The problem was that those people who had somewhere to go... left and went there.
Those people who did NOT have anyplace close and secure to go... stayed. (I'm not including the idiots who believed they were indestructable in this.)
Bush called and asked for a mandatory evacuation... but he did not put any FEDERAL resources into providing locations for the people to evacuate to.
All talk, no action.
As for you other item of everyone should just walk to a piece of dry land you've found, without some means of housing them, you'd have the same problems with food/sanitation/medical/etc.
Compare that to Cuba's actions. Cuba has governmental sites prep'ed for the disaster and evacuated people to them BEFORE it hit.
but given that it will take weeks to pump out the water, theft and looting will not be a barrier to "further restoration efforts, including returning electricity to the area".
The looters have no where to store their loot (unless you're talking gems/jewelery/cash) and no place to sell it.
Every person assigned to watch for looters is a person that is not available for rescue operations.
Our current government is "pro-Business" rather than "pro-Market".
Being pro-Business means that you pass laws designed to protect the revenue streams of businesses (copyright extensions, DMCA, patents on "business methods", etc).
Being pro-Market means that you pass laws designed to facilitate competition in a market and curb the excesses of existing companies.
... homicide investigators admitted they were stumped when a murderer used an aluminum bat to bludgeon his victim to death rather than the standard lead pipe.
Said an officer who wished to remain anonymous: "We're not even sure there was a murder without some trace of lead at the scene. A bullet... traces from a pipe... lead is what makes it a crime scene."
Your regular mail server goes in your secure network.
You block all outgoing smtp connections from your secure network, except those going from your regular mail server to your smart host.
Any machine sending email from your secure network is configured to use your regular mail server as a smart host. This will prevent all but the most intelligent of viruses from spamming from your machines.
It also allows you to have different levels of filters on your boxes. Anything that's internal to internal can have very minimal filtering (if any) applied to it. Anything coming in from the outside can be subject to a LOT of scanning.
Intelligent Design is easily falsifiable, despite the claims of some evolutionists to the contrary.
Nope.
All you have to do is show once through an experiment that you can produce something that is supposedly of "irreducible complexity" from simpler parts.
Nope. If the statement is that an Intelligence is required to create the complexities of life... then having an Intelligence create the complexities of life demonstrates nothing.
The only way to show that ID is false is to show that such complexities arise WITHOUT the Intelligence being involved.
Which requires that you demonstrate a way to keep God (or whomever) from touching your stuff.
How do you demonstrate that you've managed to keep an omnipotent, omniscient, invisible, intangible being from influencing your experiment?
Therefore, not falsifiable.
Evolution, on the other hand, doesn't seem to be falsifiable. How can you design an experiment to falsify the theory of Evolution?
Simple, find a dino with a partially digested human inside him.
Find a grave with a human and his pet dino buried together.
And the last, but best way, God appears and creates a brand new intelligent life form.
I was quoting from the web page about a book you reference by Michael Behe.
...but in observing it, I think I have discovered that their purpose is not to try and introduce new science, but to rather separate the science in creationism from the God in creationism.
There is no science in Creationism. Therefore, it is impossible to separate it from the religion of Creationism.
Science follows the scientific method and any hypothesis or theory must be falsifiable. Since there is no way to show a Deity not creating life on Earth, Creationism fails.
I can agree with that... but like I said, I'm pretty neutral in terms of the ID movement. I really just have had better things to do than study up on them too much.
I thought you said you were reading Michael Behe's book on the topic. Yeah, right. Whatever.
The only problem I see is when religious people try to get their religious beliefs enshrined as "science" or taught as "alternative scientific explanations".
Believe whatever you want to believe, but don't claim your beliefs are anything more than your religion (and you won't know if you're wrong or right on that until you die).
Within the biochemistry of living cells, he argues, life is "irreducibly complex." This is the last black box to be opened, the end of the road for science. Faced with complexity at this level, Behe suggests that it can only be the product of "intelligent design."--This text refers to the Hardcover edition.
All he's doing is digging down to a certain point and then declaring that someone-but-I-will-not-say-"god" created/designed everything else.
The same number of certs but they reflect completely different people and they tell you a lot about those people. And studying to pass a cert test can teach you things that you would never happen across in your regular job. I fully support anyone spending time and learning more about their field and related fields. Anyone who sees advancing your education as a problem is an idiot.
WTF? That's just indentured servitude (a form of slavery) in reverse.
Otherwise known a "Freedom".
Instead of the employer demanding work for now pay, it's the employee demanding pay for no work.
Nope. Not unless the company wants to play the indentured servant game.
The freedom of the employer has been replaced with shackles to ex-employees.
Not unless the employer wants to play the indentured servant game.
If the employer doesn't try to pull any non-compete crap, then none of this would apply.
Hey everybody! Let's all retire ten years early. Just quit your company, make the old company put up ten years of your old salary in escrow, then get yourself laid off at the new company within a year.
Again, none of that would happen unless the company you had worked for decided to pull the indentured servant crap. If they accept your Freedom, it costs them nothing.
If they try to shackle you, then they become financially responsible.
The old employer pays the person as much as the new employer was offering for a year (or however long the non-compete contract is) and puts up money equal to 10x that in case the new company doesn't want the employee after the year is up and he has to find a new job.
Anything less is indentured servitude (a form of slavery).
If the companies want to play that game, then they should be financially responsible.
People talking about "their job" in that context are implying that somehow they are the best ones to hold it (mostly on fuzzy reasoning like patriotism and what have you).
Sure they are.
It is foolish to say this job is mine when in your employment contract there are at lest two interested parts involved.
Really? Aren't those two parts the "employee" and the "employer"? Why is it "foolish"?
To say "I have a job" is a figure of speech that when confronted with the cold facts of the law probes to be innacurate.
Keep claiming it, but never support it. Maybe you'll want to repeat yourself a few more times?
People don't have jobs, they don't own them.
Just like they don't have opinions and certainly don't own their opinions.
He was getting paid for doing a job. If it wasn't his job, then why was he getting paid for doing it?
What they have is an agreement to exchanges money for their services which very often ca be terminated at short notice, and for reasons strange to the worker.
Hmmmm, "exchanges money for services", that certainly sounds like a job.
But you say they don't have a job.
But they do have a contract to perform services in exchange for money (but that isn't a "job").
Right.
People in Socialist societes could genuinely claim that they owned a job.
Really?
Once you got it it was pretty much impossible you could lose it.
So, in your opinion, it isn't about being paid to do work... it's how easy it is to be fired?
So, if you're the boss's son-in-law, then you have a job because the boss isn't going to fire you (unless you get divorced).
But if you were the guy doing the same job for the same money before the guy who married his daughter moved in, then you didn't have a job.
So what differentiates whether it is "my job" or not is... "marriage".
It isn't "my job" unless I'm doing the boss's daughter in a religiously acceptable manner.
You might really want to re-examine the basis of your hypothesis.
Obviously History is not being tought properly in some places.
Sure, off-shoring the workers saves money for the people at the top... but someone has to manage those workers and that means they will start to learn your business.
Eventually, they will be able to take your business away from you. After all, all of their people will be working for 1/10th the cost (even the CEO's) and how will your business be able to compete at that rate?
I believe the goal for most of the companies doing the off-shoring is to make big profits, quickly, and retire before the real bill comes due.
Security starts with the security model. Here is where you'll see patches to disable stuff in a flawed model. You cannot just count the patches here, but they are useful for evaluating the model itself.
Then that model has to be implemented in code. This is where you'll see bug fixes for code errors.
The last thing to look at is any application built by someone else on that platform.
And one last item to consider. Any platform is only as "secure" as the level beneath it. If.Net can be exploited by a vulnerability in Windows, then it can be exploited. This is particularly important because Microsoft builds both platforms.
Here is where they get it wrong on Java:
Both platforms need some way of bootstrapping to install the initial classes and loading mechanisms. Java 1.0 used a trusted file path that gave full trust to any class stored on the path. Code on the system CLASSPATH was fully trusted, so problems occurred when untrusted code could be installed on the CLASSPATH [15]. Java 2 treats code found on the CLASSPATH as any other code, but maintains backwards compatibility by using the bootclasspath to identify completely trusted code necessary to bootstrap the class loader.
So, if Windows is compromised and code inserted to Java to run, then Java is at fault... but if Windows is compromised and code is inserted for.Net to run, then that shouldn't count because the compromise happened before.Net was running.
Either you count it as a flaw in both, or you don't count it for either.
Anyone can submit any address, but they'll have to reply to that email or click on a link in it to be subscribed.
There, end of problem.
Then just include easy opt-out instructions at the bottom of each message you send out.
The REAL problem is if someone outside of SpamCop knows their spamtrap addresses. With that info, it would be simple to render SpamCop 100% ineffective.
The GPL license is not very attractive to many commercial software companies, and may also conflict with other contracts that they are already bound to.
It may, but it should not if it is only the OS.
In general, the BSD license is much more appealing to commercial endeavors. The BSD TCI/IP stack should be a sufficient example.
I can see that for apps running on the OS, but not for the OS itself or components of it (as with your TCP/IP stack example).
For a commodity OS, developed by many, used by many and owned by none, the GPL is the best license out there. Under the BSD license, we could see a "splintering" of the OS exactly as we did with the old *nixes. Under the GPL, that is impossible.
I believe that is why so many different companies are pushing Linux now. They don't have to put the massive amounts of time/money into it to stay competitive with the other OS's, yet it cannot be taken from them by the owner AND they are as involved in the development as if it were their very own.
If the goal is a commodity OS, then the GPL is the best license.
If the goal is something else, then other licenses may be better.
Slashdot Mirror
All you'd have to do is crack the DNS box of whatever provider they're using.
Then you re-route their lookups to your own site.
Then all of them download the destruct code.
The problem was that those people who had somewhere to go ... left and went there.
... stayed. (I'm not including the idiots who believed they were indestructable in this.)
... but he did not put any FEDERAL resources into providing locations for the people to evacuate to.
Those people who did NOT have anyplace close and secure to go
Bush called and asked for a mandatory evacuation
All talk, no action.
As for you other item of everyone should just walk to a piece of dry land you've found, without some means of housing them, you'd have the same problems with food/sanitation/medical/etc.
Compare that to Cuba's actions. Cuba has governmental sites prep'ed for the disaster and evacuated people to them BEFORE it hit.
It doesn't matter how long it would have taken to evacuate 100,000 people.
What matters is that SOME of the people WERE evacuated.
You're thinking along the lines of "if it is not a perfect solution for the entire problem, it is not a solution for any part of the problem".
If he only saved 10 people, you think that's a failure.
If he saved 10 people, I think that's 10 people who were saved and that's a success.
but given that it will take weeks to pump out the water, theft and looting will not be a barrier to "further restoration efforts, including returning electricity to the area".
The looters have no where to store their loot (unless you're talking gems/jewelery/cash) and no place to sell it.
Every person assigned to watch for looters is a person that is not available for rescue operations.
People first
Property last
Our current government is "pro-Business" rather than "pro-Market".
Being pro-Business means that you pass laws designed to protect the revenue streams of businesses (copyright extensions, DMCA, patents on "business methods", etc).
Being pro-Market means that you pass laws designed to facilitate competition in a market and curb the excesses of existing companies.
... homicide investigators admitted they were stumped when a murderer used an aluminum bat to bludgeon his victim to death rather than the standard lead pipe.
... traces from a pipe ... lead is what makes it a crime scene."
Said an officer who wished to remain anonymous: "We're not even sure there was a murder without some trace of lead at the scene. A bullet
The smart host goes in your DMZ.
Your regular mail server goes in your secure network.
You block all outgoing smtp connections from your secure network, except those going from your regular mail server to your smart host.
Any machine sending email from your secure network is configured to use your regular mail server as a smart host. This will prevent all but the most intelligent of viruses from spamming from your machines.
It also allows you to have different levels of filters on your boxes. Anything that's internal to internal can have very minimal filtering (if any) applied to it. Anything coming in from the outside can be subject to a LOT of scanning.
You'd buy a converter from a company that specialized in converters:
http://www.w3.org/Tools/Word_proc_filters.html
Remember, YOU want to know what you're sending to the lawyer BEFORE he does. Being surprised in Court is not a good thing.
The only way to show that ID is false is to show that such complexities arise WITHOUT the Intelligence being involved.
Which requires that you demonstrate a way to keep God (or whomever) from touching your stuff.
How do you demonstrate that you've managed to keep an omnipotent, omniscient, invisible, intangible being from influencing your experiment?
Therefore, not falsifiable.Simple, find a dino with a partially digested human inside him.
Find a grave with a human and his pet dino buried together.
And the last, but best way, God appears and creates a brand new intelligent life form.
Science follows the scientific method and any hypothesis or theory must be falsifiable. Since there is no way to show a Deity not creating life on Earth, Creationism fails.I thought you said you were reading Michael Behe's book on the topic. Yeah, right. Whatever.
The only problem I see is when religious people try to get their religious beliefs enshrined as "science" or taught as "alternative scientific explanations".
Believe whatever you want to believe, but don't claim your beliefs are anything more than your religion (and you won't know if you're wrong or right on that until you die).
http://psg.com/~brian/software/authbounce/configur e-authbounce.txt
Compare two resumes.
One has:
MCSE Win2000
MCSE WinXP
MCSE Win2003
The other has:
MCSE Win2000
RHCE
CCNA
The same number of certs but they reflect completely different people and they tell you a lot about those people. And studying to pass a cert test can teach you things that you would never happen across in your regular job. I fully support anyone spending time and learning more about their field and related fields. Anyone who sees advancing your education as a problem is an idiot.
Anonymous poster claims to be a pilot, too:1 &cid=13360840
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=15955
... you won't be mod'ed up, but he will.
I plan to test the new kernel on a couple of my servers this weekend just because of, as you noted, the PCI changes.
As for the desktop, I'll wait until the Ubuntu people package the kernel update and automatically deliver it to me.
If the employer doesn't try to pull any non-compete crap, then none of this would apply.Again, none of that would happen unless the company you had worked for decided to pull the indentured servant crap. If they accept your Freedom, it costs them nothing.
If they try to shackle you, then they become financially responsible.
You will always have war as long as one group of people can define themselves as "us" and define different people as "them".
Which gives you the state wars, religious wars, ethnic wars, class wars (French Revolution), etc.
It's all about control of resources.
The old employer pays the person as much as the new employer was offering for a year (or however long the non-compete contract is) and puts up money equal to 10x that in case the new company doesn't want the employee after the year is up and he has to find a new job.
Anything less is indentured servitude (a form of slavery).
If the companies want to play that game, then they should be financially responsible.
He was getting paid for doing a job. If it wasn't his job, then why was he getting paid for doing it?Hmmmm, "exchanges money for services", that certainly sounds like a job.
But you say they don't have a job.
But they do have a contract to perform services in exchange for money (but that isn't a "job").
Right.Really?So, in your opinion, it isn't about being paid to do work
So, if you're the boss's son-in-law, then you have a job because the boss isn't going to fire you (unless you get divorced).
But if you were the guy doing the same job for the same money before the guy who married his daughter moved in, then you didn't have a job.
So what differentiates whether it is "my job" or not is
It isn't "my job" unless I'm doing the boss's daughter in a religiously acceptable manner.
You might really want to re-examine the basis of your hypothesis.Nor, it seems, "logic".
Sure, off-shoring the workers saves money for the people at the top ... but someone has to manage those workers and that means they will start to learn your business.
Eventually, they will be able to take your business away from you. After all, all of their people will be working for 1/10th the cost (even the CEO's) and how will your business be able to compete at that rate?
I believe the goal for most of the companies doing the off-shoring is to make big profits, quickly, and retire before the real bill comes due.
Only on /. would an anonymous post be mod'ed up to +4 for semantically parsing the words "his job".
If it wasn't his job, why was he getting paid by his employer for doing it?
It is how you define your criteria as to what is "vulnerable" and what is "safe".
They would have done a LOT better in just sticking to the design of each instead of counting admitted vulnerabilities and patches.
Microsoft has been known to sit on vulnerabilities for a LONG time (http://www.eeye.com/html/research/upcoming/index
Security starts with the security model. Here is where you'll see patches to disable stuff in a flawed model. You cannot just count the patches here, but they are useful for evaluating the model itself.
Then that model has to be implemented in code. This is where you'll see bug fixes for code errors.
The last thing to look at is any application built by someone else on that platform.
And one last item to consider. Any platform is only as "secure" as the level beneath it. If
Here is where they get it wrong on Java: So, if Windows is compromised and code inserted to Java to run, then Java is at fault
Either you count it as a flaw in both, or you don't count it for either.
Anyone can submit any address, but they'll have to reply to that email or click on a link in it to be subscribed.
There, end of problem.
Then just include easy opt-out instructions at the bottom of each message you send out.
The REAL problem is if someone outside of SpamCop knows their spamtrap addresses. With that info, it would be simple to render SpamCop 100% ineffective.
For a commodity OS, developed by many, used by many and owned by none, the GPL is the best license out there. Under the BSD license, we could see a "splintering" of the OS exactly as we did with the old *nixes. Under the GPL, that is impossible.
I believe that is why so many different companies are pushing Linux now. They don't have to put the massive amounts of time/money into it to stay competitive with the other OS's, yet it cannot be taken from them by the owner AND they are as involved in the development as if it were their very own.
If the goal is a commodity OS, then the GPL is the best license.
If the goal is something else, then other licenses may be better.
http://toolbar.netcraft.com/site_report?url=http:/ /www.tommyhilfiger.com
/ /www.tommy.com
.... let's see, ELEVEN DAYS!!!!
Am I on the wrong listing or has their MAIN site been hosted? And hosted on Solaris.
http://toolbar.netcraft.com/site_report?url=http:
Seems that they JUST switched over to Windows and that they had JUST switched to Linux.
Come on. They've been on Linux for SIX MONTHS and they've spent THREE YEARS on Apache and Solaris.
Great. They've been on Win2003 for the past
Talk about rushing a story.