When Hotmail users start bitching because they aren't getting mail, we'll see how long Microsoft holds out on keeping their attempt at shoving their standards down other people's throat. How can Microsoft be this stupid?
You don't think being among the 40 from over 8,000 ideas doesn't give the project some kind credibility?
Me thinks you have some kind of axe to grind. Sorry.
Drupal got 11 Google "Summer of Code" developers
on
Drupal Needs a New Home
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
To the naysayers out there, you should know that Drupal got 11 "Summer of Code" developers. Do the folks at Google obviously think very highly of this open source project.
Re:What is the security of Drupal like?
on
Drupal Needs a New Home
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Security is excellent. However, a recent exploit in a popular open source xml-rpc module that is also used by many other program other than Drupal was recently reported to have a security hole. The Drupal project quickly released a patch to fix this problem last week. Sites that have not applied this patch are vulnerable.
As a minor contributor to the Drupal project, I can tell you it rocks. It's a very well written piece of code. Much more than a CMS, it's a platform on which communities can be launched and mini applications can be written. I believe that Drupal could help revolutionize web site development for inidividuals, small non-profits, and small businesses. It's an extremely flexible and powerful platform. What's more, the main developers of Drupal are pure to the free software philosophy.
When the site comes back up, you should check it out.
People will eventually tire pre-processed, big production entertainment. Open source, independently produced media with alternate forms of distribution (if not made entirely illegal) and funding will arise to bring the big media conglomerates down. This isn't going to happen today, or next year, but the change is inevitable.
Actually, what's closer to the truth is that they do realize it and they are going to do everything in their power to milk the old structure and institutions for every dollar they can.
For every success story you hear, the other 99,999 are never told. For every genius who dropped out of school to become CEO of an multi-national corporation, there are thousands of other geniuses who wound up broke and unhappy.
That's not correct. They are more than pretty web pages. They include other distribution and interactive technologies such as RSS feeds, trackbacks, comment systems, etc.
Blogs are a part of the communication infrastructure like the phone system. They aren't "cool" or "uncool". They will be used for good purposes, bad purposes, excellent purposes, and ridiculous purposes.
But they are here to stay. The term "blog" may be a bit of a fad like "cyberspace". But it's basic form isn't going to go away any time soon. That's because they do one thing very well: help people communicate.
Well, it's quite obvious that communication is a fundamental activity that underpins all human activity. When you change the way people communicate, you change society in profound ways.
The Gutenberg's printing press broke the Catholic Church, made modern science possible, and gave rise to modern Democracy. There's no question the Internet will have very profound long-term infulence over future structure of society. We're only 10 years into it.
There are many different definitions. As I pointed out, I use it in the way the state of Kansas does, that is, anything that is a direct result of an intelligent beings purposeful contrivance.
A highway is considered not to be natural because it is a man made structure. Western thought has always separated itself from nature. I am using that definition of nature as the reference point because that is how it is used in the definition of science by the state of Kansas.
It's not natural in the sense that aliens interfered with life on earth. They did not leave earth in its "natural state."
If you're making the argument that aliens are a natural phenomena of the universe, well, then things deteriorate into a semantic game the definition of "natural."
So, how do you explain the decline of the Roman and Greek cultures, and the 1000 years of ignorance, barbarism, and religious fervor that followed? I'd say that was more than a minor setback.
It's not wise so complacent about the ultimate triumph of science. There's no evidence supporting your hypothesis. My advice: remain vigilant and do you what you can to fight ignorance when you see it.
Compare the second definition to the first. The first defintion seeks for "natural explanations". Notice the second defintion leaves this out, leaving the door open to other kinds of explanations, like an alien from another planet or some kind of supernatural being.
Mod up the AC. Google is collecting many data dots about you. It would not take much for them to connect them to create an accurate picture of your hobbies, interests, and buying habits. This is every marketer's dream. Corporations will buy this data and purchase very precise profiles of each of us, enabling them to efficiently shake even more money from our wallets using all sorts of psychological enticements that will be very hard to defend against.
In my haste I didn't choose my words carefully. I should have said, "For a theory to ever be proven false, it must supply evidence." He supplies no evidence. He can never supply evidence. Therefore, it is impossible to prove his theory of ID false.
Stating that natural selection cannot adequately explain some biological machines is not evidence of ID.
I ask you, what evidence does Michael Behe have for ID?
It's impossible to disprove something that hasn't been proven in the first place. ID has never been proven to be true and therefore cannot be proven to be false.
All Behe does is challenge how natural selection can account for the development of certain complex biological mechanisms. Mounting a challenge does nothing to prove that his hypothesis of intelligent design is correct.
Similarly, though well understood, there are still some unknowns about the phenomena of thunder and lightning. But this gap in knowledge doesn't give me license to say this proves the existence of the IMFT. I also cannot say, "My theory is true until falsifiable. Until you can find an explanation, ID is the only answer." That's ridiculous. Behe is letting his devotion to his religion (Catholocism) muddy his thinking.
I've got a theory I made up, just like this Michael Behe fellow, that lightening requires an intelligent being to make the electons flow through the sky. I call this theory "intelligent motive force theory." Go ahead, prove me wrong. I bet you can't. Therefore, intelligent motive force must be real, right?
So, one man, with absolutely one shred of evidence for his hypothesis that evolution can't explain everything, should automatically be accepted until it's proven wrong? Sorry, that's not quite how the scientific method works.
Those who believe in intelligent design are no different from people who thought thunder and lightning came from the gods because they had no other explanation for it. Fortunatley, individuals who looked for natural causes applied the scientific method and discovered the answer.
The scientific method doesn't allow for assuming that when you don't know the answer, it's eveidence of a god.
You see, there's this theory that when you put your tooth under your pillow, you'll get money from the tooth fairy. It's a perfectly valid theory, right? After all, you aren't able to disprove this theory, are you? Can you find a way to disprove the existence of the tooth fairy?
Well, The reason not to believe in ID is the same reason for not believing in the tooth fairy. There is absolutely no evidence for the tooth fairy's existence and there are much better explanations for how the money got under your pillow. Just because you can't disprove the tooth fairy theory, doesn't make it a viable option.
Bogus argument: "If you're poor and uneducated, what are you doing to change the situation? Are you educating yourself using the millions of programs and libraries that exist for that purpose? Are you making your kids take advantage of everything they can so that they can excel despite your poverty situaion?"
Let's assume everybody in the U.S. gets a PH.D. Then you'd have PH.D's running cahsiers at Wal-Mart, PH.Ds wiping your ass when you get old, and PH.Ds digging your grave.
The fundamental problem is that the jobs that exist---jobs people bust their asses at working 40 hours+ per week---don't pay shit. Meanwhile, those who have gamed the system and are well-connected make out like bandits off the backs of others. There is a basic inequity in how wealth is distributed in this country that cannot be addressed by education alone.
Slashdot Mirror
When Hotmail users start bitching because they aren't getting mail, we'll see how long Microsoft holds out on keeping their attempt at shoving their standards down other people's throat. How can Microsoft be this stupid?
Boycott hotmail users! Don't adopt this standard!
Did I ever use the word "infatuated"?
You don't think being among the 40 from over 8,000 ideas doesn't give the project some kind credibility?
Me thinks you have some kind of axe to grind. Sorry.
To the naysayers out there, you should know that Drupal got 11 "Summer of Code" developers. Do the folks at Google obviously think very highly of this open source project.
Security is excellent. However, a recent exploit in a popular open source xml-rpc module that is also used by many other program other than Drupal was recently reported to have a security hole. The Drupal project quickly released a patch to fix this problem last week. Sites that have not applied this patch are vulnerable.
As a minor contributor to the Drupal project, I can tell you it rocks. It's a very well written piece of code. Much more than a CMS, it's a platform on which communities can be launched and mini applications can be written. I believe that Drupal could help revolutionize web site development for inidividuals, small non-profits, and small businesses. It's an extremely flexible and powerful platform. What's more, the main developers of Drupal are pure to the free software philosophy.
When the site comes back up, you should check it out.
People will eventually tire pre-processed, big production entertainment. Open source, independently produced media with alternate forms of distribution (if not made entirely illegal) and funding will arise to bring the big media conglomerates down. This isn't going to happen today, or next year, but the change is inevitable.
Actually, what's closer to the truth is that they do realize it and they are going to do everything in their power to milk the old structure and institutions for every dollar they can.
For every success story you hear, the other 99,999 are never told. For every genius who dropped out of school to become CEO of an multi-national corporation, there are thousands of other geniuses who wound up broke and unhappy.
That's not correct. They are more than pretty web pages. They include other distribution and interactive technologies such as RSS feeds, trackbacks, comment systems, etc.
Blogs are a part of the communication infrastructure like the phone system. They aren't "cool" or "uncool". They will be used for good purposes, bad purposes, excellent purposes, and ridiculous purposes.
But they are here to stay. The term "blog" may be a bit of a fad like "cyberspace". But it's basic form isn't going to go away any time soon. That's because they do one thing very well: help people communicate.
Well, it's quite obvious that communication is a fundamental activity that underpins all human activity. When you change the way people communicate, you change society in profound ways.
The Gutenberg's printing press broke the Catholic Church, made modern science possible, and gave rise to modern Democracy. There's no question the Internet will have very profound long-term infulence over future structure of society. We're only 10 years into it.
There are many different definitions. As I pointed out, I use it in the way the state of Kansas does, that is, anything that is a direct result of an intelligent beings purposeful contrivance.
A highway is considered not to be natural because it is a man made structure. Western thought has always separated itself from nature. I am using that definition of nature as the reference point because that is how it is used in the definition of science by the state of Kansas.
It's not natural in the sense that aliens interfered with life on earth. They did not leave earth in its "natural state."
If you're making the argument that aliens are a natural phenomena of the universe, well, then things deteriorate into a semantic game the definition of "natural."
Funny how radical Christians are always extolling their faith at the same time they desperately grasp for evidence to prove God's existence.
So, how do you explain the decline of the Roman and Greek cultures, and the 1000 years of ignorance, barbarism, and religious fervor that followed? I'd say that was more than a minor setback.
It's not wise so complacent about the ultimate triumph of science. There's no evidence supporting your hypothesis. My advice: remain vigilant and do you what you can to fight ignorance when you see it.
Compare the second definition to the first. The first defintion seeks for "natural explanations". Notice the second defintion leaves this out, leaving the door open to other kinds of explanations, like an alien from another planet or some kind of supernatural being.
It got over 3000 comments, actually.
Mod up the AC. Google is collecting many data dots about you. It would not take much for them to connect them to create an accurate picture of your hobbies, interests, and buying habits. This is every marketer's dream. Corporations will buy this data and purchase very precise profiles of each of us, enabling them to efficiently shake even more money from our wallets using all sorts of psychological enticements that will be very hard to defend against.
In my haste I didn't choose my words carefully. I should have said, "For a theory to ever be proven false, it must supply evidence." He supplies no evidence. He can never supply evidence. Therefore, it is impossible to prove his theory of ID false.
Stating that natural selection cannot adequately explain some biological machines is not evidence of ID.
I ask you, what evidence does Michael Behe have for ID?
It's impossible to disprove something that hasn't been proven in the first place. ID has never been proven to be true and therefore cannot be proven to be false.
All Behe does is challenge how natural selection can account for the development of certain complex biological mechanisms. Mounting a challenge does nothing to prove that his hypothesis of intelligent design is correct.
Similarly, though well understood, there are still some unknowns about the phenomena of thunder and lightning. But this gap in knowledge doesn't give me license to say this proves the existence of the IMFT. I also cannot say, "My theory is true until falsifiable. Until you can find an explanation, ID is the only answer." That's ridiculous. Behe is letting his devotion to his religion (Catholocism) muddy his thinking.
I've got a theory I made up, just like this Michael Behe fellow, that lightening requires an intelligent being to make the electons flow through the sky. I call this theory "intelligent motive force theory." Go ahead, prove me wrong. I bet you can't. Therefore, intelligent motive force must be real, right?
So, one man, with absolutely one shred of evidence for his hypothesis that evolution can't explain everything, should automatically be accepted until it's proven wrong? Sorry, that's not quite how the scientific method works.
Those who believe in intelligent design are no different from people who thought thunder and lightning came from the gods because they had no other explanation for it. Fortunatley, individuals who looked for natural causes applied the scientific method and discovered the answer.
The scientific method doesn't allow for assuming that when you don't know the answer, it's eveidence of a god.
You see, there's this theory that when you put your tooth under your pillow, you'll get money from the tooth fairy. It's a perfectly valid theory, right? After all, you aren't able to disprove this theory, are you? Can you find a way to disprove the existence of the tooth fairy?
Well, The reason not to believe in ID is the same reason for not believing in the tooth fairy. There is absolutely no evidence for the tooth fairy's existence and there are much better explanations for how the money got under your pillow. Just because you can't disprove the tooth fairy theory, doesn't make it a viable option.
Go dig ditches. If it's a union job, you might actually be able to raise a family doing that.
Bogus argument: "If you're poor and uneducated, what are you doing to change the situation? Are you educating yourself using the millions of programs and libraries that exist for that purpose? Are you making your kids take advantage of everything they can so that they can excel despite your poverty situaion?"
Let's assume everybody in the U.S. gets a PH.D. Then you'd have PH.D's running cahsiers at Wal-Mart, PH.Ds wiping your ass when you get old, and PH.Ds digging your grave.
The fundamental problem is that the jobs that exist---jobs people bust their asses at working 40 hours+ per week---don't pay shit. Meanwhile, those who have gamed the system and are well-connected make out like bandits off the backs of others. There is a basic inequity in how wealth is distributed in this country that cannot be addressed by education alone.