Well, kids are a great example of why I would like to START ripping DVDs.
I can tune out the 421st showing of Dumbo. But what I have trouble tuning out are the 10 minutes of advertisements that Disney tacks on IN FRONT of Dumbo. There is a 5 second window when I can press a button on the remote to skip the advertisements, if I miss it, I must either watch the advertisements, or eject/inject the disc again and sit through the FBI warning (doesn't hold on all players, one of my players can jump to the root menu after the advertisements start).
I would really like to rip a copy of Dumbo that starts playing as soon as I put the disc in, removes macrovision and encryption. I'd also like to transcode it to fit on a 4.7GB DVD. Yes, I know it sounds like I want to pirate the movie, but really I just want control over how I watch a movie I legally paid for! (okay, that's a little white lie, my mother bought the kids the Dumbo movie.)
Can anybody point me at a utility (Linux or Windows, I have both) that does this without me having to baby step it through 5 different utilities and a hundred command line options?
No I mustn't. I can support fair use of small clips for things such as bonafide criticism of a performance. It is completely consistent with my stance on copyright to deride Geller's use of DMCA to muzzle those who would expose his methods. The case in point concerns 8 SECONDS of video. I call that fair use, consistent with my support of copyright law.
One of my favorite Bill-quotes of all time (as opposed to the 640K quote which apparently he never actually said). Just for Bill, I have written a python function to factor large prime numbers. It has a time complexity of O(1):
f = lambda p: (1,p)
It returns a collection containing the factors of any prime number passed, try it!
Back in my day, we didn't have 'extended science missions' or 'new duties.' Our spacecraft impacted other planets at high velocity and smashed into a billion tiny fragments, AND WE LIKED IT!
Truth: AMD listed a product they intended to release at the time but subsequently withdrew.
This article references AMD's CURRENT MARKETING page on Barcelona performance.
Go to www.amd.com ->Processors ->Multi-core ->Products ->Barcelona ->Performance (You may have to select language in there somewhere)
I don't see how calling AMD out on this is in any way inappropriate because they continue to use it.
Truth: AMD used the most current Intel scores available at the time. Improved scores came from an improved compiler - which may well change AMD's scores too. Either way, it wasn't available at the time of writing.
Are you trying to imply that AMD has had no reason to update their current performance page on Barcelona? I wonder why.
Truth: Those Intel processors weren't released at the time of writing and no benchmarks existed.
Has AMD fired its marketing department? I'm going to guess that the reason they have not updated their current literature is because the news isn't good.
This is also irrelevant. For a subpoena its sufficient that it be assigned to a particular individual. There will be time later to argue whether or not the assigned user was in control of the equipment using that IP address, though this is certainly a worthwhile avenue to explore for the defense.
This is true.
Unfortunately the Modus Operandi of the RIAA is to send the assigned user a settlement statement to the effect of "pay us $3,000 or we'll sue you." This is what has the community screaming. They are perfectly happy to bully the innocent. Many people, even if they were the victim of mistaken identification, will pay up rather than risk an expensive legal battle. Having done so, the RIAA now has another notch in its belt when it goes to congress to ask for even more draconian legislation.
It may be tied to a specific computer. Or a specific router / firewall. Or even a specific UNSECURED wireless access point.
Agreed.
Furthermore Mr. Linares knows, or should have known this is true. It would have been completely negligent for him not to do so. Wireless routers for home users which allow a single IP address to service 20+ individual computers and ship unsecured by default can be purchased at any electronics dealer, including Walmart, for less than $70.
Furthermore Mr. Linares knows, or should have known, that IP redirector (or "bounce") programs have been a staple of internet anonymity for at least two decades. These packet bouncers were commonly used to anonymise IRC connections and were often illegally installed on other computers without the computer operators knowledge. Therefore these computers which have been identified could have been hijacked using an internet tool that is at least 20 years old. Mr. Linares could not reasonably be ignorant of them.
Mr. Linares must have known that his statements regarding the reliability of IP addresses were false and self-serving, and he intentionally misrepresented this to the court under penalty of perjury.
I'm just sayin' that I think there should be a law against intentional misrepresentation to the court, and maybe some penalties as well.
No disrespect to Matt or anything, but no that isn't better. The second link in particular isn't germane to the discussion of AI90 because it covers the Core Solo/Duo. There are over 100 MILLION of those systems installed, that errata list is a year and a half old, and there are no known exploits for any of those.
So as to his actual theoretical exploit of AI90... He's guessing, and some of his guessing doesn't seem sound.
it will result in unexpected modifications to the page table page and numerous operating systems may free such pages to the page-zerod page list under the assumption that they cleaned the page out when in fact there may be a page table entry with the access bit set (meaning the page wasn't completely zerod when freed). That could cause problems.
I really can't completely parse what is being said here. He seems to imply that the OS may handle accessed pages differently from non-accessed pages in a dangerous way. A strict reading of what he says indicates the OS will zero accessed pages and not non-accessed pages, which makes no sense. If you are going to start zapping page tables entries you should zap all pages associated with a particular program, irrespective of their accessed state. If it is a page not associated with the faulting program, it shouldn't be freed whether it has been accessed or not.
The A bit (page accessed) is a tuning parameter for use by the OS. Most OSes set it by default because you incur a performance penalty to set the bit (setting it requires a hidden R/M/W cycle with the #LOCK asserted). Incorrectly setting it could lead to incorrect tuning, but that is not an exploit. It has yet to be proposed how this parameter intended for debug and tuning can be exploited.
I would be convinced if I could see an OS exploit that would show up in response to this erratum, but not in response to correct handling of A bit setting on the processor. All theoretical attacks so far seem to exist on an OS that could also be attacked by writing a program that selectively accesses or does not access some of its pages.
This example doesn't indicate whether the access was a write or a read.
The part where I mention code segment limit was the tip off that this was code execution. Or you could have just read AI90.
The erratum specifically states this happens during code execution and your code segment limit is near the end of the page. If you try and execute outside the code segment limit, the A flag of the subsequent page may get set before the page fault happens. If you don't try and execute outside the limit, nothing happens. It wasn't a write, code execution is a read from a hardware perspective but architecturally is something slightly different.
I really hate to jump in on this attack/apologist love fest going on here, but I have to agree that Theo is really crying foul without giving any substance to his argument other than "something exploitable MUST be in there." I have to state, as others have, that I find this sort of attack rather poor taste unless something of more substance can be brought to bear.
Case in point: AI90. Theo claims this is already "exploitable" in some OSes (not his). Okay.. well... What does this exploit look like? Does it cause a crash? A hang? Increase privilege level? Arbitrary code execution? Delay of a couple microseconds because the VMM is less likely to swap the page out?
Code segment limit is a way of saying "not all of this 4K page is executable" but most OSes don't use it. Either a page is in the code segment, or it isn't (which is why OpenBSD is immune.) But let us say for convenience that you have an OS that uses code segment limit. And let us further suppose that you stumble upon this error. What must now happen to have an exploit?
This is where my knowledge of OS design perhaps hits a stumbling block. This erratum says that the next page may be marked as accessed, even though it hasn't actually been accessed. In order for this to be exploitable, the OS must perform some operations that affect this not-really-accessed page without checking the accessed bit. What operation? And what OS?
What is it about this flaw that would lead one to avoid a Core2 CPU for your next purchase? Considering that this the most prominent example, I'd think he could show some more concrete example of the danger of this flaw (since it scares the hell out of him).
1) The Pentium FDIV bug produced an incorrect answer in 1 in 9 billion double precision floating point divides. It did not affect integer divides. 2) The answer always contained at least 14 correct significant bits (usually more, but an error in the 15th significant bit was the worst case). The means that single precision calculations were almost invariably correct. 3) Any hack to solve the problem would have been hundreds of times slower than just living with a small error in so few calculations. 4) All games today get by just fine using single precision floats for rendering. 5) It took a guy (Thomas Nicely) with a Ph.D. doing heavy research in computational number theory to find it, yet you found it while working on a game in QuickBasic.
I think Nicely said it best in his FDIV flaw FAQ:
Bear in mind, however, that the likelihood is 1000 to 1000000 times greater that any erroneous results obtained on a Pentium are due to software errors, rather than any error in the CPU.
and also:
Over a period of five years, no person was ever able to collect a reward offered for exhibiting (other than with a code artificially contrived to demonstrate the error), on either of two workplace systems intentionally left with flawed CPUs installed, an error caused by the flaw.
Sure, some people would look at evolution and assume a clever god must of created it. Unfortunately for them, there is no evidence to support that idea
Unfortunately for everyone, there is no evidence remaining to tell us anything about how life got started here on earth. We could come up with a theory of how it might have started, but the evidence for what actually happened has been washed away (or eaten for food by early organisms). Assuming that God created evolution is certainly not a naturalistic or scientific position, but unless that assumption creeps into your research there is really nothing wrong with it.
According to evolution, every fossil is an intermediate form between what it was and what it will be. The whole "where are the intermediate forms?" question is based on a gross misunderstanding of evolution. To find an intermediate form you need: conditions conducive to forming a fossil (usually volcanic activity), an animal needs to die then get buried before scavengers find his corpse, that location needs to remain buried until the present day and we need to be looking at the right place. We should be thankful we get as many fossils as we do. Pretty amazing to think that those bones have sat in one place, undisturbed, for 100 million years.
If you really want to see an intermediate form, there are several. Turn your attention to Archaeopteryx. He has features that are decidedly in between a reptile and a bird. We also have Ambulocetans which is between a land-lubber and a cetacean. And there are also plenty of examples of mammal-like reptiles (or are they reptile-like mammals?)
You can't evolve a complex system in a single step. Unfortunately, there are many biological structures, such as winged flight, eyes, and the cellular machinery for reproducing DNA, which cannot be derived from simpler biological structures.
Considering the plethora of primitive eyes in extant species, it sure seems like there is a step-wise mechanism to get from point A to point B.
Reproducing DNA, however, is a complicated process that requires the right building-blocks (G, A, C, T), and a protein enzyme that can unwind the original DNA strand and copy it onto the new one.
It would also seem as if early life would have needed to be composed of something other than DNA. Rather than two intertwined helices, maybe something with only one. Let's call it "RNA" just for kicks.
All I'm trying to say is the the creationists do have a point - observable facts are not 100% in favor of either theory, and there is room for additional research.
For instance? I'm willing to consider whatever you have to offer, but please do some research and keep the discussion away from abiogenesis.
Everybody used to think that the earth was flat and that everything revolved around the sun.
No, the educated have for thousands of years known the earth was a sphere.
The bible clearly contradicted both of these theories and later science caught up with the bible.
So how high was that mountain in Matthew 4:8 where all the kingdoms of the world could be seen? I'd think that a little difficult if the earth were a sphere.
Same thing with sanitation.
Oh you mean the one that says if you have an STD wash in running water, but otherwise use stagnant water? (You should really be careful about reading literal translations of Hebrew euphemisms.)
No real evidence has ever been discovered (or much less reproduced) that one kind of animal can bring forth an animal of a different kind: i.e. a fish giving birth to a frog.
Wow, you're fond of lying, aren't you? You must hate yourself. Not only has speciation been observed, but evolution doesn't say that a fish would give birth to a frog.
You might also want to read how the fossils and rock layers are dated (spoiler: they are used to date each other... circular reasoning).
I thought you just said you hated lying... And yet you just did it, again, right there. (Spoiler: Geological dating has gold standards. Reference fossils always depend on radiometric geological dating.)
Oh BULL SHIT. I have argued with enough creationists to know they absolutely love to lie. When you point out what they are saying isn't true, they say "Oh, we weren't lying, we just didn't know." Then a week later you will catch them telling THE SAME DAMNED LIE.
Case in point: Nebraska Man.
Nebraska man wasn't even a hoax. It was wishful thinking that was rejected by all scientists looking at it EXCEPT for one scientist who was hoping to make a name for himself by finding a new hominid. The "drawings" of Nebraska man were never represented as anything but a "possibility" and was stated up front it was a commissioned piece of artwork based on nothing. All that was available for Nebraska man was a tooth (which turned out to belong to an extinct pig). Science did not accept Nebraska Man because the evidence for his existence was, well, essentially non-existent.
Do you want me to list how many main stream creationists attacking evolution have brought up Nebraska Man? Hovind, Ray Comfort, Ken Hamm... they just love to point out Nebraska Man even though everything they say about it is essentially a tale they made up themselves.
Okay, here's one of Hovind's arguments against the Pangea theory:
"I bet they never told ya they shrank Africa 40% to make it fit."
I'm not going to waste much space here, but it doesn't take a genius to figure out this is incorrect. What Hovind did is fail at the map maker's dilemma. There is no way to draw a proportion-correct spherical surface onto a flat surface. Africa wasn't shrunk except in that its projection onto a flat screen had to be distorted to fit. Cartographers have multiple projections for this depending on what they are trying to express (space-filling, equal area, etc.).
You may not agree with creationists, but they are hardly ignorant of questions like this. Here's a couple of links which indicate they have at least explored these issues:
Forked seams sabotage swamp theory
Oil in less than a century?
Too much coal for a young earth?
Okay, I'll admit that I only read "Oil in less than a century" but good heavens that has got to be the worst evidence imaginable. For starters: oil is used in leatherwork, so you need to ensure that you are looking at newly created oil. Secondly leather is not expected to turn into oil. If leather does turn into oil, they've happened upon quite a discovery. Thirdly, everything in that link was hearsay "yeah we heard this report from someone who said." If their discovery were genuine, they'd parade it around the world. Heck if oil could be produced in the earth in less than a century, they owe it to society to say something. We could use that information to find new sources of oil.
Can you be required to divulge the decryption key? IANAL, but I assume that you can be held in contempt of court (or something) by refusing to offer it up, leading to criminal charges, fines, and/or jail time. In any case, I doubt you can just give the RIAA the bird and say "Nah nah, can't touch this" because your stuff is encrypted.
IANAL either (so take this with a grain of appropriately sized salt)...
You can refuse to give out your key, but since this is a civil proceeding, the 5th amendment does not apply. If you refuse to give out your key, the judge may hold you in contempt, or may just give the RIAA a default judgment.
Do the smart thing:
TrueCrypt has an option to store the "real" information in the apparently "unused" portion of your truecrypt volume (called 'hidden volume'). There is no way to tell if this unused portion is a hidden volume or unused space. Store the stuff that would get you in trouble there.
People flocked to my store, knowing that they (and their children) could safely purchase records without profanity or violent lyrics ...I grabbed the little shit by his shirt... ...take yourself and your little bitch friend out of my store...
Wow. Now I see why the CDs don't contain profanity or violent lyrics. There's plenty right there in the store.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, kids are a great example of why I would like to START ripping DVDs.
I can tune out the 421st showing of Dumbo. But what I have trouble tuning out are the 10 minutes of advertisements that Disney tacks on IN FRONT of Dumbo. There is a 5 second window when I can press a button on the remote to skip the advertisements, if I miss it, I must either watch the advertisements, or eject/inject the disc again and sit through the FBI warning (doesn't hold on all players, one of my players can jump to the root menu after the advertisements start).
I would really like to rip a copy of Dumbo that starts playing as soon as I put the disc in, removes macrovision and encryption. I'd also like to transcode it to fit on a 4.7GB DVD. Yes, I know it sounds like I want to pirate the movie, but really I just want control over how I watch a movie I legally paid for! (okay, that's a little white lie, my mother bought the kids the Dumbo movie.)
Can anybody point me at a utility (Linux or Windows, I have both) that does this without me having to baby step it through 5 different utilities and a hundred command line options?
No I mustn't. I can support fair use of small clips for things such as bonafide criticism of a performance. It is completely consistent with my stance on copyright to deride Geller's use of DMCA to muzzle those who would expose his methods. The case in point concerns 8 SECONDS of video. I call that fair use, consistent with my support of copyright law.
Just because you say it's so, don't make it so.
For all interested parties, there is more info on the Maelstrom II short movie here:
k e/MaelstromII/MaelstromII.html
http://home.comcast.net/~jeroen-lapre/ArthurCClar
Back in my day, we didn't have 'extended science missions' or 'new duties.' Our spacecraft impacted other planets at high velocity and smashed into a billion tiny fragments, AND WE LIKED IT!
Truth: AMD listed a product they intended to release at the time but subsequently withdrew.
This article references AMD's CURRENT MARKETING page on Barcelona performance.
Go to www.amd.com
->Processors
->Multi-core
->Products
->Barcelona
->Performance
(You may have to select language in there somewhere)
I don't see how calling AMD out on this is in any way inappropriate because they continue to use it.
Truth: AMD used the most current Intel scores available at the time. Improved scores came from an improved compiler - which may well change AMD's scores too. Either way, it wasn't available at the time of writing.
Are you trying to imply that AMD has had no reason to update their current performance page on Barcelona? I wonder why.
Truth: Those Intel processors weren't released at the time of writing and no benchmarks existed.
Has AMD fired its marketing department? I'm going to guess that the reason they have not updated their current literature is because the news isn't good.
This is also irrelevant. For a subpoena its sufficient that it be assigned to a particular individual. There will be time later to argue whether or not the assigned user was in control of the equipment using that IP address, though this is certainly a worthwhile avenue to explore for the defense.
This is true.
Unfortunately the Modus Operandi of the RIAA is to send the assigned user a settlement statement to the effect of "pay us $3,000 or we'll sue you." This is what has the community screaming. They are perfectly happy to bully the innocent. Many people, even if they were the victim of mistaken identification, will pay up rather than risk an expensive legal battle. Having done so, the RIAA now has another notch in its belt when it goes to congress to ask for even more draconian legislation.
It may be tied to a specific computer. Or a specific router / firewall. Or even a specific UNSECURED wireless access point.
Agreed.
Furthermore Mr. Linares knows, or should have known this is true. It would have been completely negligent for him not to do so. Wireless routers for home users which allow a single IP address to service 20+ individual computers and ship unsecured by default can be purchased at any electronics dealer, including Walmart, for less than $70.
Furthermore Mr. Linares knows, or should have known, that IP redirector (or "bounce") programs have been a staple of internet anonymity for at least two decades. These packet bouncers were commonly used to anonymise IRC connections and were often illegally installed on other computers without the computer operators knowledge. Therefore these computers which have been identified could have been hijacked using an internet tool that is at least 20 years old. Mr. Linares could not reasonably be ignorant of them.
Mr. Linares must have known that his statements regarding the reliability of IP addresses were false and self-serving, and he intentionally misrepresented this to the court under penalty of perjury.
I'm just sayin' that I think there should be a law against intentional misrepresentation to the court, and maybe some penalties as well.
No disrespect to Matt or anything, but no that isn't better. The second link in particular isn't germane to the discussion of AI90 because it covers the Core Solo/Duo. There are over 100 MILLION of those systems installed, that errata list is a year and a half old, and there are no known exploits for any of those.
So as to his actual theoretical exploit of AI90... He's guessing, and some of his guessing doesn't seem sound.
it will result in unexpected modifications to the page table page and numerous operating systems may free such pages to the page-zerod page list under the assumption that they cleaned the page out when in fact there may be a page table entry with the access bit set (meaning the page wasn't completely zerod when freed). That could cause problems.
I really can't completely parse what is being said here. He seems to imply that the OS may handle accessed pages differently from non-accessed pages in a dangerous way. A strict reading of what he says indicates the OS will zero accessed pages and not non-accessed pages, which makes no sense. If you are going to start zapping page tables entries you should zap all pages associated with a particular program, irrespective of their accessed state. If it is a page not associated with the faulting program, it shouldn't be freed whether it has been accessed or not.
The A bit (page accessed) is a tuning parameter for use by the OS. Most OSes set it by default because you incur a performance penalty to set the bit (setting it requires a hidden R/M/W cycle with the #LOCK asserted). Incorrectly setting it could lead to incorrect tuning, but that is not an exploit. It has yet to be proposed how this parameter intended for debug and tuning can be exploited.
I would be convinced if I could see an OS exploit that would show up in response to this erratum, but not in response to correct handling of A bit setting on the processor. All theoretical attacks so far seem to exist on an OS that could also be attacked by writing a program that selectively accesses or does not access some of its pages.
Oh and they max out at 32GB of ram whereas you can get a DL585g2 which can economically go to 64GB
Gosh, I sure wish HP would put an Intel processor in the DL580g4. That way there'd be a platform that would max out at 64GB of ram. Oh, wait...
This example doesn't indicate whether the access was a write or a read.
The part where I mention code segment limit was the tip off that this was code execution. Or you could have just read AI90.
The erratum specifically states this happens during code execution and your code segment limit is near the end of the page. If you try and execute outside the code segment limit, the A flag of the subsequent page may get set before the page fault happens. If you don't try and execute outside the limit, nothing happens. It wasn't a write, code execution is a read from a hardware perspective but architecturally is something slightly different.
I really hate to jump in on this attack/apologist love fest going on here, but I have to agree that Theo is really crying foul without giving any substance to his argument other than "something exploitable MUST be in there." I have to state, as others have, that I find this sort of attack rather poor taste unless something of more substance can be brought to bear.
Case in point: AI90. Theo claims this is already "exploitable" in some OSes (not his). Okay.. well... What does this exploit look like? Does it cause a crash? A hang? Increase privilege level? Arbitrary code execution? Delay of a couple microseconds because the VMM is less likely to swap the page out?
Code segment limit is a way of saying "not all of this 4K page is executable" but most OSes don't use it. Either a page is in the code segment, or it isn't (which is why OpenBSD is immune.) But let us say for convenience that you have an OS that uses code segment limit. And let us further suppose that you stumble upon this error. What must now happen to have an exploit?
This is where my knowledge of OS design perhaps hits a stumbling block. This erratum says that the next page may be marked as accessed, even though it hasn't actually been accessed. In order for this to be exploitable, the OS must perform some operations that affect this not-really-accessed page without checking the accessed bit. What operation? And what OS?
What is it about this flaw that would lead one to avoid a Core2 CPU for your next purchase? Considering that this the most prominent example, I'd think he could show some more concrete example of the danger of this flaw (since it scares the hell out of him).
1) The Pentium FDIV bug produced an incorrect answer in 1 in 9 billion double precision floating point divides. It did not affect integer divides.
2) The answer always contained at least 14 correct significant bits (usually more, but an error in the 15th significant bit was the worst case). The means that single precision calculations were almost invariably correct.
3) Any hack to solve the problem would have been hundreds of times slower than just living with a small error in so few calculations.
4) All games today get by just fine using single precision floats for rendering.
5) It took a guy (Thomas Nicely) with a Ph.D. doing heavy research in computational number theory to find it, yet you found it while working on a game in QuickBasic.
I think Nicely said it best in his FDIV flaw FAQ:and also:
Sure, some people would look at evolution and assume a clever god must of created it. Unfortunately for them, there is no evidence to support that idea
Unfortunately for everyone, there is no evidence remaining to tell us anything about how life got started here on earth. We could come up with a theory of how it might have started, but the evidence for what actually happened has been washed away (or eaten for food by early organisms). Assuming that God created evolution is certainly not a naturalistic or scientific position, but unless that assumption creeps into your research there is really nothing wrong with it.
I believe this conference was "public as in beer" not "public as in speech."
That should clear it up for everyone.
Somebody please submit this comment to fstdt.com!
According to evolution, every fossil is an intermediate form between what it was and what it will be. The whole "where are the intermediate forms?" question is based on a gross misunderstanding of evolution. To find an intermediate form you need: conditions conducive to forming a fossil (usually volcanic activity), an animal needs to die then get buried before scavengers find his corpse, that location needs to remain buried until the present day and we need to be looking at the right place. We should be thankful we get as many fossils as we do. Pretty amazing to think that those bones have sat in one place, undisturbed, for 100 million years.
If you really want to see an intermediate form, there are several. Turn your attention to Archaeopteryx. He has features that are decidedly in between a reptile and a bird. We also have Ambulocetans which is between a land-lubber and a cetacean. And there are also plenty of examples of mammal-like reptiles (or are they reptile-like mammals?)
You can't evolve a complex system in a single step. Unfortunately, there are many biological structures, such as winged flight, eyes, and the cellular machinery for reproducing DNA, which cannot be derived from simpler biological structures.
Considering the plethora of primitive eyes in extant species, it sure seems like there is a step-wise mechanism to get from point A to point B.
Reproducing DNA, however, is a complicated process that requires the right building-blocks (G, A, C, T), and a protein enzyme that can unwind the original DNA strand and copy it onto the new one.
It would also seem as if early life would have needed to be composed of something other than DNA. Rather than two intertwined helices, maybe something with only one. Let's call it "RNA" just for kicks.
All I'm trying to say is the the creationists do have a point - observable facts are not 100% in favor of either theory, and there is room for additional research.
For instance? I'm willing to consider whatever you have to offer, but please do some research and keep the discussion away from abiogenesis.
Everybody used to think that the earth was flat and that everything revolved around the sun.
No, the educated have for thousands of years known the earth was a sphere.
The bible clearly contradicted both of these theories and later science caught up with the bible.
So how high was that mountain in Matthew 4:8 where all the kingdoms of the world could be seen? I'd think that a little difficult if the earth were a sphere.
Same thing with sanitation.
Oh you mean the one that says if you have an STD wash in running water, but otherwise use stagnant water? (You should really be careful about reading literal translations of Hebrew euphemisms.)
No real evidence has ever been discovered (or much less reproduced) that one kind of animal can bring forth an animal of a different kind: i.e. a fish giving birth to a frog.
Wow, you're fond of lying, aren't you? You must hate yourself. Not only has speciation been observed, but evolution doesn't say that a fish would give birth to a frog.
You might also want to read how the fossils and rock layers are dated (spoiler: they are used to date each other... circular reasoning).
I thought you just said you hated lying... And yet you just did it, again, right there. (Spoiler: Geological dating has gold standards. Reference fossils always depend on radiometric geological dating.)
There are even fossilized dinosaur tracks with human footprints going through them.
No there aren't
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/tsite.html
Creationists love science. We object to lies.
Oh BULL SHIT. I have argued with enough creationists to know they absolutely love to lie. When you point out what they are saying isn't true, they say "Oh, we weren't lying, we just didn't know." Then a week later you will catch them telling THE SAME DAMNED LIE.
Case in point: Nebraska Man.
Nebraska man wasn't even a hoax. It was wishful thinking that was rejected by all scientists looking at it EXCEPT for one scientist who was hoping to make a name for himself by finding a new hominid. The "drawings" of Nebraska man were never represented as anything but a "possibility" and was stated up front it was a commissioned piece of artwork based on nothing. All that was available for Nebraska man was a tooth (which turned out to belong to an extinct pig). Science did not accept Nebraska Man because the evidence for his existence was, well, essentially non-existent.
Do you want me to list how many main stream creationists attacking evolution have brought up Nebraska Man? Hovind, Ray Comfort, Ken Hamm... they just love to point out Nebraska Man even though everything they say about it is essentially a tale they made up themselves.
Okay, here's one of Hovind's arguments against the Pangea theory:
"I bet they never told ya they shrank Africa 40% to make it fit."
I'm not going to waste much space here, but it doesn't take a genius to figure out this is incorrect. What Hovind did is fail at the map maker's dilemma. There is no way to draw a proportion-correct spherical surface onto a flat surface. Africa wasn't shrunk except in that its projection onto a flat screen had to be distorted to fit. Cartographers have multiple projections for this depending on what they are trying to express (space-filling, equal area, etc.).
You may not agree with creationists, but they are hardly ignorant of questions like this. Here's a couple of links which indicate they have at least explored these issues:
Forked seams sabotage swamp theory
Oil in less than a century?
Too much coal for a young earth?
Okay, I'll admit that I only read "Oil in less than a century" but good heavens that has got to be the worst evidence imaginable. For starters: oil is used in leatherwork, so you need to ensure that you are looking at newly created oil. Secondly leather is not expected to turn into oil. If leather does turn into oil, they've happened upon quite a discovery. Thirdly, everything in that link was hearsay "yeah we heard this report from someone who said." If their discovery were genuine, they'd parade it around the world. Heck if oil could be produced in the earth in less than a century, they owe it to society to say something. We could use that information to find new sources of oil.
I call shenanigans.
Can you be required to divulge the decryption key? IANAL, but I assume that you can be held in contempt of court (or something) by refusing to offer it up, leading to criminal charges, fines, and/or jail time. In any case, I doubt you can just give the RIAA the bird and say "Nah nah, can't touch this" because your stuff is encrypted.
IANAL either (so take this with a grain of appropriately sized salt)...
You can refuse to give out your key, but since this is a civil proceeding, the 5th amendment does not apply. If you refuse to give out your key, the judge may hold you in contempt, or may just give the RIAA a default judgment.
Do the smart thing:
TrueCrypt has an option to store the "real" information in the apparently "unused" portion of your truecrypt volume (called 'hidden volume'). There is no way to tell if this unused portion is a hidden volume or unused space. Store the stuff that would get you in trouble there.
Yeah I was wondering how those dens saved them from drowning.
(That was sarcasm. This is a note for the sarcasm impaired.)
People flocked to my store, knowing that they (and their children) could safely purchase records without profanity or violent lyrics
...I grabbed the little shit by his shirt...
...take yourself and your little bitch friend out of my store...
Wow. Now I see why the CDs don't contain profanity or violent lyrics. There's plenty right there in the store.