I'd be interested in using an SSD as a replacement drive in a laptop but it's passively cooled so I'd need to know it ran cooler than a traditional HD.
Yes, that's why there are millions of Christians in the world.
There are millions of Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs too which, under the reasonable assumption that they can't all be correct, is a fairly obvious demonstration that a religion doesn't need the god(s) the religion follows to actually exist, let alone reveal himself, for it to thrive.
Plenty of people do good things anonymously because they don't want people fawning over them.
One might posit that an all powerful god is more than capable of revealing himself and that his relative anonymity would suggest all this hoo-haa might be deeply embarrassing to him.
I've had wireless network drivers stop working after a windows update installed new ones and only got them working again by uninstalling them and installing an older version.
Just this week I was using Visio to reverse engineer an old DB schema but a security update in one of the office service packs stopped the functionality working. For a while you had to roll back the update to get it working. Then there was a hotfix you could get but had to contact MS support for. By the time I was hit by it there was a generally available fix for it.
Perhaps those aren't the same sort of features as session management which effects everyone but proprietary software isn't immune to the general problem.
Radiohead, for the record, is not their own genre. There were bands before them (U2) and bands after them (Coldplay) that are pretty much the same exact genre.
No, but you're being rather careless with your language.
It hasn't "hurt" their evolution. Their evolution has been helpful, based on the selection pressures they face.
Nor are the fish "reprogramming themselves". The species' genetic make up may be shifting (in a loose sense "reprogrammed") but they aren't doing it to themselves.
While those whose may be applications where incandescent bulbs have advantages none of them (or any of the other replies) seem to be applications that "require instant operation" which is what you said and what I asked about.
I asked about that specifically because whenever this comes up someone talks about them being slow to start up but I practical terms I can't imagine how the small delay can pose an actual problem worth worrying about.
which are ill-suited for many applications that require instant operation
Can you name these "many applications"? The slowest fluorescent bulb I have is in a little bedside lamp and it starts in under a second. It's not fast, but it's not as if I could actually do anything in the time between pressing the button and the light coming on.
Does the "business application" you develop require a non http page? If it's one used by the general public then probably but if it's not (ie it's used internally or by a specific set of customers who can be supported) then consider only running an https service (no http).
That way users won't have an http bookmark or history/autocomplete entry that an attacker can begin the spoof from. Existing users will come straight into the https site because that's all there has been.
New users (and others who might incorrectly type in an http address) could still be hit by the attack but a large proportion of your users would be safe from exposure.
For a site that needs to be accessible to the general public perhaps a redirect-permanent to https on any hit to the http site might have a similar positive effect on bookmarks (and maybe history/autocomplete entries though that would depend on the browser).
The only way to limit exposure to this attack is to have your users hitting the https site directly.
Your SSL check just before login doesn't help because the http connection you are issuing the redirect over isn't secure and the attacker can manipulate it.
My philosophy is that if an employer really is looking for petty reasons not to hire you, that's a good sign that they are not the best place for you to work.
For any job where there's a sizable number of applicants the HR person will likely try to weed them down to a list of "good" candidate rather quickly and then spend the time on them. Perhaps you'd be "good" too, but if they've already identified 20 such people on the list it's not going to hurt them much to leave you off it.
It's not that they care deeply about "petty" reasons, it's that they need "any" reason to get that list down to something manageable.
Yes, it's from one of the two major Australian broadsheets.
To be fair to the respondents the opinion piece is so ludicrous it's almost impossible to compose a short letter in response to it so reusing the "Darwinism" term is understandable.
I began writing a letter myself but didn't have time to work my thoughts down to something that could possibly be printed.
By and large those letter writers did a good job of picking up a particular fault and addressing it. They weren't using language 'lazily' but it was nevertheless and example of how non-creationists can end up using a term that helps has pro-creationist connotations.
Or how does the writer think Airbuses emerged from the Wright brothers' prototype?
I'm pretty sure we're talking about biology here, not aeronautical engineering.
The passage I just quoted implies that there is no legitimate evolution that is not Darwinian.
What it implies is that there isn't a distinct alternative to "Darwinian evolution". Evolution as it's understood today is an improvement on Evolution as posited by Darwin rather than a distinct theory (as in the Newtonian/Quantum example).
The only people who use "Darwinism" to mean "theory of evolution" are creationists.
The problem is that simply isn't true. People use language lazily. There's nothing unreasonable about that per se, but it is a mistake if the ideas your are trying to get are important.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe you need a motion sensitive switch ;)
If you are in your bathroom for "hours" then I'd recommend seeking medical assistance.
Perhaps he's popular precisely because he doesn't have real power. It's the pricks that do meddle in peoples lives that become unpopular.
The peculiar thing about the USA is that it invents it's own royalty. What else could explain political families like the Bushes, Kennedys etc?
His mother was a hamster and his father smelt of elderberries!
I do.
Tell me your name and I'll start straight away.
this is how the web works after all
I'd be interested in using an SSD as a replacement drive in a laptop but it's passively cooled so I'd need to know it ran cooler than a traditional HD.
There are millions of Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs too which, under the reasonable assumption that they can't all be correct, is a fairly obvious demonstration that a religion doesn't need the god(s) the religion follows to actually exist, let alone reveal himself, for it to thrive.
Is that link Slashdotted or am I being blocked?
Your conclusion isn't logical at all.
Plenty of people do good things anonymously because they don't want people fawning over them.
One might posit that an all powerful god is more than capable of revealing himself and that his relative anonymity would suggest all this hoo-haa might be deeply embarrassing to him.
That's hardly a massive flaw. Even if he is "supremely worthy of worship" that doesn't imply that not worshiping him is a terrible wrong.
Perhaps he'll be rather displeased that people waste a large proportion of the life he gave them sitting around telling him how good he is.
This "barges" idea sounds like the next logical step.
It's just not true though.
I've had wireless network drivers stop working after a windows update installed new ones and only got them working again by uninstalling them and installing an older version.
Just this week I was using Visio to reverse engineer an old DB schema but a security update in one of the office service packs stopped the functionality working. For a while you had to roll back the update to get it working. Then there was a hotfix you could get but had to contact MS support for. By the time I was hit by it there was a generally available fix for it.
Perhaps those aren't the same sort of features as session management which effects everyone but proprietary software isn't immune to the general problem.
Radiohead, for the record, is not their own genre. There were bands before them (U2) and bands after them (Coldplay) that are pretty much the same exact genre.
I think you need your ears checked.
No, but you're being rather careless with your language.
It hasn't "hurt" their evolution. Their evolution has been helpful, based on the selection pressures they face.
Nor are the fish "reprogramming themselves". The species' genetic make up may be shifting (in a loose sense "reprogrammed") but they aren't doing it to themselves.
While those whose may be applications where incandescent bulbs have advantages none of them (or any of the other replies) seem to be applications that "require instant operation" which is what you said and what I asked about.
I asked about that specifically because whenever this comes up someone talks about them being slow to start up but I practical terms I can't imagine how the small delay can pose an actual problem worth worrying about.
Can you name these "many applications"?
The slowest fluorescent bulb I have is in a little bedside lamp and it starts in under a second. It's not fast, but it's not as if I could actually do anything in the time between pressing the button and the light coming on.
Does the "business application" you develop require a non http page? If it's one used by the general public then probably but if it's not (ie it's used internally or by a specific set of customers who can be supported) then consider only running an https service (no http).
That way users won't have an http bookmark or history/autocomplete entry that an attacker can begin the spoof from. Existing users will come straight into the https site because that's all there has been.
New users (and others who might incorrectly type in an http address) could still be hit by the attack but a large proportion of your users would be safe from exposure.
For a site that needs to be accessible to the general public perhaps a redirect-permanent to https on any hit to the http site might have a similar positive effect on bookmarks (and maybe history/autocomplete entries though that would depend on the browser).
The only way to limit exposure to this attack is to have your users hitting the https site directly.
Your SSL check just before login doesn't help because the http connection you are issuing the redirect over isn't secure and the attacker can manipulate it.
FYI.
For any job where there's a sizable number of applicants the HR person will likely try to weed them down to a list of "good" candidate rather quickly and then spend the time on them. Perhaps you'd be "good" too, but if they've already identified 20 such people on the list it's not going to hurt them much to leave you off it.
It's not that they care deeply about "petty" reasons, it's that they need "any" reason to get that list down to something manageable.
Yes, it's from one of the two major Australian broadsheets.
To be fair to the respondents the opinion piece is so ludicrous it's almost impossible to compose a short letter in response to it so reusing the "Darwinism" term is understandable.
I began writing a letter myself but didn't have time to work my thoughts down to something that could possibly be printed.
By and large those letter writers did a good job of picking up a particular fault and addressing it. They weren't using language 'lazily' but it was nevertheless and example of how non-creationists can end up using a term that helps has pro-creationist connotations.
Change your name to Mr Fuckwit. It won't change who you are.
It will however change how people receive you, how they think about you and, in all likely hood, your chances of success in life.
This isn't about changing what evolution is, it's about framing it in a way that gives a more correct impression of what it is.
I'm pretty sure we're talking about biology here, not aeronautical engineering.
What it implies is that there isn't a distinct alternative to "Darwinian evolution". Evolution as it's understood today is an improvement on Evolution as posited by Darwin rather than a distinct theory (as in the Newtonian/Quantum example).
I'd suggest that by using the term "Darwinism" they are exactly the people you are pandering to.
The problem is that simply isn't true. People use language lazily. There's nothing unreasonable about that per se, but it is a mistake if the ideas your are trying to get are important.