That album was released in 1975, 37 years ago. Back then there was no Web, the Internet was still ARPANET, copyright in the US only lasted 28 + (optionally) 28 years and the RIAA wasn't suing their customers left and right. It's not comparable.
There's nothing wrong with SSL/TLS for this. Software doesn't fall for SSL stripping and you can even copy the service's certificate over and validate against that, bypassing CA issues.
in most people's minds is inexorably linked with free markets
Where I live that's certainly not my experience, but then again the people I know are not a valid statistical sample of the population. So, on what do you base that?
If you want to claim something based on Speedtest results, you need to prove it's a reliable source. Personally, I usually use it when my internet connection "feels" slow, to confirm it actually is. You can see how that would skew the data. Do I know if this is common? No. But neither do you.
If someone breaks into your email account and starts spamming with it, you may be deprieved of its use (since every server will starting flagging your address), though.
Mozilla Persona/BrowserID, is certificate based and lets you have different profiles for different sites. It requires you to have an Identity Authority that can vouch for your email, but if you have your own domain you can be your own IA.
I love how dislike or even hating the Pope or the Catholic Church makes one anti-Christian in your view. By your own definition, Protestants are all anti-Christians. And you have the nerve of calling others intolerants.
So, where's the evidence that those murderous dumb zealous thugs wouldn't threaten her life even when using their real names?
Real names might prevent trolling, sometimes. But there's plenty of shitty behavior that people aren't ashamed of doing, and the lack of anonymity will do nothing to prevent that.
That is the _ultimate_ goal of Marxism, but the _means_ to reach it is the "dictatorship of the proletariat. Marx _explicitly_ defended the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Which is orthogonal to the existance of the State.
Absolutely false. Marxism runs Cuba, and has nearly taken over Venezuela. Bolivia and Equador are on their way. Colombia has a very violent Marxist narco-terrorist organization killing people in their country. Several other Latin American governments (including Brazil) have great admiration for Chavez, and explicitly defend dictatorial ideas such as "social control of the press". They aren't as bad as Venezuela because their opposition parties are stronger than the opposition of Venezuela; but they are getting stronger.
Fair point. For "Western" I meant US and EU.
Second, you seem to have missed the later developments in Marxism - Antonio Gramsci, Herbert Marcuse and Theodor Adorno. These people developed a cultural Marxism that is quite strong in Western Countries. See, for example, European Countries which censor politically incorrect ideas.
Maybe so. I'd call that a far cry from Marxim, 'though, which is primarily an economic theory.
This is under dispute; you took one side of the dispute without any reason other than anti-Christian hatred.
Of course it's under dispute, that's a tantology. And I have no problem with Christians. I do have some problem with the Catholic Church "dome". But then again, so do many other Christians; you may remember that some actually rebelled against it and formed their own churches.
You are criticizing what you don't understand (as all anti-theists do).
I'm not an anti-theist. And as I've shown, there were Catholics criticizing it too. (Cue No True Scotsman fallacy)
Excommunication is not a punishment for civil offenses. There is no excommunication for dealing cocaine, for example, even though dealing cocaine is a very serious sin. Civil offenses are not punished by the Church precisely because of the separation of Church and State.
That's only a relevant justification for not excommunicating him.
For HTML you shouldn't need it, it's not supposed to be "seen". For CSS it's better to use something in-browser like Firebug or the Chrome developer tools; they're free and closer to what will actually be rendered.
Today, if you're doing it right, hand-coding it should take less than than loading the editor. HTML should merely serve do indicate the structure of the page. Everything else should be done by CSS, and then it's best to use a browser tool like Firebug instead of an HTML editor.
If you promote intolerance against religious people, you increase the chance of your country being taken over by atheist Marxism
[citation needed]
which killed 100,000,000 people in the XX century.
No, that was Stalinism and Maoism.
Marxism defined a communist society as being stateless (lack of the State). Clearly this doesn't fit neither the USSR or the Mao Zedong's China.
If anti-theists were really defending reason and liberty, they would condemn Marxism with far more vigour than they condemn religion.
Unlike religion, Marxism is all but dead in Western countries. It doesn't make sense to condemn it any more than it makes sense to vigorously condemn the Vikings.
Furthermore, the fact that they aren't condemning it here doesn't mean they don't condemn it at all.
The fact that they don't give a damn about Marxism but hate religion strongly suggests that this isn't about reason or liberty - it is about arrongance. They find religion to be "supersticious" and "ridiculous" and do not tolerate that anyone believes in it.
You have no idea if they "give a damn about Marxism" or not, so this whole argument is baseless.
And you, giving examples of people who don't like doctors just prove your case to be wrong. Your examples are intellectually dishonest. If you were honest, you would criticize one prominent religion, such as Catholicism or Southern Baptist Protestantism.
The Catholic Church excommunicated the doctor who performed an abortion on a 9-year-old who had been raped (and whose pregnancy meant her life was extremely endangered), along with her mother, but not her rapist. Do you want something more fucked up than that?
No woman could or would ever fuck things up like this. So, if there is a God, I think most reasonable people might agree that he's at least incompetent, and maybe, just maybe, doesn't give a shit. Doesn't give a shit, which I admire in a person, and which would explain a lot of these bad results.
You should get out (of your country) more. Nobody who has any idea of the rest of the world would call the current US government "left". Call me when you have a real NHS instead of that corporative sham of a bill.
Slashdot Mirror
That album was released in 1975, 37 years ago. Back then there was no Web, the Internet was still ARPANET, copyright in the US only lasted 28 + (optionally) 28 years and the RIAA wasn't suing their customers left and right. It's not comparable.
There's nothing wrong with SSL/TLS for this. Software doesn't fall for SSL stripping and you can even copy the service's certificate over and validate against that, bypassing CA issues.
Wrong kind of framework. They're talking about a framework of concepts and ideas, not a software framework.
Probably The Peel Group, which is "the largest property investment company in the United Kingdom" and runs the airport targeted by his joke.
in most people's minds is inexorably linked with free markets
Where I live that's certainly not my experience, but then again the people I know are not a valid statistical sample of the population.
So, on what do you base that?
If you want to claim something based on Speedtest results, you need to prove it's a reliable source. Personally, I usually use it when my internet connection "feels" slow, to confirm it actually is. You can see how that would skew the data. Do I know if this is common? No. But neither do you.
He consciously did something ILEGAL
No, he did not.
Gmail does it: http://support.google.com/mail/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=45938
If someone breaks into your email account and starts spamming with it, you may be deprieved of its use (since every server will starting flagging your address), though.
Some do interoperate; my instance of StatusNet sent and received messages from Identi.ca just fine.
The problem is that no one is there, and thsoe who were, left. Compare:
http://identi.ca/timbl with https://twitter.com/timberners_lee
http://convergence.io/details.html
Not at all. I know Protestants who tolerate the Catholic Church. "Disagreein with" and "hating" are very different.
Which is what the Catholics I linked to were doing - disagreeing with the decision, nothing more.
So it seems you agree that the Church was right in not excommunicating him?
It's not so much that I think they're right, but I think it's the irrelevant part in the whole issue.
If I misunderstood you, remember that English is my second language
I assume you're Brazilian based on your name and info? We actually speak the same native language ;) Well, two dialects of the same language, at least.
All the convenience of single-sign-on
Except, of course, running anywhere besides on a KDE environment. Like a smartphone.
LastPass encrypts on the client. The only way to crack your passwords would be do it from your own machine, and then Keepass is broken too.
Mozilla Persona/BrowserID, is certificate based and lets you have different profiles for different sites. It requires you to have an Identity Authority that can vouch for your email, but if you have your own domain you can be your own IA.
http://lloyd.io/how-browserid-works
I love how dislike or even hating the Pope or the Catholic Church makes one anti-Christian in your view. By your own definition, Protestants are all anti-Christians. And you have the nerve of calling others intolerants.
"him" who? I didn't understand that.
The rapist.
So, where's the evidence that those murderous dumb zealous thugs wouldn't threaten her life even when using their real names?
Real names might prevent trolling, sometimes. But there's plenty of shitty behavior that people aren't ashamed of doing, and the lack of anonymity will do nothing to prevent that.
So Google asks (yes, because you can just say no) you to use your real name, and they're evil? That word has lost any meaning.
I don't like it either, but let's keep "evil" to actually evil stuff.
Which are implementations of Marxism.
No, they're derivations.
That is the _ultimate_ goal of Marxism, but the _means_ to reach it is the "dictatorship of the proletariat. Marx _explicitly_ defended the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Which is orthogonal to the existance of the State.
Absolutely false. Marxism runs Cuba, and has nearly taken over Venezuela. Bolivia and Equador are on their way. Colombia has a very violent Marxist narco-terrorist organization killing people in their country. Several other Latin American governments (including Brazil) have great admiration for Chavez, and explicitly defend dictatorial ideas such as "social control of the press". They aren't as bad as Venezuela because their opposition parties are stronger than the opposition of Venezuela; but they are getting stronger.
Fair point. For "Western" I meant US and EU.
Second, you seem to have missed the later developments in Marxism - Antonio Gramsci, Herbert Marcuse and Theodor Adorno. These people developed a cultural Marxism that is quite strong in Western Countries. See, for example, European Countries which censor politically incorrect ideas.
Maybe so. I'd call that a far cry from Marxim, 'though, which is primarily an economic theory.
This is under dispute; you took one side of the dispute without any reason other than anti-Christian hatred.
Of course it's under dispute, that's a tantology. And I have no problem with Christians. I do have some problem with the Catholic Church "dome". But then again, so do many other Christians; you may remember that some actually rebelled against it and formed their own churches.
By the way, here's a Catholic site criticizing the decision: http://www.uscatholic.org/blog/2009/03/hard-cases-brazilian-9-year-old-has-abortion (this is just an example, I heard many others at the time). Are they filled with "anti-Christian hatred" too?
You are criticizing what you don't understand (as all anti-theists do).
I'm not an anti-theist. And as I've shown, there were Catholics criticizing it too. (Cue No True Scotsman fallacy)
Excommunication is not a punishment for civil offenses. There is no excommunication for dealing cocaine, for example, even though dealing cocaine is a very serious sin. Civil offenses are not punished by the Church precisely because of the separation of Church and State.
That's only a relevant justification for not excommunicating him.
For HTML you shouldn't need it, it's not supposed to be "seen". For CSS it's better to use something in-browser like Firebug or the Chrome developer tools; they're free and closer to what will actually be rendered.
Today, if you're doing it right, hand-coding it should take less than than loading the editor. HTML should merely serve do indicate the structure of the page. Everything else should be done by CSS, and then it's best to use a browser tool like Firebug instead of an HTML editor.
If you promote intolerance against religious people, you increase the chance of your country being taken over by atheist Marxism
[citation needed]
which killed 100,000,000 people in the XX century.
No, that was Stalinism and Maoism.
Marxism defined a communist society as being stateless (lack of the State). Clearly this doesn't fit neither the USSR or the Mao Zedong's China.
If anti-theists were really defending reason and liberty, they would condemn Marxism with far more vigour than they condemn religion.
Unlike religion, Marxism is all but dead in Western countries. It doesn't make sense to condemn it any more than it makes sense to vigorously condemn the Vikings.
Furthermore, the fact that they aren't condemning it here doesn't mean they don't condemn it at all.
The fact that they don't give a damn about Marxism but hate religion strongly suggests that this isn't about reason or liberty - it is about arrongance. They find religion to be "supersticious" and "ridiculous" and do not tolerate that anyone believes in it.
You have no idea if they "give a damn about Marxism" or not, so this whole argument is baseless.
And you, giving examples of people who don't like doctors just prove your case to be wrong. Your examples are intellectually dishonest. If you were honest, you would criticize one prominent religion, such as Catholicism or Southern Baptist Protestantism.
The Catholic Church excommunicated the doctor who performed an abortion on a 9-year-old who had been raped (and whose pregnancy meant her life was extremely endangered), along with her mother, but not her rapist. Do you want something more fucked up than that?
Sorry, but in this case, Carlin > Allen:
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed. Results like these do not belong on the résumé of a Supreme Being. This is the kind of shit you'd expect from an office temp with a bad attitude. And just between you and me, in any decently-run universe, this guy would've been out on his all-powerful ass a long time ago. And by the way, I say "this guy", because I firmly believe, looking at these results, that if there is a God, it has to be a man.
No woman could or would ever fuck things up like this. So, if there is a God, I think most reasonable people might agree that he's at least incompetent, and maybe, just maybe, doesn't give a shit. Doesn't give a shit, which I admire in a person, and which would explain a lot of these bad results.
An agnostic is still an atheist, just not a gnostic one /pedant.
You should get out (of your country) more. Nobody who has any idea of the rest of the world would call the current US government "left". Call me when you have a real NHS instead of that corporative sham of a bill.