Your perfect woman wouldn't need to have arms or legs?
Assuming you're the typical immature online male, and this "perfect woman" is for purely sexual purposes, there are quite a few things that can't be done without arms or legs.
Her on top, doggy, hand jobs, etc.
And if you're not a typical immature male, and you actually want a relationship with this "perfect woman," then you're pushing around an invalid strapped into a wheelchair, who you made that way by choice/laziness.
She may be the perfect woman, but you're as far from the perfect guy as could be imagined.
I don't know a heck of a lot about nanorobots and such, so I don't know whether it's possible or not, but if placing atoms with 100% accuracy is possible, shouldn't it also be possible to _remove_ atoms with 100% accuracy?
In that case, would it be possible to build something that disassembles atmospheric carbon dioxide, and build pencil lead and release oxygen in the process?
Of course, then you get into the problem of the energy stored in chemical bonds, and the energy required to overcome that. I have no idea if/how that applies to nanoscale robots, since they're mechanically working on individual atoms, rather than a bulk chemical reaction.
Because I really find value in testing my OWN network.
If you don't, then you don't really understand security. The point is, these dictionaries are already available to the people with their evil bit set. If you're going "nobody's going to figure out this password," especially if you're running a business, you really should be _making sure_ that nobody's going to figure it out, rather than going on faith.
Unless you have a multi-tens-of-millions word dictionary yourself, so you can make sure that your WPA passphrase isn't in it, you're not properly protecting your network.
The "out-of-the-box" remote admin abilities of Windows and Linux are both.....nil. Due to the firewall, you can't connect to remotely manage either of them.
Once the user turns off the firewall, sure, Linux wins. But that's not what we're talking about here.
And once you've got the user to turn off the firewall, you can use "random-SMB-exploit-du-jour" and install whatever you want to remotely admin the Windows machine.
That doesn't make Linux less secure than Windows. That makes the user just as insecure as the same uneducated fool running Windows.
1) Newbie Windows users who are having problems with their systems will pretty much click on anything as any user you tell them to in a desparate hope to get IE working again.
2) Windows settings dialogs on their own can look very cryptic to the uninitiated. Add into that the scripting abilities of cmd.exe... HAHAHA...ok.. I can't complete that thought without falling out of my chair. But, a new Windows users won't be able to differentiate a malicious click from one that will get their Freecell working again.
3) The out-of-the-box remote admin abilities of Windows are excellent. (At least...as good as they are for Linux. Considering that both have a firewall by default, which you have to get the user to turn off in order to be able to remote admin the box...)
4) Standard tools like BackOrifice can easily be used to establish out-connecting remote management sessions.
5) OR, you can just get them to IE download and click your favourite piece of malware.
See? It's not Linux. It's the user. Every security problem you mentioned applies equally to every operating system on the planet. Except the odd few that don't have networking abilities.....
Basically, you do a "before" snapshot, install the VNC server, set your password and anything else you want to configure, then do the "after" snapshot.
It pretty much just runs a diff on the filesystem and registry, and puts the diff file into an.msi.
There are a few things you'll need to take out, that are false positives, but it does a pretty good job of filtering things like clock changes and other mundane stuff by itself.
Find the contact page on the link in my sig and drop me an email if you want any more help.
In that case, it would obviously be a copyright issue between Murdoch's news company, and the site that crawled the pages on Fox News.
If somebody gives you something, stating that they have the right to give it to you, and it turns out they don't, then your transaction was done in good faith. The somebody who gave it to you, however, is in trouble.
There are laws against receiving stolen goods in many countries, which could be argued to be somewhat analagous to this (other than that's theft, not copyright) but I don't know of any such law that makes it illegal to receive stolen goods if you had good reason to believe they were not, in fact, stolen.
I also use reverse VNC, which is nice. You have to open up a port on our own router, have the VNC viewer listening on the right port, and then setup the reverse VNC binary to connect to your computer (ultravnc has easy programs for this), but it's reliable and pretty simple for end-users... one download, one click, done.
I've done remote support for years through my business. I've used a custom MSI of TightVNC with the password already set, along with OpenVPN. That allows the customer to connect securely to my network, without worrying about a router and port forwarding. Just download the software, install, and it works. OpenVPN also eliminates the security problem of having unencrypted VNC running over the Internet.
The UltraVNC SingleClick, though, I've just started looking at as a replacement. Built in encryption, easier install for the end user, and complete uninstall when it's finished.
Security is still an issue, though, even with the built in encryption, because it's a static key, rather than PKI. Anybody who can download the SingleClick installer (which is anybody with an IP address) can also get the encryption key used. So it would be easy for anybody to eavesdrop on a connection and intercept all traffic.
OpenVPN with custom certificates eliminates this (which you can generate on the fly from a PHP script, so every single customer is using their own encryption), so I'll still be using it for a lot of customers, even if I completely move over to UltraVNC SC.
New devices and software may have bugs which affect performance. Patches may be required for correct performance when exposed to unexpected conditions.
I read the article.
Nowhere does it mention that these are new products. Only that they're newly used within any given company.
It also mentions that patching to fix problems is a problem in itself, with 20% of products failing to accept patches properly.
I dunno, let's ask Toyota or Honda why they just can't get people to stop buying Chevys. Oh wait, the car industry doesn't work the way you seem to assume it does.
When you'd rather attack the messenger, than debate, especially when the attack on the messenger is _provably wrong_, then you don't have much of anything to stand on, do you?
Errrmm...what? Who said anything about overturning of DNA? I certainly didn't.
See? That's exactly what evolutionists tend to do. They're the masters of the strawman argument.
Now, since you so conclusively put me in my place without any evidence whatsoever, I'd like to as you:
the mountains of evidence that quite conclusively show that evolution is a fact.
What mountain of evidence? Show me something that conclusively proves that evolution is a fact. Anything. Anything at all. And don't say "it's everywhere...I don't need to show it to you." If it's everywhere, it should be pathetically easy for you to find.
The point is, everything is open to interpretation. You take it as proof, when it's all subject to the viewer's bias.
The Catholic Church has to refine and revise it's mission statement every time real science debunks it's faith-based beliefs.
Not that I think the Catholics are doing everything right, by any means....but I have yet to see a statement like this that's backed up with any actual evidence, that's not questioned by at least a significant chunk of the scientific community.
What beliefs have been debunked recently? And I don't mean unimportant shit like the Center of the Universe argument from centuries ago. I mean something recent, related to evolution/intelligent design, and relevant to the existence/nonexistence of God.
(And BTW...Intelligent Design and Creationism are two completely different things. The fact that evolutionists frequently try to equate the two shows just how little they know about either. It also turns into a strawman argument. "You believe in Intelligent Design, so you also believe a Pink Unicorn sneezed the universe out of it's ass into a flying spaghetti monster. We know that's not true, so you're an idiot.")
It is "designed" to make childbirth dangerous? Make up your mind. Did it evolve, or was it designed?
If we evolved from lower life forms, then how come lower life forms, like the squid, have better bits than we do?
That would be retrograde evolution, wouldn't it?
And where did you get this crap about the pelvis not being designed for standing upright? According to a quick Google search, it is, in fact, perfectly designed for standing upright. It's when you start slouching and hunching over that you get problems. Weird. That's exactly what our evolutionary ancestors were supposed to have done. Wouldn't we be better suited for slouching if that's what we came from?
It's the religious part of evolution. As soon as you have the gall to question anything at all regarding evolution, you're labeled a religious fanatic and attacked.
Don't take it personally. It's kinda like how the Taliban attack the infidels.
Ok...then let's turn that around, and use the evolutionist's argument against him.
1. Just because we can't explain something yet, doesn't mean some magical fairy god did it. 2. The appendix has no function that we know of, so it must have evolved away. That proves evolution.
How about....we don't know what the subtle function of the appendix is, yet, because we haven't even begun to figure out the complexities of the human body. Recent studies, as already pointed out in this thread, have begun to hint at current functions of the appendix. So, all of a sudden, the "proves evolution because it evolved away" becomes "proves evolution because it's so useful."
So no matter what you come up with, and whatever things change, it's _always_ taken as proof for evolution. You can't have it both ways.
No. Evolution is based on an interpretation of evidence, which may or may not be correct.
And when you're dealing with a bunch of fanatical, hardcore religious evolutionists, then all evidence is taken to prove evolution, even when it doesn't.
Because it makes him feel like a big man to pick on somebody who thinks evolution is a bunch of fantasy.
The truth is, if evolution is your worldview, then you have nothing to look forward to, due to the coming heat death of the universe. Regardless of what you do in life, how much of a difference you make, it's really completely and totally meaningless.
Christians (and other religions), on the other hand, do have something to look forward to, and realize that what they do _does_ make a difference, because the universe being finite doesn't mean anything.
It's like the football jocks picking on the computer geeks in high school, only now it's the science geeks picking on the Christians.
But of course, it's OK for them to do it, because it's only a bunch of religious nutjobs that they're picking on. They deserve it, after all. </sarcasm>
The only problem comes when people try to shove their religion down other's throats through violence.
Scientists who subscribe to the religion of evolution are so quick to complain about people not being allowed to question religion. You're only allowed to believe what your pastor tells you to believe, and all that crap. I've had it happen to me. But if you question evolution at all, in any way, even simply mention that there are alternate theories, then you're immediately labelled as a fanatical nutjob.
It's not religion that you're not allowed to question. It's evolution.
There are hundreds of Doctors and scientists who don't believe evolution is possible. They're not all hardcore Christians. Actually, very few of them are.
These are biologists, chemists, physicists....the vast majority with Ph.Ds, doing research into this very thing on a frequent basis. You can hardly say they don't understand it. But if a hardcore evolutionist hears of anyone with this opinion, they're immediately accused of being an uneducated yokel who thinks whatever their Bible-thumping preacher tells them to think.
That's obviously not true, and is simply a variation of a strawman. But somehow it's accepted when defending evolution.
They're a bunch of obnoxious, arrogant jerks, really.
Bushes do burn, unicorns don't get mentioned anywhere in the Bible, and according to your own precious theory of evolution, there is nothing impossible about a talking snake.
Slashdot Mirror
Your perfect woman wouldn't need to have arms or legs?
Assuming you're the typical immature online male, and this "perfect woman" is for purely sexual purposes, there are quite a few things that can't be done without arms or legs.
Her on top, doggy, hand jobs, etc.
And if you're not a typical immature male, and you actually want a relationship with this "perfect woman," then you're pushing around an invalid strapped into a wheelchair, who you made that way by choice/laziness.
She may be the perfect woman, but you're as far from the perfect guy as could be imagined.
I don't know a heck of a lot about nanorobots and such, so I don't know whether it's possible or not, but if placing atoms with 100% accuracy is possible, shouldn't it also be possible to _remove_ atoms with 100% accuracy?
In that case, would it be possible to build something that disassembles atmospheric carbon dioxide, and build pencil lead and release oxygen in the process?
Of course, then you get into the problem of the energy stored in chemical bonds, and the energy required to overcome that. I have no idea if/how that applies to nanoscale robots, since they're mechanically working on individual atoms, rather than a bulk chemical reaction.
Offtopic.
Really?
Don't you love mods that have no fricking clue about historical myths?
This nation is failing in so may ways it's becoming almost impossible to find something that works as it should...
It's depressing.
Are you saying the trains don't run on time?
Well, if he's dead, that explains why he's coming up with such braindead taxation ideas.... :-/
Its the result of bad coding practices.
Yeah?
Big deal.
So is Windows.
harharharhar
Here all week...try the fish....eh, whatever.
....God herself.
You said that just to piss people off, didn't you? :)
Because I really find value in testing my OWN network.
If you don't, then you don't really understand security.
The point is, these dictionaries are already available to the people with their evil bit set.
If you're going "nobody's going to figure out this password," especially if you're running a business, you really should be _making sure_ that nobody's going to figure it out, rather than going on faith.
Unless you have a multi-tens-of-millions word dictionary yourself, so you can make sure that your WPA passphrase isn't in it, you're not properly protecting your network.
The "out-of-the-box" remote admin abilities of Windows and Linux are both.....nil. Due to the firewall, you can't connect to remotely manage either of them.
Once the user turns off the firewall, sure, Linux wins. But that's not what we're talking about here.
And once you've got the user to turn off the firewall, you can use "random-SMB-exploit-du-jour" and install whatever you want to remotely admin the Windows machine.
That doesn't make Linux less secure than Windows. That makes the user just as insecure as the same uneducated fool running Windows.
1) Newbie Windows users who are having problems with their systems will pretty much click on anything as any user you tell them to in a desparate hope to get IE working again.
2) Windows settings dialogs on their own can look very cryptic to the uninitiated. Add into that the scripting abilities of cmd.exe... HAHAHA ...ok.. I can't complete that thought without falling out of my chair. But, a new Windows users won't be able to differentiate a malicious click from one that will get their Freecell working again.
3) The out-of-the-box remote admin abilities of Windows are excellent. (At least...as good as they are for Linux. Considering that both have a firewall by default, which you have to get the user to turn off in order to be able to remote admin the box...)
4) Standard tools like BackOrifice can easily be used to establish out-connecting remote management sessions.
5) OR, you can just get them to IE download and click your favourite piece of malware.
See? It's not Linux. It's the user.
Every security problem you mentioned applies equally to every operating system on the planet. Except the odd few that don't have networking abilities.....
Google for "free MSI packager".
Pick one you like, and go to it.
I use this one:
http://www.scalable.com/softwaredownload/ledownload
It's got some idiosyncracies, but I'm used to it.
Basically, you do a "before" snapshot, install the VNC server, set your password and anything else you want to configure, then do the "after" snapshot.
It pretty much just runs a diff on the filesystem and registry, and puts the diff file into an .msi.
There are a few things you'll need to take out, that are false positives, but it does a pretty good job of filtering things like clock changes and other mundane stuff by itself.
Find the contact page on the link in my sig and drop me an email if you want any more help.
In that case, it would obviously be a copyright issue between Murdoch's news company, and the site that crawled the pages on Fox News.
If somebody gives you something, stating that they have the right to give it to you, and it turns out they don't, then your transaction was done in good faith. The somebody who gave it to you, however, is in trouble.
There are laws against receiving stolen goods in many countries, which could be argued to be somewhat analagous to this (other than that's theft, not copyright) but I don't know of any such law that makes it illegal to receive stolen goods if you had good reason to believe they were not, in fact, stolen.
I also use reverse VNC, which is nice. You have to open up a port on our own router, have the VNC viewer listening on the right port, and then setup the reverse VNC binary to connect to your computer (ultravnc has easy programs for this), but it's reliable and pretty simple for end-users... one download, one click, done.
I've done remote support for years through my business. I've used a custom MSI of TightVNC with the password already set, along with OpenVPN. That allows the customer to connect securely to my network, without worrying about a router and port forwarding.
Just download the software, install, and it works. OpenVPN also eliminates the security problem of having unencrypted VNC running over the Internet.
The UltraVNC SingleClick, though, I've just started looking at as a replacement. Built in encryption, easier install for the end user, and complete uninstall when it's finished.
Security is still an issue, though, even with the built in encryption, because it's a static key, rather than PKI. Anybody who can download the SingleClick installer (which is anybody with an IP address) can also get the encryption key used. So it would be easy for anybody to eavesdrop on a connection and intercept all traffic.
OpenVPN with custom certificates eliminates this (which you can generate on the fly from a PHP script, so every single customer is using their own encryption), so I'll still be using it for a lot of customers, even if I completely move over to UltraVNC SC.
New devices and software may have bugs which affect performance. Patches may be required for correct performance when exposed to unexpected conditions.
I read the article.
Nowhere does it mention that these are new products. Only that they're newly used within any given company.
It also mentions that patching to fix problems is a problem in itself, with 20% of products failing to accept patches properly.
I dunno, let's ask Toyota or Honda why they just can't get people to stop buying Chevys. Oh wait, the car industry doesn't work the way you seem to assume it does.
Maybe because Toyotas suck, too?
let's turn that around, and use the evolutionist's argument against him.
Fail #1: "evolutionist" isn't a word.
Weird. Google seems to think it is, along with a crap load of dictionary sites:
http://www.google.ca/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&channel=s&hl=en&source=hp&q=define%3A+evolutionist&meta=&btnG=Google+Search
When you'd rather attack the messenger, than debate, especially when the attack on the messenger is _provably wrong_, then you don't have much of anything to stand on, do you?
Errrmm...what? Who said anything about overturning of DNA? I certainly didn't.
See? That's exactly what evolutionists tend to do. They're the masters of the strawman argument.
Now, since you so conclusively put me in my place without any evidence whatsoever, I'd like to as you:
the mountains of evidence that quite conclusively show that evolution is a fact.
What mountain of evidence? Show me something that conclusively proves that evolution is a fact. Anything. Anything at all. And don't say "it's everywhere...I don't need to show it to you."
If it's everywhere, it should be pathetically easy for you to find.
The point is, everything is open to interpretation. You take it as proof, when it's all subject to the viewer's bias.
And you _do_ have bias.
The Catholic Church has to refine and revise it's mission statement every time real science debunks it's faith-based beliefs.
Not that I think the Catholics are doing everything right, by any means....but I have yet to see a statement like this that's backed up with any actual evidence, that's not questioned by at least a significant chunk of the scientific community.
What beliefs have been debunked recently? And I don't mean unimportant shit like the Center of the Universe argument from centuries ago. I mean something recent, related to evolution/intelligent design, and relevant to the existence/nonexistence of God.
(And BTW...Intelligent Design and Creationism are two completely different things. The fact that evolutionists frequently try to equate the two shows just how little they know about either. It also turns into a strawman argument. "You believe in Intelligent Design, so you also believe a Pink Unicorn sneezed the universe out of it's ass into a flying spaghetti monster. We know that's not true, so you're an idiot.")
It is "designed" to make childbirth dangerous? Make up your mind. Did it evolve, or was it designed?
If we evolved from lower life forms, then how come lower life forms, like the squid, have better bits than we do?
That would be retrograde evolution, wouldn't it?
And where did you get this crap about the pelvis not being designed for standing upright? According to a quick Google search, it is, in fact, perfectly designed for standing upright. It's when you start slouching and hunching over that you get problems. Weird. That's exactly what our evolutionary ancestors were supposed to have done. Wouldn't we be better suited for slouching if that's what we came from?
......im not a creationist ffs,
It's the religious part of evolution. As soon as you have the gall to question anything at all regarding evolution, you're labeled a religious fanatic and attacked.
Don't take it personally. It's kinda like how the Taliban attack the infidels.
It also "designed" such useful and not-the-least-troublesome parts such as the appendix, the thymus, etc on purpose.
Recent studies are hinting at an immunological function of the appendix, as well as possibly other things.
It has a function, but it's a subtle one that we don't fully understand.
Ok...then let's turn that around, and use the evolutionist's argument against him.
1. Just because we can't explain something yet, doesn't mean some magical fairy god did it.
2. The appendix has no function that we know of, so it must have evolved away. That proves evolution.
How about....we don't know what the subtle function of the appendix is, yet, because we haven't even begun to figure out the complexities of the human body. Recent studies, as already pointed out in this thread, have begun to hint at current functions of the appendix. So, all of a sudden, the "proves evolution because it evolved away" becomes "proves evolution because it's so useful."
So no matter what you come up with, and whatever things change, it's _always_ taken as proof for evolution. You can't have it both ways.
And you say Christians are fickle.
No. Evolution is based on an interpretation of evidence, which may or may not be correct.
And when you're dealing with a bunch of fanatical, hardcore religious evolutionists, then all evidence is taken to prove evolution, even when it doesn't.
http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/
Because it makes him feel like a big man to pick on somebody who thinks evolution is a bunch of fantasy.
The truth is, if evolution is your worldview, then you have nothing to look forward to, due to the coming heat death of the universe. Regardless of what you do in life, how much of a difference you make, it's really completely and totally meaningless.
Christians (and other religions), on the other hand, do have something to look forward to, and realize that what they do _does_ make a difference, because the universe being finite doesn't mean anything.
It's like the football jocks picking on the computer geeks in high school, only now it's the science geeks picking on the Christians.
But of course, it's OK for them to do it, because it's only a bunch of religious nutjobs that they're picking on. They deserve it, after all.
</sarcasm>
The only problem comes when people try to shove their religion down other's throats through violence.
Scientists who subscribe to the religion of evolution are so quick to complain about people not being allowed to question religion. You're only allowed to believe what your pastor tells you to believe, and all that crap. I've had it happen to me.
But if you question evolution at all, in any way, even simply mention that there are alternate theories, then you're immediately labelled as a fanatical nutjob.
It's not religion that you're not allowed to question. It's evolution.
There are hundreds of Doctors and scientists who don't believe evolution is possible. They're not all hardcore Christians. Actually, very few of them are.
http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/
These are biologists, chemists, physicists....the vast majority with Ph.Ds, doing research into this very thing on a frequent basis. You can hardly say they don't understand it. But if a hardcore evolutionist hears of anyone with this opinion, they're immediately accused of being an uneducated yokel who thinks whatever their Bible-thumping preacher tells them to think.
That's obviously not true, and is simply a variation of a strawman. But somehow it's accepted when defending evolution.
They're a bunch of obnoxious, arrogant jerks, really.
Bushes do burn, unicorns don't get mentioned anywhere in the Bible, and according to your own precious theory of evolution, there is nothing impossible about a talking snake.