Because the vulnerability exists within a faulty Windows component, security experts warn that Windows users who eschew Internet Explorer in favor of alternative Web browsers, such as older versions of Firefox and Opera, can still get their PCs infected if they agree to download a file from a site taking advantage of the flaw.
Agreeably, you shouldn't be downloading from websites you don't trust anyway... but as anyone who's ever had a computer-illiterate relative or spouse can tell you, sometimes... "But, I really wanted to play that 87th degree derivation of breakout!"
Okay, really, she said Arkanoid, but you get my point.
Reavey encouraged users to update their anti-virus software, ensure all Windows security patches are installed, avoid visiting unfamiliar Web sites, and refrain from clicking on links that arrive via e-mail or instant message.
(Emphasis added by me) Three good pieces of advice, and... I mean, seriously, avoid visiting unfamiliar web sites? That's like saying "There's been lots of credit card scams recently, you shouldn't go into any store you haven't been to before."
The second is an example of object permanence - any child old enough to talk should be past the idea that because they can't see something, it's magically vanished. (Although a few of my girlfriends in college were still apparently under that assumption.)
Estimating volume is hard, estimating flow through a transluscent tube is pretty much impossible. It's just easier to count how long it lasts, and make sure they aren't putting any back pressure to make it last longer while consuming less.
more reason to teach it earlier, not less? I find that most things that are "unable to grasp" just haven't been demonstrated well. If you took a foot-tall one quart container and a three-inch tall one quart container, and just transferred contents, I think that would be a good demonstration they're the same volume.
Is that like really, really fun science? You know, that kinda looks like a Calvin & Hobbes word. You didn't just get the boxed set for Christmas, did you?
There's quite a few states where the decisions of the Classification and Rating Administration boards, who are not elected (or a list of names even published) hold the force of law. It's illegal for a theater owner in most of the places I've ever lived to allow someone under 18 to see an R-rated movie without a guardian. And the National Electric Code, for another example - it's written by members of the National Fire Protection Association, a non-governmental body, and most state or city building codes specify something along the lines of "All electrical installations must comply with the X. edition of the NEC."
said they didn't use Patriot Act on non-terrorist groups and guess what? They used it on... PETA
First off, I agree with most of you comments. However... PETA has had ties to, and provided money to, domestic terrorist groups like the ALF & ELF . While PETA itself doesn't classify as a terrorist organization, there's enough overlap in membership to make some suspicious...
We ban guns that aren't reasonable to be used for sport.
They're not really banned, there's just a lot of limits & regulations on them. But more importantly... since when does sport enter into the 2nd amendment?
I still like (Pataki's? Or was it Trump's?) plan of rebuilding the WTC, visually identical, just better constructed. But I guess it's a little late to do the "Oh, I'm sorry, did you think you were actually going to hurt us?" bit.
And, really, dogs wouldn't have this problem. Dogs, in general, are only concerned about what happens to their pack, not what happens to dogs they've never met (and probably never would have). (Well, that, and dog religion is a bit simpler. Something along the line of "Ooo person who brings me food is home! I'm happy! I'm happy!")
That's not to say that we should ignore the threat of terrorism. However, the threat should be kept in perspective, and our response should be measured accordingly.
With media coverage & governments' responses, I think it becomes impossible - the 3,000 who died on 9/11 from the terrorist attacks, because they were on every news screen & in everyone's mind, were much, much more important that the 2500 or so who died of heart disease the same day. Is it rational? No, but that's emotions for you.
And I want to state again, no one outside of California really cares what laws are passed in California, with very few little exceptions.
Secondly, if you want to consider laws on various enviornment laws & agencies, mental health, and a range of other subjects, first passed in California & later to inspire federal law, as unimportant, go right ahead.
But just because you don't see the pattern (California picks current social issue, passes laws & creates agencies, federal government follows suit) doesn't mean that nobody cares. The original poster complained that California politics weren't germane to U.S. politics in general - I pointed out why a law in California can become the concern of everyone in the U.S.
hardly any of today's stories are about US Government politics in any meaningful sense. In fact what California does really has no bearing on the Federal government or the US in general.
So you've never seen a vehicle with "California emissions" outside of CA? And you've never seen those amusing "This product contains chemicals known to the state of California to cause mutation, zombification, or head-explody"? (I might be paraphrasing.)
Anyway, my point is - CA is almost 20% of the population of the US as a whole, and given that CA's consumer/enviornmental/nanny-state laws are generally stricter than the federal government, what is legal in CA is just practical to make, if you want to be able to market it nationwide. Not to mention that many federal programs were inspired by something California did first.
Like it or not, the actions of one state can & does affect the nation, especially when that one state has the highest population.
Doesn't mean it's more complex. Individual insect eyes are barely about the light-spot on some bacteria, as far as function. They've just got a bunch of them, with the right networking wetware.
On a side note, one thing I really don't get is why anti-evolutionists always bring up the eye. It's not impossible, or even difficult, to imagine a simpler eye, and one simpler than that, and so on. And it's not hard to imagine one more complicated than ours - if you live anywhere outside a major city, you probably see birds on an almost daily basis with much, much better vision. If you want to argue something as being irreducibly complex, why not start with sexual reproduction?
Oh, wait, I forgot... fundamentalists, sex... nevermind, I'll shut up now.
You spelled "Religion" wrong, which is funny, considering you seem to be all about it.
Secondly, "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" means that the federal (and due to the 14th Amendment, the state) government can't establish a state religion, give preferential treatment to an established religion, or stop people from exercising their religion, as long as doing so doesn't violate religiously neutral laws. What I'm trying to get at, is... if the government can't force a particular religoin on me, then why should they force any religion on anybody?
Don't forget, in the end, that's what this debate is about - if it's supported by public money, it's not supposed to include religion. And if ID isn't religion, well, then, I'm the Pope.
Thanks -- I will mostly look at the second link, because although the fruit fly stuff is interesting, they are still fundamentally the same thing, a type of fruit fly.
There's something on the order of 4,500 species of fruit fly in exsistence. Which is more than, say, the number of mammal species still living. Would you argue that a horse and a donkey, then, aren't different enough to be a good demonstration of macro-evolution?
no really, they are. My wife works for Peta. Peta is more "anti-human" than "pro-animal". Peta will be very happy to hear this, I can assure you. Atleast I know the ones who work at the headquarters are all wackjobs. They'd rather euthanize animals than let them be used in any way, shape or form by people. That agenda hopes to someday includes pets.... Peta doesn't consider "humans" a worthy animal.
Slashdot Mirror
Okay, really, she said Arkanoid, but you get my point.
Just "avoid visiting unfamiliar Web sites" was supposed to be bolded. D'oh.
The second is an example of object permanence - any child old enough to talk should be past the idea that because they can't see something, it's magically vanished. (Although a few of my girlfriends in college were still apparently under that assumption.)
You stole my joke!
Estimating volume is hard, estimating flow through a transluscent tube is pretty much impossible. It's just easier to count how long it lasts, and make sure they aren't putting any back pressure to make it last longer while consuming less.
more reason to teach it earlier, not less? I find that most things that are "unable to grasp" just haven't been demonstrated well. If you took a foot-tall one quart container and a three-inch tall one quart container, and just transferred contents, I think that would be a good demonstration they're the same volume.
Is that like really, really fun science? You know, that kinda looks like a Calvin & Hobbes word. You didn't just get the boxed set for Christmas, did you?
There's quite a few states where the decisions of the Classification and Rating Administration boards, who are not elected (or a list of names even published) hold the force of law. It's illegal for a theater owner in most of the places I've ever lived to allow someone under 18 to see an R-rated movie without a guardian. And the National Electric Code, for another example - it's written by members of the National Fire Protection Association, a non-governmental body, and most state or city building codes specify something along the lines of "All electrical installations must comply with the X. edition of the NEC."
First off, I agree with most of you comments. However... PETA has had ties to, and provided money to, domestic terrorist groups like the ALF & ELF . While PETA itself doesn't classify as a terrorist organization, there's enough overlap in membership to make some suspicious...
that the freedom a fair portion of the country is most concerned about is the freedom from decisions.
as much as a mis-translation from legalese.
And, really, dogs wouldn't have this problem. Dogs, in general, are only concerned about what happens to their pack, not what happens to dogs they've never met (and probably never would have). (Well, that, and dog religion is a bit simpler. Something along the line of "Ooo person who brings me food is home! I'm happy! I'm happy!")
With media coverage & governments' responses, I think it becomes impossible - the 3,000 who died on 9/11 from the terrorist attacks, because they were on every news screen & in everyone's mind, were much, much more important that the 2500 or so who died of heart disease the same day. Is it rational? No, but that's emotions for you.
But just because you don't see the pattern (California picks current social issue, passes laws & creates agencies, federal government follows suit) doesn't mean that nobody cares. The original poster complained that California politics weren't germane to U.S. politics in general - I pointed out why a law in California can become the concern of everyone in the U.S.
So you've never seen a vehicle with "California emissions" outside of CA? And you've never seen those amusing "This product contains chemicals known to the state of California to cause mutation, zombification, or head-explody"? (I might be paraphrasing.)
Anyway, my point is - CA is almost 20% of the population of the US as a whole, and given that CA's consumer/enviornmental/nanny-state laws are generally stricter than the federal government, what is legal in CA is just practical to make, if you want to be able to market it nationwide. Not to mention that many federal programs were inspired by something California did first.
Like it or not, the actions of one state can & does affect the nation, especially when that one state has the highest population.
Your mocking of my personal belief system can only end in jihad, unbeliever!
Damnit, I think I'm confusing my fundamentalists again...
I just think that would go along well with some of my other sig-quotes...
Believe what you want to believe, that's fine. But if your beliefs are based on religion, all I've got to say is...
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"
On a side note, one thing I really don't get is why anti-evolutionists always bring up the eye. It's not impossible, or even difficult, to imagine a simpler eye, and one simpler than that, and so on. And it's not hard to imagine one more complicated than ours - if you live anywhere outside a major city, you probably see birds on an almost daily basis with much, much better vision. If you want to argue something as being irreducibly complex, why not start with sexual reproduction?
Oh, wait, I forgot... fundamentalists, sex... nevermind, I'll shut up now.
You spelled "Religion" wrong, which is funny, considering you seem to be all about it.
Secondly, "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" means that the federal (and due to the 14th Amendment, the state) government can't establish a state religion, give preferential treatment to an established religion, or stop people from exercising their religion, as long as doing so doesn't violate religiously neutral laws. What I'm trying to get at, is... if the government can't force a particular religoin on me, then why should they force any religion on anybody?
Don't forget, in the end, that's what this debate is about - if it's supported by public money, it's not supposed to include religion. And if ID isn't religion, well, then, I'm the Pope.
no really, they are. My wife works for Peta. Peta is more "anti-human" than "pro-animal". Peta will be very happy to hear this, I can assure you. Atleast I know the ones who work at the headquarters are all wackjobs. They'd rather euthanize animals than let them be used in any way, shape or form by people. That agenda hopes to someday includes pets.... Peta doesn't consider "humans" a worthy animal.