, but still needs a long leap, as does the other solution. See, they both need each other - nucleic acids don't just reproduce themselves, and metabolic systems aren't typically self-perpetuating. More like self-destroying. Entropy anyone? Even if such a metabolic system somehow existed, it would ALSO have to be sensitive to PNA or some form of information store, AND said information store would have to contain instructions for replication. Come on now... isn't this stretching things a bit. Science is supposed to be what about what we KNOW.
About this stuff possibly forming in the ocean... the essential structure of DNA at least is hydrophobic... Hydrophobic and it came together in the deep ocean? Um. Maybe I just don't know enough, I am after all not a biologist, just a wikipedia reader (like you
This study is trying to tell us that if we find life on the moon, we can still be the center of the universe. But 3800 million years ago, our planet was still mostly a molten rock. This is evidenced by all the dating methods we have (IE, there are no rocks older than 3800 million years).
How does a molten rock have life to spew onto its moon?
If we find some tiny bit of life on the moon, make no mistake: it means life is not from here. And why should anyone be surprised?
Evolution feels pretty weak these days. Intelligent design (without the "I know who God is" part) is a much better model. Look I'm a programmer: I like models. The one that is the best reflection of reality wins, regardless of its origin. I don't like the Church any more than you do, but DNA is too much like a computer program for me to ignore.
And to think it developed here, spontaneously!? Look at all the instructions it is capable of: brains, lungs, socialization? Did you know DNA is what makes a lot of the choices in your brain? Right, in every neuron, every time it fires, messages go into the nucleus (that's the dna's housing and equipment) and get translated by RNA and DNA... the resulting parts of the neuron that fire are due to the response from the DNA!
We use this same thing to make RNA computers that can do massive calculations in a fraction of the time it would take our current PCs to do it (well, the setup takes a while, yuk yuk.) This building blocks of life, which came about in a cave as the world cooled off from its volcanic eruptions, just randomly have supercomputing ability?!
... come on. It's incredible. That means unbelievable. Don't believe it. They're feeding you lies. Look behind the lies, look to the motivation.
This article is definitely a troll... they all are... that's how they make money: by asking you what you think. Not such a bad thing, honestly, for you to tell them and let them make a sixpence from the ads. This is an important topic of conversation, as you obviously agree from your strong opinions.
:) don't get sick now...
Which I will now debunk. When will you realize that...
1. You were once a sperm too. Or do you think you didn't exist until mr sperm met mrs ova?
2. A sperm is not a plaything to be spat all over your keyboard. It is a living organism that happens to be the beginning stages of a human being, who would have grown up to have a family, friends, a real personality, who would experience love and life.
If you think it is OK to masturbate, I suggest you do some deep soul searching. If you believe in God, you better switch to catholicism, because otherwise you're just being a pansy and going for the religion that doesn't ask you not to masturbate.
I guess I got suckered into this... but I have strong opinions too. Obviously those aren't them... the real opinions follow
Aside from such formatting jokes, it really concerns me that you are thinking so narrowly. It's like all you care about is human life, and haven't considered the quality thereof. How many children do you suppose you'll have? 2, maybe 3? If your condom breaks and you impregnate your wife just as your last child is turning 18, what will you do? Have another child? Give it up for adoption? My point is that there is a certain number of children people want to have, and they're not likely to have more or less than that.
In fact it's really important that people don't have too many or too few kids, as the world has plenty of problems with population density already. Given that a person only wants two children, shouldn't they pick the healthiest, most likely to succeed embryos?
Finally since I'm feeling charitable, let me blur the lines for you a little more: how is a human life more valuable than, say, that of a cow? Or an ant? Or even a virus? It's not. In fact it's less valuable than a cow, when it's an embryo.
Sure, the embryo has the possibility of human life, and what could be more valuable than that? But if you're not willing to consider a cow as equally valuable to a human, how can you say that the embryo which dies after 27 years of pain is more valuable than the one that dies after 90 years of happiness?? Just because it came first? That makes no sense. Or perhaps it's because God's plan was for that baby to be born? Keep in mind, you can never change or go against God's plan, by definition.
Make no mistake: the number of kids I'm having isn't going to change. I'll have an abortion or a divorce if she wants more children than I can afford. (I think it's her body and her choice... so won't force an abortion... but my life is also my choice, and I reserve the right to leave. thank god i'm not christian...) So if you think I won't murder as many children as necessary to find the best ones, you're wrong. I'll kill 'em when they're six years old if they're going to be living a life of pain. There's simply no justification great enough to bring a disabled child who is going to live in pain into this world when you could have made a healthy one who can enjoy it in its stead.
Okay, if you're still with me, take a deep breath, because this next one is a doozy, and I'm probably going to lose you.
You say you feel sick because of something someone said here... so I have to tell you, it is because of cognitive dissonance - their ideas do not match with your ideology. You don't have the same basic assumptions they do (IE, most of us can't make reach so far as to think of an embryo the same way as a developed human... sorry... it's just too different.) And so you say you're sick... but actually, what you are is afraid. Yes, that feeling is fear... fear for your way of life, because you see so many people who think a different way.
There is an
Let them have their perfect children. How can you worry about GATTACA when the world is already so sharply divided between the few in power and the many in need?
Perhaps this will make more people in power, and maybe they will be so thankful that they're not dead that they will want to help other people. Look on the bright side.
As for you not being able to get a job because you might keel over from a heart attack... you're talking about a far-off scenario quite a ways in the future, which requires a totalitarian regime run by genetically engineered children.
Currently we have a totalitarian regime run by a monkey. Let's see, which way should we travel along the evolutionary timeline for our rulers??? Because make no mistake, we are all peasants, the king's bloodline reins supreme, and no amount of genetic engineering is going to change that. If we're lucky, it will catch on in time to avoid another idiot like Bush.
too bad the world will end far before any of that.
PS
Is it just me or do "ethical" people just seem power-hungry?
amen to that (he says in his normal font.. oups... glad I'm not gewalt's kid... he prolly wouldn't let them have a spliff either!)
Hi! My name's Scott. Ok now you know me. I run IE. Because. Listen carefully: it doesn't suck. That's right! It doesn't FAIL while playing videos. It doesn't LOCK UP while browsing the web. It doesn't SCREW UP MY FONTS. It doesn't MESS WITH BACKGROUNDS AND BORDERS. That's right.
I'm an open source advocate. Part of being an open source advocate is differentiating between "open source" software and "open sores" software. They're not the same thing. Linux is open source. Firefox is riddled with security holes, bugs, and unnecessary features. It is "open sores" software - there are a ton of things wrong with it, and anyone can see them.
Especially with firefox 3. I mean come on. EVEN THE FIREFOX HOMEPAGE DOESN'T RENDER PROPERLY, WTF IS THAT?!
So. Now you know someone who knows more than you. And I use internet explorer. So, now that someone has given you a hint, why don't you go compare IE7 and FF3 for yourself? Which is faster? Which is more secure? Which is more capable? Which renders the web properly? Which locks up and hangs?
The only thing that sucks is that IE doesn't have extensions... it needs them bad.
Right! But, it is possible to counteract the subliminal programming from a commercial. Every time you see a McDonald's ad on TV, just say, "I hate McDonald's." This not only counteracts the ad for you, but for anyone else within hearing range. Additionally, since they probably trust you more than the TV (and obviously you trust yourself), you'll actually have a net loss in your desire for McDonald's.
Oh, but you better say "I hate McDonald's" every time you pass one, or somebody mentions the place, or you see an article, or you see a billboard with a cute girl eating Micky Dee's. In fact, you better say "I hate McDonald's" even if you don't happen to SEE that billboard - because regardless of whether you're conscious of it, when you drive by a billboard, studies show its content does indeed enter your subconscious thought. So watch out for that billboard that you can't quite read - that one's the most dangerous!
but... Ballmer is still there...
Australia has this cool rule where you can let the govmit fund your education. The catch is that if you never make money in Australia, you never have to pay back your school loans.
So go to school, get to know your teachers, they probably know about Hex and the International companies that motivated it and will pay you peanuts to move to Canada where they can pay you more peanuts for your valuable (if somewhat vaporously) education.
Surely you are not saying that life can only exist on planets...?
What about this new interstellar medium we've discovered? Or a gas giant? A sun? Just because us fleshy carbon based lifeforms only live on solid surfaces doesn't mean ET has to.
FalconStor's IPStor software makes this problem go away by backing up the data to a remote datacenter. Lots of people do this; I spent three years wandering around the country installing the software and hacking it into blue chip companies. It was a blast to make people more secure than they'd ever been..
the software offers you instant disaster recovery on the remote site, with a backup that is only as old as the network data. It supports oracle and microsoft sql server and exchange server, clustering, linux, suse, solaris, hpux, aix... www.falconstor.com
It also comes in an active-active "failover" mode to provide full service to all the systems 2 pcs can (40 fileservers, databases, etc, or 200 desktop PCs)... with the ability for one server to take over in case the other one has a hardware problem. So you will always be functional, and so will your backups... anyway I don't work for them anymore, but your description of a fully secure datacenter makes me twitch!
I'm just worried that they're going to burn down the building because we treat them so badly :(
... who gets the big fat check at the end of that movie again? o.O
Web 2.0 is great for collaboration. It's great when you want to share data.
I have a lot of data that I don't want to share.
I'm never going to replace my local computer with a "web desktop" unless it's incredibly secure and requires that my personal physical key is inserted into whatever access terminal I'm using.
But I'm fine if Microsoft and Yahoo and Google want to try to pursue that route - go ahead and waste money and pretend Linux doesn't exist, and I'll keep working with my free operating system and making it better than your privacy-violating nonsensical "all your data belong to us" strategy.
Bullshit. The wired reader is just an idiot.
Who the fuck cares, everyone does it and it's no big deal. They tell you exactly what they're doing and they do it only when you say so. So what? Get over your puny idea that robots knowing your passwords is bad. It's a Good Thing(tm).
Watch, Microsoft will patent it, and then it will be another "great idea" microsoft has stolen from the world. *snrk*
Is that actually considered a fair competition? I mean what's the point? There's no relevance that I can see.
;)
And, "Final Four? What's that?"
Take a look at the votes on their "Big Board" and you'll quickly find that their methodology is a complete crock.
:)
Comcast or Verizon or Microsoft could easily have won against the RIAA, given the appropriate competition on the big board. But, hahaha, to figure out who the "worst company" was they pitted the RIAA against United Airlines, U-Haul, Exxon, and Halliburton. Halliburton is the only one that was any challenge at all. Change the board around - make it RIAA against Microsoft, RIAA against Comcast, and you'll see different results.
Furthermore, the RIAA v. Halliburton... so funny... RIAA takes money away close to home, Halliburton kills everyone in the rest of the world - but who is hated more? America, you fail. Rot in hell.
Skype is evil! Skype is SkyNet in a diminutive disguise!
And your BIOS is totally a unique identifier of You (well, your machine). Ever noticed that your disks hardware etc are all listed there?
I don't know about you but I don't like the idea of giving all my preferences/traits/consumption habits to big corporate interests who might have the voice recognition software set on words like "money" and "bill gates" and "kill"... it just doesn't bode well for my future. The reality is that the amount of data you could glean from what a person talks about is worth a tiny amount, but when you have that data for a million people, it's a survey, and suddenly it's worth billions of dollars of investment revenue.
Investors, not lawyers, are the devil. Lawyers are your friend.
(Bill Gates, I'm coming for You...)
Skype won't run if you have softice installed on windows. Pretty funny - I guess they don't want you to look.
Ollydbg still works though.
> like calling a filled gas can a "car in a can". ..Yes... it's like that.. assuming that there are free tanks sitting around on the street all over the place.
I'm not trying to say 4 drinks is any magical number. When I'm depressed for instance, I can only have one beer before I'm unable to drink more. (Really a pisser, that is!) Other times, the golden drink is sometimes my 3rd, and sometimes my 6th...
:) So I decry them...
I manage to stop. I've got decent control I guess? Or maybe it's just that I'm not seeking oblivion like some of my drinking friends do. They constantly go around trying to kill themselves with alcohol, and it will not surprise me in the least if someday they manage.
Statistics always piss me off for their inability to properly highlight causal relationships, and make shit up with absolutely no evidence.