As soon as you find some evidence against Evolution, we can reconsider it.
try the flagellum and the eye/retina. their hasn't been enough time for the 'evolution/mutation' the darwin ascribes for these to have eber developed. also check the fossil records for humans alone, no dead end mutations/evolutions have been fond where one thing wasn;t right and was capped off or died out. as hard as you tr, yu cannot take God/reator out of the picture....
this alone disproves Darwin's rants.
Very nice, decades old baseless assertions. The evolution of the eye and flagellum are well understood these days, and there are plenty of dead ends in the primate branch of the fossil record. You need to stop parroting back arguments you don't understand and haven't researched, unless you enjoy looking foolish.
This was an example of the problem of evil. A problem is so cliched, people have been pondering it for thousands of years without coming up with any real answers...
Oh, I know what you are getting at. My point is, you need to convince a jury that you were harmed, and that is easier to do if the harm is measurable. Fair or not in any particular case, it is the only equitable procedure to follow for all cases.
Are you talking about all zealots, or just a subset? Because I'd venture a guess that a certain class of zealots distorts reality for pay, if you know what I mean.
So in your analogy, who is the wife-beater? Microsoft? Or the malware author?
The malware author. In case it wasn't clear, I am not blaming Microsoft. I'm old enough to remember when Windows really did crash all the time, and was not secure. But it hasn't been like that since XP SP 2.
Bullshit. First, you have no data showing that 90% of infections are anything. You pulled that number out of your ass.
Second, 90% isn't 100%. Meaning, even if that number is correct, I am right and both you and the original poster there are wrong.
Third, being conned doesn't mean a person is stupid. Plenty of smart folks get conned.
Finally, this is just an opportunity for you to wave your dick around acting superior. You are too smart to ever have malware on your system, you go girl! Yay, you're so superior. I don't have malware on my system either, but I'm not so insecure that I need to put down people who do.
I've installed Linux on half a dozen laptops in the last year. In every case, the installation auto detected the wireless card and I had absolutely no problem getting connected.
The year before that, I had to work on my mom's Windows laptop. She'd had several wireless cards in it over the years, and all the damn special software each of them had installed left her system a barely functioning wreck. It took me hours to get it sorted.
Anecdotal data, sure, but so is every single case of "Waaa! Linux doesn't have wireless, waaaaaaa!"
You misunderstand. In a libel or slander suit in the US, it is up to you to prove to a jury that you were harmed. It is much easier to prove if you can show documented financial harm.
Case one: You are a movie star, you have big box office numbers, someone says you have sex with fish, all of a sudden you can't draw an audience, cut and dried.
Case two: you are some random guy. Someone says you have sex with fish. You've got nothing concrete to show the jury. Maybe they'll side with you, maybe not.
Nobody is turning a blind eye to anything, get it? It's about proof. If anybody could go to a judge and just say, "He hurt my feelings, make him give me money!" and actually get the money, then nobody would have anything resembling free speech.
Now, if Random Guy could show that he suffered some sort of emotional collapse after the fish fucking accusation, and couldn't get out of bed to go to work, he might have a case.
Anyone can claim hurt feelings. Anyone can claim emotional damages. It's very easy to LIE about those kind of things. The US system is not blind to such claims, as you seem to imply, it is just harder to prove, which is fair and just.
To be fair, in the example I give in case one, special rules apply to public figures. It would be fairly easy to claim that I was engaging in satire or parody if I claimed a movie star was a piscisexual.
The user installed the virus into their system by doing something stupid.
Its like blaming the US Government for letting businesses go over sea when you still shop at Walmart.
Your response is a cop out.
Your response is what is commonly known as 'blaming the victim.' Seriously, you can't imagine any other way for malware to get onto a system except user stupidity? I'd call that a failure on your part. You know, Windows fanbois remind me of battered women, explaining to others how they walked into a door or fell down some stairs. No you didn't, you let somebody beat the shit out of you and then covered it up.
When you use condescending statements like, 'Thanks for playing however!' you should really make sure all your ducks are in a row, or you end up looking the fool. Seriously, have you ever traveled outside the US? Read anything about other countries? We are, quite simply, the most right wing country in the entire world.
Other countries have actual socialists. They make our rabid left wingers look like Reagan worshiping free market ideologues. Other country's centrists are our far leftists. No other country has anything like our right wing. At least not as a serious political party. Sure, there are fascist groups everywhere, but only in America are they taken seriously by even a tiny fraction of the populace.
It's a joke, man. Real geeks do whatever the hell they want to do. Being obsessive about weird shit even other types of geeks don't get is, well, one of the primary characteristics of geekhood.
Let me explain how libel and slander laws work in the UK. Basically, you don't have to prove squat. You say, "This big meanie said something I don't like. Yes it's true, and it didn't actually cause me any monetary damages, but I don't like it. Make him stop." And if you have enough money, it's very likely the courts will make him stop.
Now, here in the US we do things a little differently. To prove libel or slander you need to prove three things: first, the offending statement has to be false. If someone says something true about you that you don't like, tough. On top of that, the person making the statement must know it is false. Second, the statement has to be malicious. The person making it must have the intent to cause harm, not just inform or amuse. Third, they must actually cause measurable harm. So, if I say, your grandma makes the worst pies in the world, unless your grandma is in the pastry business or enters lots of baking contests, more than likely I haven't actually hurt anything more than her feelings (don't worry, I'm not actually going to say this to your grandma. I'm sure she's a sweet old lady who bakes perfectly nice pies.)
See? That's how you do slander and libel laws so they work as intended. Freedom of speech does not give you the right to falsely and maliciously harm someone else.
You know what helps you sound informed and intelligent? Reading the article. You know what makes you sound, well, silly? Not reading the article. Here's a clue to spark your interest: it isn't the card readers that are performing the man in the middle, it is the person in possession of the card performing the attack against a standard card reader.
It seems this system was designed expressly to limit bank's liability by providing the illusion of security. "Oh, fraudulent charges, are they? But you entered your PIN... Can you prove your PIN was compromised? no? Tough then, pay up."
Olberman doesn't think Obama is really fixing things. Like many liberals, he think Obama simply hasn't done anything he promised he would. We wish the President were anywhere near the socialist Republicans think he is. He's a moderate, a total centrist.
Hah. You win the award for the indiscriminate offending of people on both sides of the aisle in one slashdot story -- one post modded troll for making fun of Democrats, one post modded troll for making fun of Republicans.
Care to go for the trifecta and offend independents?
Wat's the point? Independents are too dumb to understand that they are being offended.
I wonder if this article would have made it to the front page of./ if it hadn't provided an opportunity for certain folks to get a political jab in again at the "evil republicans".
I wonder if many Republicans feel as butt-hurt and paranoid as you do?
Slashdot Mirror
As soon as you find some evidence against Evolution, we can reconsider it.
try the flagellum and the eye/retina. their hasn't been enough time for the 'evolution/mutation' the darwin ascribes for these to have eber developed. also check the fossil records for humans alone, no dead end mutations/evolutions have been fond where one thing wasn;t right and was capped off or died out. as hard as you tr, yu cannot take God/reator out of the picture....
this alone disproves Darwin's rants.
Very nice, decades old baseless assertions. The evolution of the eye and flagellum are well understood these days, and there are plenty of dead ends in the primate branch of the fossil record. You need to stop parroting back arguments you don't understand and haven't researched, unless you enjoy looking foolish.
This was an example of the problem of evil. A problem is so cliched, people have been pondering it for thousands of years without coming up with any real answers...
No. No I'm not acting that way at all, sorry you misread that.
Oh, I know what you are getting at. My point is, you need to convince a jury that you were harmed, and that is easier to do if the harm is measurable. Fair or not in any particular case, it is the only equitable procedure to follow for all cases.
Are you talking about all zealots, or just a subset? Because I'd venture a guess that a certain class of zealots distorts reality for pay, if you know what I mean.
So in your analogy, who is the wife-beater? Microsoft? Or the malware author?
The malware author. In case it wasn't clear, I am not blaming Microsoft. I'm old enough to remember when Windows really did crash all the time, and was not secure. But it hasn't been like that since XP SP 2.
Bullshit. First, you have no data showing that 90% of infections are anything. You pulled that number out of your ass.
Second, 90% isn't 100%. Meaning, even if that number is correct, I am right and both you and the original poster there are wrong.
Third, being conned doesn't mean a person is stupid. Plenty of smart folks get conned.
Finally, this is just an opportunity for you to wave your dick around acting superior. You are too smart to ever have malware on your system, you go girl! Yay, you're so superior. I don't have malware on my system either, but I'm not so insecure that I need to put down people who do.
Sure, trolling is fun. But so is whining about trolls. Ah, the fun games we can play, here, on Slashdot.
Slashdot: there's no better way to waste a day.
I've installed Linux on half a dozen laptops in the last year. In every case, the installation auto detected the wireless card and I had absolutely no problem getting connected.
The year before that, I had to work on my mom's Windows laptop. She'd had several wireless cards in it over the years, and all the damn special software each of them had installed left her system a barely functioning wreck. It took me hours to get it sorted.
Anecdotal data, sure, but so is every single case of "Waaa! Linux doesn't have wireless, waaaaaaa!"
You misunderstand. In a libel or slander suit in the US, it is up to you to prove to a jury that you were harmed. It is much easier to prove if you can show documented financial harm.
Case one: You are a movie star, you have big box office numbers, someone says you have sex with fish, all of a sudden you can't draw an audience, cut and dried.
Case two: you are some random guy. Someone says you have sex with fish. You've got nothing concrete to show the jury. Maybe they'll side with you, maybe not.
Nobody is turning a blind eye to anything, get it? It's about proof. If anybody could go to a judge and just say, "He hurt my feelings, make him give me money!" and actually get the money, then nobody would have anything resembling free speech.
Now, if Random Guy could show that he suffered some sort of emotional collapse after the fish fucking accusation, and couldn't get out of bed to go to work, he might have a case.
Anyone can claim hurt feelings. Anyone can claim emotional damages. It's very easy to LIE about those kind of things. The US system is not blind to such claims, as you seem to imply, it is just harder to prove, which is fair and just.
To be fair, in the example I give in case one, special rules apply to public figures. It would be fairly easy to claim that I was engaging in satire or parody if I claimed a movie star was a piscisexual.
That is BS and you know it.
The user installed the virus into their system by doing something stupid.
Its like blaming the US Government for letting businesses go over sea when you still shop at Walmart.
Your response is a cop out.
Your response is what is commonly known as 'blaming the victim.' Seriously, you can't imagine any other way for malware to get onto a system except user stupidity? I'd call that a failure on your part. You know, Windows fanbois remind me of battered women, explaining to others how they walked into a door or fell down some stairs. No you didn't, you let somebody beat the shit out of you and then covered it up.
When you use condescending statements like, 'Thanks for playing however!' you should really make sure all your ducks are in a row, or you end up looking the fool. Seriously, have you ever traveled outside the US? Read anything about other countries? We are, quite simply, the most right wing country in the entire world.
Other countries have actual socialists. They make our rabid left wingers look like Reagan worshiping free market ideologues. Other country's centrists are our far leftists. No other country has anything like our right wing. At least not as a serious political party. Sure, there are fascist groups everywhere, but only in America are they taken seriously by even a tiny fraction of the populace.
It's a joke, man. Real geeks do whatever the hell they want to do. Being obsessive about weird shit even other types of geeks don't get is, well, one of the primary characteristics of geekhood.
"I drank what?"
You can't call yourself a geek if you haven't seen Real Genius. Next he will tell us he's never seen Blade Runner or Forbidden Planet. Sheesh.
Let me explain how libel and slander laws work in the UK. Basically, you don't have to prove squat. You say, "This big meanie said something I don't like. Yes it's true, and it didn't actually cause me any monetary damages, but I don't like it. Make him stop." And if you have enough money, it's very likely the courts will make him stop.
Now, here in the US we do things a little differently. To prove libel or slander you need to prove three things: first, the offending statement has to be false. If someone says something true about you that you don't like, tough. On top of that, the person making the statement must know it is false. Second, the statement has to be malicious. The person making it must have the intent to cause harm, not just inform or amuse. Third, they must actually cause measurable harm. So, if I say, your grandma makes the worst pies in the world, unless your grandma is in the pastry business or enters lots of baking contests, more than likely I haven't actually hurt anything more than her feelings (don't worry, I'm not actually going to say this to your grandma. I'm sure she's a sweet old lady who bakes perfectly nice pies.)
See? That's how you do slander and libel laws so they work as intended. Freedom of speech does not give you the right to falsely and maliciously harm someone else.
You know what helps you sound informed and intelligent? Reading the article. You know what makes you sound, well, silly? Not reading the article. Here's a clue to spark your interest: it isn't the card readers that are performing the man in the middle, it is the person in possession of the card performing the attack against a standard card reader.
The researchers used off-the-shelf components (PDF), and a laptop running a Python script...
It is long past time for governments to criminalize the use of Python.
Or at least criminalize its use... on a plane.
It seems this system was designed expressly to limit bank's liability by providing the illusion of security. "Oh, fraudulent charges, are they? But you entered your PIN... Can you prove your PIN was compromised? no? Tough then, pay up."
Olberman doesn't think Obama is really fixing things. Like many liberals, he think Obama simply hasn't done anything he promised he would. We wish the President were anywhere near the socialist Republicans think he is. He's a moderate, a total centrist.
Look down a bit further. I got modded troll for insulting Republicans, too. I'm an equal opportunity asshole.
Hah. You win the award for the indiscriminate offending of people on both sides of the aisle in one slashdot story -- one post modded troll for making fun of Democrats, one post modded troll for making fun of Republicans.
Care to go for the trifecta and offend independents?
Wat's the point? Independents are too dumb to understand that they are being offended.
I'll take that troll mod as a definitive 'Yes, we're all that paranoid and butt-hurt.'
I wonder if this article would have made it to the front page of ./ if it hadn't provided an opportunity for certain folks to get a political jab in again at the "evil republicans".
I wonder if many Republicans feel as butt-hurt and paranoid as you do?
Pretty sure the likes of Pelosi and Boxer would do much better at driving the beetles crazy.
They tried playing tapes of Pelosi and Boxer, but that just made the beetles have more kids and apply for welfare.
Well, I'm not, but you can call me Al.