I have a hard time accepting your analysis. In this movie, Ben Stein engages in outright mud slinging and anti-science propaganda. What do you base your claims that he isn't really attacking science and promoting creationism on?
What bigotry has he exposed in the scientific community? Where is the hysteria?
How is he succeeding at exposing any intellectual bigotry besides his own, when all he has achieved so far is to rally religious fundamentalists to his cause?
The irony is that Opera while being the most innovative browser is only the most secure web browser right now because it is unpopular, they lack managed script blocking.
Really? JavaScript can be enabled or disabled on a site by site basis. In addition to that, you can use the built-in content blocker to block anything.
With the advent of Firefox 3 coming out though, Opera and Safari lose the speed crown and also cannot compete with the plugins, privacy, or security.
Safari is still faster at JavaScript benchmarks than Firefox 3, as far as I know. As for security, I believe that both Safari and Opera have a better track record compared to Firefox (see secunia.com).
And, as others in this thread have pointed out, it is actually not that strong, even if it were true.
Sorry, what is not as strong?
The geologic evidence I mentioned is controversial in my mind, but I have not yet seen an explanation for the abundance of comets, which have a relatively fast decay rate as they crash into things.
So it would seem that you are indeed a Young Earth Creationist (who propose Super Evolution, by the way - that all species on earth evolved at an incredible speed in a short period of time from a few "kinds" on the Ark). The problem with YECs is that they must willfully ignore huge amounts of facts. And even though comets has got nothing to do with the theory of evolution, yes, that one has been answered, too.
You should have a look at this list of Young Earth Creationist arguments. As you can see, Mr. Hovind's arguments are based on misinformation, misunderstandings, lies and straw men. Hovind is, in fact, not a "Dr." at all. His title is fake. He is a religious fundamentalist, not a scientist. He has no scientific background or education what so ever. He even lies about having been a science teacher. This is all well-documented. I think you can find it at TalkOrigins.
He doesn't actually rant. You should watch him in a debate once. I suspect that you so strongly disagree with his views/arguments that you see him as ranting in your head.
In what way does Dawkins not have manners? He is one of the most polite people out there. Have you watched him in live debates? He's so mellow and polite that he lets the opponent speak, every time. He doesn't interrupt. He doesn't even smack down on obviously bogus arguments that he could have scored cheap points by refuting. Reading your comment, it sounds like you haven't actually bothered to listen to Dawkins' arguments, and that you are in knee-jerk mode instead.
The problem with the books on evolution I have read is that they assume evolution is true, and then fit the pieces into that assumption. This is different from books on the other branches of science, which start with the basic experiments, and then introduce the theory to explain them.
No, this is exactly how science works. You do the ground work. The research. You figure out the basics, and then you build upon that. When a geologist does his research he builds upon existing and peer-reviewed research that has been shown to be supported by all known facts. Evolution is exactly the same as any other scientific field. The difference is in your head. It is wishful thinking on your part.
For example, any description of relativity begins with important observed facts, like the null result of the Mitchelson-Morley experiment or the reduced rate of decay of particles traveling at relativistic velocities. Only then do they introduce the theory to explain those facts. Every explanation of evolution I have read basically says, "We evolved from lower live forms, and here is how the facts fit into that assumption," which is exactly the opposite approach.
What about a description of the theory of gravity? Does that always begin with important observed facts? What about the theory of electricity? Does that always begin with important observed facts?
I get the feeling that you are being intentionally dishonest. You use anecdotal evidence to "prove" that evolution is somehow different than other fields in science, but this is not the case at all, as anyone even remotely familiar with science would know.
Whether fact or theory is mentioned first, that does not change the way the facts support the theory. Even if it was true what you claim, that evolution is presented differently from relativity (but not from gravity or electricity), this is merely a red herring, because the facts don't become more or less supporting of the theory in question depending on whether they are mentioned before or after. Again a sign that you are grasping for straws. That you have definitely made up your mind already and are only looking to reinforce your own beliefs.
If this had not been the case, you would have looked up the four false claims you made in your other post, and taken the actual facts into account. You did not, so you are either not willing to actually check the claims that you have found on creationist sites, or you are aware that what you posted had already been refuted, which means that you are being intentionally dishonest.
I cited four examples for creation evidence off the top of my head, but I have read hundreds more.
Well, all your four examples were refuted. My guess is that your "hundreds more" would be as well. We've seen them all before, and they are spreading because people desperately want them to be true. But unfortunately for creationists, they are not. They are factually incorrect, based on quotes out of context, misunderstandings, straw men, etc.
If you would like to educate yourself, go through your list of "hundreds more" examples, and look them up in this index of creationist claims.
You'll have to ask Mozilla, as they are the ones who chose to push "responsible disclosure" along with the other browser vendors... They have committed themselves to that, as have other vendors, and so they should be expected to follow through on it.
Whether it is "Orwellian doublespeak" or not doesn't matter. What matters is that Mozilla has committed itself to "responsible disclosure", where "responsible" is that you don't reveal the details until the fix is out, and other vendors have been given a chance to fix it as well. This isn't something I made up. It's what Mozilla and other browser vendors have agreed on.
It doesn't matter what you or I think. The point is that Mozilla has committed itself to "responsible disclosure". It expects "responsible disclosure" from others (and they get that). And Mozilla normally does that themselves, but not this time around, as they published the advisory the day after they notified Opera.
Also, when I explained that there's a difference between creating a fix and deploying a fix, I was pointing out that between the time the bug is analyzed and a final fix is deployed will not be as short as some seem to think. If you want to do it properly.
Security flaws are kept under wraps until a fix is out, right? So you can't just see the change before the fix is out. And once the fix is out, do you really think it's just a matter of diffing the sources?
Are you sure that diffing the source would be sufficient? They could also have, say, held back the source code until other browsers got a fix out. You don't have to go full disclosure to release a fix.
It's interesting how anyone who criticizes Mozilla (or exposes its double standards when it comes to responsible disclosure, which Mozilla has been bragging about for a long time) is a "whiny bitch"...
You are missing the point. It doesn't matter if it doesn't specifically mention Opera, because it's very easy to simply the attack in other browsers. Your post basically assumes that no one will think of this, and that not mentioning Opera will prevent people from trying that attack there.
What, specifically, do you find to be whiny about the original paragraph on the subject from Opera, by the way? Or are you in fact whining over something you didn't actually read for yourself?
The fact that they hid the bug reports at all should be enough to make the Opera kids grateful.
What kids? The Opera employee who in his blog mentioned this whole thing with a couple of sentences in a blog post about something else? The fact is that Mozilla is a big promoter of "responsible disclosure". In this case, they did not practice what they preach (and expect from other browser vendors).
There *are* examples of how to code nearly flawlessly, and procedures around that.
And you conveniently point out that there are in tightly controlled systems. The internet is a place where you can't predict what you will be served. A browser can't even guess what the user will send. That quickly complicates things when you have to deal with everything from input to output to trying to decipher badly written code, etc.
You don't seem to see the difference between publishing a fix, and publishing the details of the fix. Mozilla could have released the fix without giving out the actual details. They could have just mentioned that there are as of yet undisclosed security flaws in old versions.
Where did you hear that the hole has been there for a long time?
As a big proponent of "responsible disclosure", Mozilla should have acted responsible in this case too.
Mozilla's a big proponent of "responsible disclosure", which means that you give other vendors a chance to get their fixes out. Mozilla notified Opera only a day before they published the details, and that goes against Mozilla's "responsible disclosure" stance. And when a flaw is found in a browser, do you really think it's a big strecth to try it out in other browsers as well?
They can avoid mentioning the specifics, and if needed, they can hold back the source. That rather depends on how difficult it would be to construct the details by analyzing the changes in the source code.
The point you are missing is that Mozilla could have released their fix without releasing the actual details. They could have mentioned that there are important security fixes that would be published at a later date. That the advisory doesn't mention Opera doesn't mean that no one would think about testing it in Opera.
Mozilla has asked other browser vendors to cut them some slack and give them time to fix before advisories are published. They have been quite outspoken about how browser vendors should work together on security issues. Clearly, Mozilla should do to others what it asks others to do to them.
The point is that Mozilla could have released their fix without releasing the actual details. They could have mentioned that there are important security fixes that would be published at a later date. That the advisory doesn't mention Opera doesn't mean that no one would think about testing it in Opera.
Mozilla has asked other browser vendors to cut them some slack and give them time to fix before advisories are published. Clearly, Mozilla should do unto others what it asks others to do to them.
Mozilla could have released their fix without releasing the actual details on the relevant flaws. They could mention that there are important security fixes that would be published at a later date. That the advisory doesn't mention Opera doesn't mean that no one would think about testing it in Opera.
Mozilla has asked other browser vendors to cut them some slack and give them time to fix before advisories are published. Clearly, Mozilla should do unto others what it asks others to do to them.
Slashdot Mirror
What bigotry has he exposed in the scientific community? Where is the hysteria?
How is he succeeding at exposing any intellectual bigotry besides his own, when all he has achieved so far is to rally religious fundamentalists to his cause?
Basically, show me the sources of your claims.
Opera is not based on WebKit, no. Opera uses Presto, a completely separate engine.
You should have a look at this list of Young Earth Creationist arguments. As you can see, Mr. Hovind's arguments are based on misinformation, misunderstandings, lies and straw men. Hovind is, in fact, not a "Dr." at all. His title is fake. He is a religious fundamentalist, not a scientist. He has no scientific background or education what so ever. He even lies about having been a science teacher. This is all well-documented. I think you can find it at TalkOrigins.
He doesn't actually rant. You should watch him in a debate once. I suspect that you so strongly disagree with his views/arguments that you see him as ranting in your head.
In what way does Dawkins not have manners? He is one of the most polite people out there. Have you watched him in live debates? He's so mellow and polite that he lets the opponent speak, every time. He doesn't interrupt. He doesn't even smack down on obviously bogus arguments that he could have scored cheap points by refuting. Reading your comment, it sounds like you haven't actually bothered to listen to Dawkins' arguments, and that you are in knee-jerk mode instead.
I get the feeling that you are being intentionally dishonest. You use anecdotal evidence to "prove" that evolution is somehow different than other fields in science, but this is not the case at all, as anyone even remotely familiar with science would know.
Whether fact or theory is mentioned first, that does not change the way the facts support the theory. Even if it was true what you claim, that evolution is presented differently from relativity (but not from gravity or electricity), this is merely a red herring, because the facts don't become more or less supporting of the theory in question depending on whether they are mentioned before or after. Again a sign that you are grasping for straws. That you have definitely made up your mind already and are only looking to reinforce your own beliefs.
If this had not been the case, you would have looked up the four false claims you made in your other post, and taken the actual facts into account. You did not, so you are either not willing to actually check the claims that you have found on creationist sites, or you are aware that what you posted had already been refuted, which means that you are being intentionally dishonest.
Well, all your four examples were refuted. My guess is that your "hundreds more" would be as well. We've seen them all before, and they are spreading because people desperately want them to be true. But unfortunately for creationists, they are not. They are factually incorrect, based on quotes out of context, misunderstandings, straw men, etc.If you would like to educate yourself, go through your list of "hundreds more" examples, and look them up in this index of creationist claims.
You'll have to ask Mozilla, as they are the ones who chose to push "responsible disclosure" along with the other browser vendors... They have committed themselves to that, as have other vendors, and so they should be expected to follow through on it.
A browser is intended to receive just about anything, that's the problem.
Whether it is "Orwellian doublespeak" or not doesn't matter. What matters is that Mozilla has committed itself to "responsible disclosure", where "responsible" is that you don't reveal the details until the fix is out, and other vendors have been given a chance to fix it as well. This isn't something I made up. It's what Mozilla and other browser vendors have agreed on.
Also, when I explained that there's a difference between creating a fix and deploying a fix, I was pointing out that between the time the bug is analyzed and a final fix is deployed will not be as short as some seem to think. If you want to do it properly.
Security flaws are kept under wraps until a fix is out, right? So you can't just see the change before the fix is out. And once the fix is out, do you really think it's just a matter of diffing the sources?
It's interesting how anyone who criticizes Mozilla (or exposes its double standards when it comes to responsible disclosure, which Mozilla has been bragging about for a long time) is a "whiny bitch"...
What, specifically, do you find to be whiny about the original paragraph on the subject from Opera, by the way? Or are you in fact whining over something you didn't actually read for yourself?
Firefox is released under MPL, not GPL. And even if it were GPL, Mozilla can still change the license at any point.
Where did you hear that the hole has been there for a long time?
As a big proponent of "responsible disclosure", Mozilla should have acted responsible in this case too.
Mozilla's a big proponent of "responsible disclosure", which means that you give other vendors a chance to get their fixes out. Mozilla notified Opera only a day before they published the details, and that goes against Mozilla's "responsible disclosure" stance. And when a flaw is found in a browser, do you really think it's a big strecth to try it out in other browsers as well?
They can avoid mentioning the specifics, and if needed, they can hold back the source. That rather depends on how difficult it would be to construct the details by analyzing the changes in the source code.
Mozilla has asked other browser vendors to cut them some slack and give them time to fix before advisories are published. They have been quite outspoken about how browser vendors should work together on security issues. Clearly, Mozilla should do to others what it asks others to do to them.
Actually, they keep security bugs under wraps until they've been fixed.
Mozilla has asked other browser vendors to cut them some slack and give them time to fix before advisories are published. Clearly, Mozilla should do unto others what it asks others to do to them.
Mozilla has asked other browser vendors to cut them some slack and give them time to fix before advisories are published. Clearly, Mozilla should do unto others what it asks others to do to them.