..I have personally spent hours debunking everything thrown at me...
Thats excellent; now you can permanently rest, having personally solved this problem for the entire world. Publish your results on a website. The world is waiting with baited breath. You will be famous for sure. And after its all finished, you need never speak of it again.
After a while I realised that this is because the reports (other than simple mistakes) are made up by people that are not very good at making things like this up.
So your "explanation" is that its all lies and delusion.
You have to do *much* better than that my friend, on every level.
As I said in another thread, the arguments about UFOs are over. The preponderance of evidence makes the nature of UFOs abundantly clear.
The interesting discussions are now centered around what is to be done about this problem, how it is developing, and what use we can make of it for our own benefit.
Scotsman = scientist Puts sugar on porridge = is unconvinced by the evidence true = not predisposed to automatically reject it
Using that substitution logic, you can argue that Christians are suffering from the "No true Scotsman" fallacy, because they reject polytheism in advance of hearing the arguments for polytheism. This is not the case; they are merely religious, and not propagating a fallacious argument.
The practice of Science is fundamentally differrent from the practice of religion. The only thing that matters to scientists are the facts. If the facts invalidate a premise, then it is the premise that is flawed and which needs to be adjusted, not the facts.
Anyone that rejects, changes or ignores the facts to protect a premise is not a true scientist, and is practicing a sort of religion, not science.
That statement is not of the "No true Scotsman" type. From Wikipedia:
The "No true Scotsman" argument is an argument of the form:
Argument: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge." Reply: "But my friend Angus likes sugar with his porridge." Rebuttal: "Ah yes, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
This form of argument is a fallacy if the predicate ("putting sugar on porridge") does not follow from the accepted definition of the subject ("Scotsman"), or if the definition of the subject is silently adjusted after the fact to make the rebuttal work.
Some behaviors are actually contradictory to the label; "no true vegetarian would prefer a beefsteak to a salad" is not fallacious because it follows from the definition of "vegetarian."
A similar situation occurs in arguments about controversial topics such as Evolution. Evolution is defined as true and good by some people and as false and evil by others. When facts are presented to support one side of the argument or the other, Evolution is redefined to as needed. As such, the a debate about Evolution is unwinnable.
A similar situation exists with Terrorism. Terrorism is bad and evil. Therefore any action done which is justified is automatically relabeled Freedom fighting.
You have a similar problem in religion. Words have values independent of their meanings and people who believe essentially the same thing will disagree violently because the term used has a different connotation and meaning to the disagreeing parties.
"extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" rule of thumb.
The rules of evidence do not change because the subject is disliked; they must be applied evenly, across all events and evidence.
Using that imaginary "rule of thumb", a heinous mass murder with one hundred bodies would require more evidence than a murder without a body to secure a conviction, simply because emotions are involved in assessing the severity of the crime.
Science cannot (and normally does not) work like this. The only people who trot out this line are skeptics, who are emotionally guarding a position, and who are not actually interested in the facts.
If anything, the lack of strong evidence of visitation or beacons or the like suggests that the former case is the more probable.
This is simply wrong. There is plenty of evidence, of high quality, that would convince any scientist that is not predisposed to automaticaly reject it.
there is by no means convincing evidence for the conclusion that aliens must be visiting us.
This is nonsense. Anyone who is reasonable, and who has read the abundance of high quality cases can only come to the conclusion that Dr. Haisch has come to. If anyone has a better explanation that accounts for all of the evidence, then they need to provide this explanation, and not reject out of hand the the one provided by scientists who have done the actual required work.
And finally, all the arguments of the skeptics were completely demolised single handedly by a man called Brian Zeiler on USENET circa 1996. Essential reading, if you have the patience.
Essentially, the arguments about this subject are over. The interesting discussion is centered around what is to be done about this problem... if anything.
Honestly, its a little sad that NASA cant put up a single decent microsite to refute every claim (like the one about the suits not being sufficient to stop radiation) but, they are busy guys...
There are no similar groups to this one; this is a particularly refutable and far out set of ideas.
For example; the educational system (and reputation) of the State of Kansas,
Is this the "theory of evolution problem"? Completely different. There are billions of people who do not believe the theory of evolution.
the ability for a white guy wear his "hair" bald and have tatoos,
This, I know nothing about!
for people to say what they want about Scientology,
This is nothing to do with a group of people who deny scientific fact; but is [insert word reversal joke here].
for Viagra to be paid for by medical insurance where "the pill" is not...
This is a "theory of democracy" problem. The lunar lunatics are a singular group of people, displaying a particularly modern type of behavior. That people with little time would actually spend not only that time, but MONEY proving that man went to the moon is, to say the least, amazing.
If during the course of a mission some cameras are turned onto the landing sites to show the discarded equipment (as Malin did with the Face on Mars) thats fine, but to spend resources on quieting people is just stupid.
Why do people care so much about what lunar denial folk think?
Lunar deniers are an extreme minority (in both senses), they do no harm to anyone; the way astronmers obsess about proving that man went to the moon is just as insane as saying that man never went.
Honestly, people who believe man never went to the moon will change nothing. Progress will continue. New projects will be financed, launched and will return spectacular results. The manned space station is in orbit right now, if you needed any proof of this.
There will always be people like the lunar deniers.
Get over it, and ignore them.
Re:Strictly speaking not a new principle
on
Fanwing Planes?
·
· Score: 2
thrust and lift are perpendicular to the axis of rotation
A new principle would exclude fanning, flapping or any kind of turning of wheels (circular motion) to create thrust. This is a beautiful project, but it is really a derivative of Leonardos helicopter, which was an Archimedes screw for air.
When there is propulsion generated without circular motion (props, turbines, ducted fans), or without shooting something out of a tube like rocketry, then we will be talking about something that is really new.
nobody cares enough about the.01% that actually use mozilla to sit down and look for exploits.
Thats not the issue.
The issue is how to make people, users and software vendors alike, take security more seriously, and in what precise manner and under what guidelines newly discovered exploits should be revealed to the community.
MS addicted office drones and the like dont take security seriously enough. Everyone (except maybe you) knows this. This is why those pathetic worms spread a quickly as shit through a goose, week after week.
If one million people all got wiped out by one exploit, it would forever change the worlds prespective about MS products. Certainly, all the people who have been warned for years would suddenly take the concept of switching from Outlook / IE much more seriously.
Mass mailing worms are too easy to clean out with AV software. Everyone thinks that they are a minor issue at best....completly wiping a hard drive.
That is something utterly different.
It would be the ultimate wake up call. It would make a difference. Think about it; what if someone planted this on every link at the front page of CNN.com?
There was no need to add that payload to the exploit.
The way that the example was written (its modular) made it trivial to add any function you want to it; pop up a window, run notepad.exe, delete a drive...all it takes is a simple substitution.
I have to agree that if millions of people had thier installations deleted something would happen, at the minimum, everyone, everywhere would be scared shitless about surfing with IE....and that would be a very good thing.
Getting Linux and its apps to do what I want (work) takes up alot of my time; I then have to switch between it and Windoze to do work, which wastes more of my time. Thats why I run windoze most of the time; to simply get things done in one place.
OSX is what Linux should be; with it, we can run all the apps we need (professional sound apps, graphics, publishing), it has painless font support, a shell, and all the related command line tools on one machine at one time.
Linux can still become attractive in the future, if the developers of the main distros spend more time on the things people want. If they dont, everyone is going to end up switching to OSX, since its "here now", painless and powerful. After that, no one will ever need to switch to Linux, because everyones demands will be satisfied, from developers down to the lowest common denominator user.
I know an old lady who swallowed a fly.
I don't know why she swallowed the fly.
Perhaps she'll die.
I know an old lady who swallowed a spider
that wriggled and jiggled and tickled inside her.
She swallowed the spider to catch the fly.
I don't know why she swallowed the fly.
Perhaps she'll die.
I know an old lady who swallowed a bird.
How absurd, to swallow a bird!
She swallowed the bird to catch the spider
that wriggled and jiggled and tickled inside her.
She swallowed the spider to catch the fly.
I don't know why she swallowed the fly.
Perhaps she'll die.
I know an old lady who swallowed a cat.
Imagine that, to swallow a cat.
She swallowed the cat to catch the bird.
She swallowed the bird to catch the spider
that wriggled and jiggled and tickled inside her.
She swallowed the spider to catch the fly.
I don't know why she swallowed the fly.
Perhaps she'll die.
I know an old lady who swallowed a dog.
What a hog, to swallow a dog!
She swallowed the dog to catch the cat.
She swallowed the cat to catch the bird.
She swallowed the bird to catch the spider
that wriggled and jiggled and tickled inside her.
She swallowed the spider to catch the fly.
I don't know why she swallowed the fly.
Perhaps she'll die.
I know an old lady who swallowed a horse.
She's dead of course!
I'm not sure what the word "legitimated" means, but you make it sound like web sites are entitled to their Google ranking. Google can do whatever they want.
And if they did not become innovative with the results, Adwords failed and they went off line, everyone would either be whining or spouting some self riteous darwinian garbage about how they didnt "deserve" to survive.
You dont have to imagine hard about how the world would be without Google; just look at Daypop, which is struggling to stay alive. Its offline now, and its service is sorely missed.
You cant have it both ways. Either Google finds a way to survive, or it dies. If you have a better solution to how it can stay alive without manipulating its results, then give us the answer or shut up.
The Design, whilst trying to look stripped down, isnt as good as Goggle, Daypop or any of the dozens of other more "fresh" services. Perhaps they will do somethig about it.
Slashdot Mirror
Yep. That was my great breakthrough...
..I have personally spent hours debunking everything thrown at me...
Thats excellent; now you can permanently rest, having personally solved this problem for the entire world. Publish your results on a website. The world is waiting with baited breath. You will be famous for sure. And after its all finished, you need never speak of it again.
What a relief!
After a while I realised that this is because the reports (other than simple mistakes) are made up by people that are not very good at making things like this up.
So your "explanation" is that its all lies and delusion.
You have to do *much* better than that my friend, on every level.
A brilliant post.
As I said in another thread, the arguments about UFOs are over. The preponderance of evidence makes the nature of UFOs abundantly clear.
The interesting discussions are now centered around what is to be done about this problem, how it is developing, and what use we can make of it for our own benefit.
Scotsman = scientist
Puts sugar on porridge = is unconvinced by the evidence
true = not predisposed to automatically reject it
Using that substitution logic, you can argue that Christians are suffering from the "No true Scotsman" fallacy, because they reject polytheism in advance of hearing the arguments for polytheism. This is not the case; they are merely religious, and not propagating a fallacious argument.
The practice of Science is fundamentally differrent from the practice of religion. The only thing that matters to scientists are the facts. If the facts invalidate a premise, then it is the premise that is flawed and which needs to be adjusted, not the facts.
Anyone that rejects, changes or ignores the facts to protect a premise is not a true scientist, and is practicing a sort of religion, not science.
This is more precisely what I meant to convey.
'No True Scotsman' fallacy
That statement is not of the "No true Scotsman" type. From Wikipedia:
The "No true Scotsman" argument is an argument of the form:
Argument: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
Reply: "But my friend Angus likes sugar with his porridge."
Rebuttal: "Ah yes, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
This form of argument is a fallacy if the predicate ("putting sugar on porridge") does not follow from the accepted definition of the subject ("Scotsman"), or if the definition of the subject is silently adjusted after the fact to make the rebuttal work.
Some behaviors are actually contradictory to the label; "no true vegetarian would prefer a beefsteak to a salad" is not fallacious because it follows from the definition of "vegetarian."
A similar situation occurs in arguments about controversial topics such as Evolution. Evolution is defined as true and good by some people and as false and evil by others. When facts are presented to support one side of the argument or the other, Evolution is redefined to as needed. As such, the a debate about Evolution is unwinnable.
A similar situation exists with Terrorism. Terrorism is bad and evil. Therefore any action done which is justified is automatically relabeled Freedom fighting.
You have a similar problem in religion. Words have values independent of their meanings and people who believe essentially the same thing will disagree violently because the term used has a different connotation and meaning to the disagreeing parties.
"extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" rule of thumb.
The rules of evidence do not change because the subject is disliked; they must be applied evenly, across all events and evidence.
Using that imaginary "rule of thumb", a heinous mass murder with one hundred bodies would require more evidence than a murder without a body to secure a conviction, simply because emotions are involved in assessing the severity of the crime.
Science cannot (and normally does not) work like this. The only people who trot out this line are skeptics, who are emotionally guarding a position, and who are not actually interested in the facts.
If anything, the lack of strong evidence of visitation or beacons or the like suggests that the former case is the more probable.
This is simply wrong. There is plenty of evidence, of high quality, that would convince any scientist that is not predisposed to automaticaly reject it.
there is by no means convincing evidence for the conclusion that aliens must be visiting us.
This is nonsense. Anyone who is reasonable, and who has read the abundance of high quality cases can only come to the conclusion that Dr. Haisch has come to. If anyone has a better explanation that accounts for all of the evidence, then they need to provide this explanation, and not reject out of hand the the one provided by scientists who have done the actual required work.
Because we already have everything we need out in the open:
NUFORC has many reports of high strangeness and high quality.
UFOSkeptic a must read for all "science types", written by Dr. Bernard Haisch.
Science Logic and the UFO debate. Once you read this, you will have no doubts left.
And finally, all the arguments of the skeptics were completely demolised single handedly by a man called Brian Zeiler on USENET circa 1996. Essential reading, if you have the patience.
Essentially, the arguments about this subject are over. The interesting discussion is centered around what is to be done about this problem... if anything.
But what about those cross-hairs?
You mean the ones centered on your forehead?
Honestly, its a little sad that NASA cant put up a single decent microsite to refute every claim (like the one about the suits not being sufficient to stop radiation) but, they are busy guys...
similar groups have done some significant damage.
There are no similar groups to this one; this is a particularly refutable and far out set of ideas.
For example; the educational system (and reputation) of the State of Kansas,
Is this the "theory of evolution problem"? Completely different. There are billions of people who do not believe the theory of evolution.
the ability for a white guy wear his "hair" bald and have tatoos,
This, I know nothing about!
for people to say what they want about Scientology,
This is nothing to do with a group of people who deny scientific fact; but is [insert word reversal joke here].
for Viagra to be paid for by medical insurance where "the pill" is not...
This is a "theory of democracy" problem. The lunar lunatics are a singular group of people, displaying a particularly modern type of behavior. That people with little time would actually spend not only that time, but MONEY proving that man went to the moon is, to say the least, amazing.
If during the course of a mission some cameras are turned onto the landing sites to show the discarded equipment (as Malin did with the Face on Mars) thats fine, but to spend resources on quieting people is just stupid.
they failed to stop the DMCA
Maybe its because they didnt have enough lobbying cash? You cant expect them to work miracles whilst being underfunded.
it was RedHat's lobbying that reduced the effect of UCITA
RedHat has money to do this good work. Perhaps people should buy a 7.3 box to say "thanks".
Either way, its a fascinating idea; match dollar for dollar the money you spen on the monopoly, on people trying to protect us from it.
An example of great thinking...
Why do people care so much about what lunar denial folk think?
Lunar deniers are an extreme minority (in both senses), they do no harm to anyone; the way astronmers obsess about proving that man went to the moon is just as insane as saying that man never went.
Honestly, people who believe man never went to the moon will change nothing. Progress will continue. New projects will be financed, launched and will return spectacular results. The manned space station is in orbit right now, if you needed any proof of this.
There will always be people like the lunar deniers.
Get over it, and ignore them.
thrust and lift are perpendicular to the axis of rotation
You mean like this?
Like I said, this is an old idea.
Is where the pics are: Google
Are
This is not an entirely new principle, its more like a linear ducted fan. or a Stretched turbine
A new principle would exclude fanning, flapping or any kind of turning of wheels (circular motion) to create thrust. This is a beautiful project, but it is really a derivative of Leonardos helicopter, which was an Archimedes screw for air.
When there is propulsion generated without circular motion (props, turbines, ducted fans), or without shooting something out of a tube like rocketry, then we will be talking about something that is really new.
nobody cares enough about the .01% that actually use mozilla to sit down and look for exploits.
Thats not the issue.
The issue is how to make people, users and software vendors alike, take security more seriously, and in what precise manner and under what guidelines newly discovered exploits should be revealed to the community.
Wake up you retard.
Already awake; using Mozilla exclusively.
MS addicted office drones and the like dont take security seriously enough. Everyone (except maybe you) knows this. This is why those pathetic worms spread a quickly as shit through a goose, week after week.
If one million people all got wiped out by one exploit, it would forever change the worlds prespective about MS products. Certainly, all the people who have been warned for years would suddenly take the concept of switching from Outlook / IE much more seriously.
Mass mailing worms are too easy to clean out with AV software. Everyone thinks that they are a minor issue at best....completly wiping a hard drive.
That is something utterly different.
It would be the ultimate wake up call. It would make a difference. Think about it; what if someone planted this on every link at the front page of CNN.com?
Use your inmagination.
There was no need to add that payload to the exploit.
The way that the example was written (its modular) made it trivial to add any function you want to it; pop up a window, run notepad.exe, delete a drive...all it takes is a simple substitution.
I have to agree that if millions of people had thier installations deleted something would happen, at the minimum, everyone, everywhere would be scared shitless about surfing with IE....and that would be a very good thing.
This is "terrorism" right?
Republican or a Democrat?
Why?
Getting Linux and its apps to do what I want (work) takes up alot of my time; I then have to switch between it and Windoze to do work, which wastes more of my time. Thats why I run windoze most of the time; to simply get things done in one place.
OSX is what Linux should be; with it, we can run all the apps we need (professional sound apps, graphics, publishing), it has painless font support, a shell, and all the related command line tools on one machine at one time.
Linux can still become attractive in the future, if the developers of the main distros spend more time on the things people want. If they dont, everyone is going to end up switching to OSX, since its "here now", painless and powerful. After that, no one will ever need to switch to Linux, because everyones demands will be satisfied, from developers down to the lowest common denominator user.
I know an old lady who swallowed a fly.
I don't know why she swallowed the fly.
Perhaps she'll die.
I know an old lady who swallowed a spider
that wriggled and jiggled and tickled inside her.
She swallowed the spider to catch the fly.
I don't know why she swallowed the fly.
Perhaps she'll die.
I know an old lady who swallowed a bird.
How absurd, to swallow a bird!
She swallowed the bird to catch the spider
that wriggled and jiggled and tickled inside her.
She swallowed the spider to catch the fly.
I don't know why she swallowed the fly.
Perhaps she'll die.
I know an old lady who swallowed a cat.
Imagine that, to swallow a cat.
She swallowed the cat to catch the bird.
She swallowed the bird to catch the spider
that wriggled and jiggled and tickled inside her.
She swallowed the spider to catch the fly.
I don't know why she swallowed the fly.
Perhaps she'll die.
I know an old lady who swallowed a dog.
What a hog, to swallow a dog!
She swallowed the dog to catch the cat.
She swallowed the cat to catch the bird.
She swallowed the bird to catch the spider
that wriggled and jiggled and tickled inside her.
She swallowed the spider to catch the fly.
I don't know why she swallowed the fly.
Perhaps she'll die.
I know an old lady who swallowed a horse.
She's dead of course!
I'm not sure what the word "legitimated" means, but you make it sound like web sites are entitled to their Google ranking. Google can do whatever they want.
And if they did not become innovative with the results, Adwords failed and they went off line, everyone would either be whining or spouting some self riteous darwinian garbage about how they didnt "deserve" to survive.
You dont have to imagine hard about how the world would be without Google; just look at Daypop, which is struggling to stay alive. Its offline now, and its service is sorely missed.
You cant have it both ways. Either Google finds a way to survive, or it dies. If you have a better solution to how it can stay alive without manipulating its results, then give us the answer or shut up.
"My Lord, is that....legal?
The Design, whilst trying to look stripped down, isnt as good as Goggle, Daypop or any of the dozens of other more "fresh" services. Perhaps they will do somethig about it.