The problem here is, they have an arguably bad forum policy. I agree, but that has nothing to do with their security policy. There are ways, that they aren't doing, to make this not a problem immediately. Like removing iDisk over web functionality until a fix that doesn't hose their server farm is tested and in place. They probably haven't done this because there is very little chance this is going to be a problem, since the series of events required for your iDisk to be compromised are incredibly unlikely. In real human terms, this really isn't a big issue, even though it definitely should be fixed immediately.
Apple has enjoyed a "blanket" of security because it is low profile and a niche. However, as its market share and mind share expands, this period of respite will soon fade.
You would think that, during this time, Apple would have used the opportunity to develop and internal culture, policies and procedures, as well as infrastructure for dealing effectively with security issues. However, the complete opposite appears to be the case.
Apple has failed miserably to publicly and actively address such issues. It also fails to respond in anything that could be called a rapid manner to reports of exploitable security holes. Taking actions such as deleting posts that point out security problems makes the situation worse, not better. Failing to publicly document the existence, status and nature of defects makes the situation worse, not better. Being secretive makes the situation worse, not better.
You are incorrect in so many ways, I find it hard to begin.
1. There is no proof what so ever that Apple's install base is the reason Macs are more secure than Windows. Having network servers off by default and having a default web browser that doesn't run code written in C++, visual basic, and whatever the hell else ActiveX supports these days to be FAR more important than the install base. There are reasons that in the past, if you took a Windows computer out of a brand new box, hooked up via a DSL or Cable modem that your machine was hacked before you were finished logging in for the first time, and it isn't because of the installed base (you do remember that don't you). The Windows machine has active network servers running.
2. Apple doesn't ignore security updates and issues. They fix them. Sometimes even before someone posts about them. If you don't like their update schedule and want Apache or whatnot to be running up-to-date you can install from the CVS just like the Linux and BSD people do. To me it's like saying Red hat doesn't respond rapidly to security holes. If you want a day zero fix, update from CVS. For the common user all of this is irrelevant, since their default install isn't listening to network traffic. Apple has also included other under the hood improvements, just like all other venders, to minimize the risk of buffer over flows.
I'm sorry, Apple's not walking some kind of security minefield just getting lucky all the time. Just like Linux isn't. Unix style security just works very well and is easy to manage. Your computer isn't magic, there's a reason why Microsoft's operating systems are getting owned all the time. There are a LOT of reasons for this, most of them boil down to bad default installs and the environment Microsoft has created within it's developer community. An environment that fosters laziness and has typically done very little to stop their bad practices. Things like making applications that require the admin to be login in order to run. Which in turn leads to the floor level tech just giving everyone admin access.
You computer is not made of magic, there are reasons Microsoft's operating systems suck and people complain about them and it's not because they are "not Apple and have a small install base".
I've never noticed that before. Probably because desktop WebDav on OS X is so slow that I just use dedicated client apps. The poster isn't being perfectly clear on the whole process for accessing your iDisk via dot mac. Here's how it goes. You sign into dot mac, then you sign into your iDisk. Same username, same password for both. You get a web page that access your WebDav folder on Apple's servers. Signing out of dot mac doesn't sign you out of the iDisk. A simple history check pulls it right back up with full write access to your iDisk (clearly not from web cache). No one would expect that behavior. I would assume there is a network idle time out, as dotmac has.
In real experience terms, this isn't going to be much of an issue until it's fixed, but does put a small stain on the portability of the service. Which is one of Apples main advertising points for it. Gotta remember though, Apple, like all other companies is filled with a lot of people. There are moderators on Apple forums, for all we know one of them removed it then notified management of the problem and it's working it's way up the command. It's not like Steve Jobs read it and said, "OMGWTFBBQ!?!?! PULL THAT NOW!".
My mother said to me today, "Go on to Google and type ________. I love google". Do underestimate moms everywhere. She would think the internet was broken if Google stopped working.
Recruiters are a fascinating breed. They can be a pain in the ass to deal with. They love to offer you positions that are hardest to fill first, because noone wants that job. But once you find one that likes you and actually wants you find a job that you want, you're home free.
My solution was to save enough cash to survive for 6 months at my current standard of living and resign. Looking full time, you should allow yourself 6 months to find a job that suits your needs.
Branding is important, even for pre-made machines. If a certain percentage of your customers think Intel is needed, then ALL of your customers get Intel processors, even the ones who don't care.
This is just further proof that we are living in the Matrix. With each and every absurd observation, man is getting closer to the truth that we are the cat in the box.
Um, I'd like to point out that corporations have committed negligent homocide. A crime, which if a specific person did it, would lead to prison time. When a company does it, the most that happens to the company is law suit. It's considered a civil offense. The execs get punished if the investigation leads to a cover up of some kind and even then it's rare.
Arrive 4th Ave & Pike St Transfer to Depart Pike St & 4th Ave
Isn't that the same stop? Am I at the right stop, or is it on the other side of the street? Or on cross street at the other end of the block?
I've been here three months, for the first month I was confused by their trip planner for this reason, then I figured out the answer. No, they aren't the same stop. The first street on the intersection is the one the Bus goes down. In this case, it's on 4th ave. Getting the right side of the street sometimes requires having a visual map of Seattle in your head.
That would be cool, but I've got a totally crazy idea: number the stop locations!
They are numbered, actually. It's not obvious at all, but they are. From ID point to ID point down a street they are numbered based off approximate arrivial time for the bus (in the bus pamplet they have times, each of those stops are numbered down the line to the next one on it). How I learned this, I tried using BUS-TIME (287-8463) to see if there was a night owl service to my neighborhood. You have to know what route you want to use, but you can look up approximate arrivial times for a section of the route. If you use a stop a lot (like one right next to your house), you can remember the number and use it in their system.
I've recently starting using the myBus WAP service. It gives info based off the GPS trackers on the buses. You can start with the stop id number, or the route number (to look up the id number), much like with BUS-TIME.
I would much prefer an easy way to just look up buses that arrive within a few blocks of my position. Perhaps even have a simple destination labeled after the number (16 wallingford).
Here in Seattle, the buses have GPS on them and where they are located at can be looked up in real time. There's a working, but mundane, map system to take advantage of it via the web by the transit authority. I've found that using a 3rd party web page that integrates with Google maps to be far superior.
The only thing I really want the ability to do is use an app on my phone (which has a GPS in it) and see where the bus stops nearby are and what times the buses are expected to arrive. That would be a awesome and save me a lot of trouble.
I would like to point out that everything you noted can fall into either infrastructure or communications that rely on expensive to create physical objects. The kinds of things that people rely on in order for a modern society to continue to be effective. I would say, well duh. For this kind of thing, it's far too easy for monolopies to form (whether one company or 15 companies colluding on price).
A clear majority of companies fall outside of these categories and ultimately don't need to be regulated, outside of saftey issues. I think that is what the sound bite referenced by the submitter is refering to. It's a shame people use sound bytes without understanding them.
I will attempt to answer this question. First, I will self identify as a deistic humanist.
Freedom of religion, expression, ideas, are more than idealistic foundations upon which modern liberal demoncracies are built on, they are natural rights. All sorts of moral issues, for a large part of the population, come from the interaction of people with their God. As such, they have the right to act within the bounds of their conscience in the world of public debate, even if that means proposing laws that conflict with your personal views. Abortion, Stem cell research, porn, strippers, prostitution, drugs, you name it, fall into this natural right.
I suggest, rather than attacking the source of this insight (religion) into human law, attack it's validity. Convince more people YOU are right and they are wrong. Ultimately, argueing with a sociological construction of pastors, ministers, and whatnot, is difficult, but not impossible, especially when the actions of these so called men and women of God quite frankly, at least from my point of view, are far more atheistic and materialistic in nature than a pure atheist could ever hope to accomplish. It is this very flaw that will be their down fall.
Perhaps I'm a luddite, but I was one very early on. I've always had the policy of never putting my credit card number online. In the old days (Early 90s), it was because most "retailers" didn't even bother encrypting the numbers in their database. Hell, there was no way of even knowing that the store even existed in the first place, the earliest form of phishing. Now a days, I assume EVERY email I get that asks for any information is from a criminal.
With the advent of temporary credit card numbers, I feel comfortable purchasing online, but only from proven stores.
People want to assume the best of others. Most people want to beleive that most other people are honest. When it comes to an anonymous medium like the internet, the reverse needs to be assumed as a starting place. The worst part of its, it's getting to the point that you don't even have a choice if your information is online. Whether your info is sold, your bank allows "online banking", a physical store you shopped has online "convience", or anything else, you lose the choice. Your entire credit history can be ruined even if you never go near a computer, all because of the convience of the internet. It's reckless, dangerous and eventually modern society will pay for such activities.
New Orleans floating away is a tangible sign that something might be different with the weather; it's something that Joe can get his head around.
While I agree stopping the coming ice age before it starts is a good thing. The science stands behind the climate change, that's a fact. I have to take this to task.
For some time now, that Atlantic has been in a down swing in hurricane activitiy. The past couple years have shown an upswing. It is entirely possible that the past two years are what the Atlantic consider to be normal seasons. That does not mean at all that the decline and/or reemergence of very strong storms over the past decade was not caused by atmospeheric conditions, it merely means the jury is still out on it.
Problem with this is that the state doesn't generate direct revenues from voting, like it does with slot machines. They'll bitch about where the money comes from, who will do the checks, what districts, what time, ect. What's more, there's a fundamental mentality of "trust us, we're the American voting system. What are you so unamerican?" to overcome.
Is it so much to ask that the machine doesn't do any of the counting and merely prints a paper ballot that the voter can hold, look at, walk over to a voting box and put it in themselves? What are they scared of? Why do the companies that make voting machines resist this idea so much?
It looks suspicous to me. They want to make money off more than selling machines. That kind of loss of trust can't be fixed with lip service and "independant" verification.
In this universe, we OBEY THE LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS especially the second one.
You are correct. 2nd Law of of Thermo says that in an isolated system, delta S increases. Note, it does not say that in all cases, delta S increases. Locally, delta S can decrease as long as for the whole system, it increases. It is this fundamental fact that allows things like air conditioners to exist, babies to grow into adults, and evolution to occur. All three of these examples rely on energy to enter the system and some of that engergy to be lost in the form of work. In the case of air conditioners that energy is electricity, in the case of babies growing up to being adults that energy was stored in food, in the case of evolution that energy comes directly from the sun.
Doing my best to be objective and exact, I will explain why people like YOU are the reason christian fundamentalists attack evolution.
The ultimate problem is not with evolution per se, but with modernism. Higher Criticism (Wellhausen, Noth, et al), Darwinism (biological, sociological), various political paradims, pretty much any naturalistic explaination to the human condition, in their eyes, leads to Atheism. Once a single pillar of Christianity has been destroyed (see: the five fundamentals of faith for a more specific list), in their eyes, ALL of Christianity has been destoryed. Without the Christ, all are damned and there is no hope. That is ultimately the important thing to note.
In their eyes, the Christian Bible is inerrant. As such, all "science" will verify the text of the Christian Bible. If it does not, it because mankind has been lead astray by modernism (read: Satan) and fallen into a realm of logical fallacies.
There is an irony here, Intelligent Design (as they seem to describe it) has been primarily a modernist philosphical invention, until recently. It's roots are pretty much in the deistic prime mover, as such is a naturalistic attempt to talk about God. IMHO, Christian Fundamentalist who has accepted Intelligent Design, as it's described in the public debate, have walked up the first step towards modernism themselves. Early fundamentalist would be disgusted with them and attack them for heresy.
The reason they have accept Intelligent Design is ultimately because of the Founding Father Problem: the foundation of modern america starts with a Prime Move arguement which lead to "natural rights". In the late 19th to early 20th century, a lot of time was spent discussing this problem. This lead to a semi-successful attempt to repaint the founders as Christians and a partial acceptance of their arguements.
Yes, but who really gives a shit? Will dressing up make me code better than if I come in shorts (or sweats)? Will it magicly make me produce fewer bugs? No? Then I'll dress how I want- cheaply and comfortably. You don't like it? Too damn bad. I really don't give a shit.
This misses a very important point. Impressions. I'm up there with you man. I miss having purple hair, but as first boss out of college explained: "I don't care what you look like, your coworkers don't care what you look like, but some of my collabarators will care when they come to visit. I need them more than I need you."
Even if the people you work with and around every day know you're good at your job, in the end that isn't enough. Clients, collabarators, customers, and anyone else from a different work envrioment will take your lack of due care for you appearance and apply it to the entire workplace. That's a real impact. You can wear comfortable cloths that don't look like they came out of a basement for the time your at work, and go back to your t-shirts and hole filled jeans when you get home. They pay you, not the other way around.
The article reads more like they are reverse engineering pattern recongition systems as the brain sees and interperates objects, which sounds closer to the movie Brainstorm.
How exactly is that going to happen? Since this was all written down thousands of years ago, how is someone going to talk to those rabbis?
I think the more compelling question is the author of which creation story, first or second Genesis. One came from Judah, the other from Israel. The question of authorship is more complicated than just a bunch of "rabbis". For a good primer, check out "Who wrote the Bible?" (I can't remember the authors name). For a more detailed view, Wellhausen, Noth, and possibily Gunkle are worth checking out.
I really don't see a reason for digging this guy up. I wonder how many graves were desecrated to fullfill someones desire to look at his bones and say "yup, that's him". They are going to need DNA of close relatives, they're gonna get dug up too.
Death is a very private experience, one that is between a person and their god(s) (or lack thereof for that matter), and in my humble opinion, there really should be a compelling reason to go digging up someones grave. I don't think seeking conformation of where his bones are centuries after the fact qualifies.
Maybe I'm just a radical, one of those people who think Indian burial sites are sacred ground (someones known religious views override a valid scientific interest). It's a shame someone was so intent on finding his body, they showed no respect for their death.
It seems like this page was thrown togethor pretty quickly. According to a job posting I saw on craigslist this afternoon, MS is looking for Systems Admins/Engineers for Windows Live (with command line experience). The DNS was updated yesterday, the registrar (register.com) still has the owner being some guy named Jack Spurr and not Microsoft. I guess these are two reasons why it's "beta".
Why is it then that the owners of nuclear facilities don't have to fully insure them, and they need laws limiting their liability?
Because no one would insure them in the first place and, as such, no reactor would be built. While outdated and unnecissary, in initial idea behind this in 1957 seems to be on the right track, today, no such limits are necissary.
"Engineers don't get any more say than anybody else what the problem or constraints should be."
You forgot the second half of the equation, scientist. If I were dictator of the world, here's how I would approach the issue.
1. Give a team of engineers from multiple disciplines physical criteria for the storage unit that dicates that x/year of waste will be stored in said facility and ask them to draw up planes (several sets, of course, rough drafts if you will)
2. Take said plans to biologist/ecologist/geologists and ask them what physical place bets suits said plans (getting a list to choose from)
3. Take locations back to engineers and ask them to refine plans for each individual location
4. Take plans back to biologists/ecologists/geologists and ask them if there is now any reason to expand or shorten the previous list (including how to get the waste there, local impact from building, projected population growths over the time of disposal/storage, effects of population growth over distributation of waste to location, etc)
5. Repeat steps 3 & 4 iteratively until the law of diminishing returns kicks in
6. Based on total envriomental impact, population impact, economic impact (which could indirectly affect cost), total cost, and any other factors engineers/scientists can think up, chose a location.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem here is, they have an arguably bad forum policy. I agree, but that has nothing to do with their security policy. There are ways, that they aren't doing, to make this not a problem immediately. Like removing iDisk over web functionality until a fix that doesn't hose their server farm is tested and in place. They probably haven't done this because there is very little chance this is going to be a problem, since the series of events required for your iDisk to be compromised are incredibly unlikely. In real human terms, this really isn't a big issue, even though it definitely should be fixed immediately.
Apple has enjoyed a "blanket" of security because it is low profile and a niche. However, as its market share and mind share expands, this period of respite will soon fade.
You would think that, during this time, Apple would have used the opportunity to develop and internal culture, policies and procedures, as well as infrastructure for dealing effectively with security issues. However, the complete opposite appears to be the case.
Apple has failed miserably to publicly and actively address such issues. It also fails to respond in anything that could be called a rapid manner to reports of exploitable security holes. Taking actions such as deleting posts that point out security problems makes the situation worse, not better. Failing to publicly document the existence, status and nature of defects makes the situation worse, not better. Being secretive makes the situation worse, not better.
You are incorrect in so many ways, I find it hard to begin.
1. There is no proof what so ever that Apple's install base is the reason Macs are more secure than Windows. Having network servers off by default and having a default web browser that doesn't run code written in C++, visual basic, and whatever the hell else ActiveX supports these days to be FAR more important than the install base. There are reasons that in the past, if you took a Windows computer out of a brand new box, hooked up via a DSL or Cable modem that your machine was hacked before you were finished logging in for the first time, and it isn't because of the installed base (you do remember that don't you). The Windows machine has active network servers running.
2. Apple doesn't ignore security updates and issues. They fix them. Sometimes even before someone posts about them. If you don't like their update schedule and want Apache or whatnot to be running up-to-date you can install from the CVS just like the Linux and BSD people do. To me it's like saying Red hat doesn't respond rapidly to security holes. If you want a day zero fix, update from CVS. For the common user all of this is irrelevant, since their default install isn't listening to network traffic. Apple has also included other under the hood improvements, just like all other venders, to minimize the risk of buffer over flows.
I'm sorry, Apple's not walking some kind of security minefield just getting lucky all the time. Just like Linux isn't. Unix style security just works very well and is easy to manage. Your computer isn't magic, there's a reason why Microsoft's operating systems are getting owned all the time. There are a LOT of reasons for this, most of them boil down to bad default installs and the environment Microsoft has created within it's developer community. An environment that fosters laziness and has typically done very little to stop their bad practices. Things like making applications that require the admin to be login in order to run. Which in turn leads to the floor level tech just giving everyone admin access.
You computer is not made of magic, there are reasons Microsoft's operating systems suck and people complain about them and it's not because they are "not Apple and have a small install base".
I've never noticed that before. Probably because desktop WebDav on OS X is so slow that I just use dedicated client apps. The poster isn't being perfectly clear on the whole process for accessing your iDisk via dot mac. Here's how it goes. You sign into dot mac, then you sign into your iDisk. Same username, same password for both. You get a web page that access your WebDav folder on Apple's servers. Signing out of dot mac doesn't sign you out of the iDisk. A simple history check pulls it right back up with full write access to your iDisk (clearly not from web cache). No one would expect that behavior. I would assume there is a network idle time out, as dotmac has.
In real experience terms, this isn't going to be much of an issue until it's fixed, but does put a small stain on the portability of the service. Which is one of Apples main advertising points for it. Gotta remember though, Apple, like all other companies is filled with a lot of people. There are moderators on Apple forums, for all we know one of them removed it then notified management of the problem and it's working it's way up the command. It's not like Steve Jobs read it and said, "OMGWTFBBQ!?!?! PULL THAT NOW!".
Though, the extra publicity will help.
My mother said to me today, "Go on to Google and type ________. I love google". Do underestimate moms everywhere. She would think the internet was broken if Google stopped working.
Recruiters are a fascinating breed. They can be a pain in the ass to deal with. They love to offer you positions that are hardest to fill first, because noone wants that job. But once you find one that likes you and actually wants you find a job that you want, you're home free.
My solution was to save enough cash to survive for 6 months at my current standard of living and resign. Looking full time, you should allow yourself 6 months to find a job that suits your needs.
Branding is important, even for pre-made machines. If a certain percentage of your customers think Intel is needed, then ALL of your customers get Intel processors, even the ones who don't care.
This is just further proof that we are living in the Matrix. With each and every absurd observation, man is getting closer to the truth that we are the cat in the box.
Um, I'd like to point out that corporations have committed negligent homocide. A crime, which if a specific person did it, would lead to prison time. When a company does it, the most that happens to the company is law suit. It's considered a civil offense. The execs get punished if the investigation leads to a cover up of some kind and even then it's rare.
Arrive 4th Ave & Pike St
Transfer to
Depart Pike St & 4th Ave
Isn't that the same stop? Am I at the right stop, or is it on the other side of the street? Or on cross street at the other end of the block?
I've been here three months, for the first month I was confused by their trip planner for this reason, then I figured out the answer. No, they aren't the same stop. The first street on the intersection is the one the Bus goes down. In this case, it's on 4th ave. Getting the right side of the street sometimes requires having a visual map of Seattle in your head.
That would be cool, but I've got a totally crazy idea: number the stop locations!
They are numbered, actually. It's not obvious at all, but they are. From ID point to ID point down a street they are numbered based off approximate arrivial time for the bus (in the bus pamplet they have times, each of those stops are numbered down the line to the next one on it). How I learned this, I tried using BUS-TIME (287-8463) to see if there was a night owl service to my neighborhood. You have to know what route you want to use, but you can look up approximate arrivial times for a section of the route. If you use a stop a lot (like one right next to your house), you can remember the number and use it in their system.
I've recently starting using the myBus WAP service. It gives info based off the GPS trackers on the buses. You can start with the stop id number, or the route number (to look up the id number), much like with BUS-TIME.
I would much prefer an easy way to just look up buses that arrive within a few blocks of my position. Perhaps even have a simple destination labeled after the number (16 wallingford).
Here in Seattle, the buses have GPS on them and where they are located at can be looked up in real time. There's a working, but mundane, map system to take advantage of it via the web by the transit authority. I've found that using a 3rd party web page that integrates with Google maps to be far superior.
The only thing I really want the ability to do is use an app on my phone (which has a GPS in it) and see where the bus stops nearby are and what times the buses are expected to arrive. That would be a awesome and save me a lot of trouble.
I would like to point out that everything you noted can fall into either infrastructure or communications that rely on expensive to create physical objects. The kinds of things that people rely on in order for a modern society to continue to be effective. I would say, well duh. For this kind of thing, it's far too easy for monolopies to form (whether one company or 15 companies colluding on price).
A clear majority of companies fall outside of these categories and ultimately don't need to be regulated, outside of saftey issues. I think that is what the sound bite referenced by the submitter is refering to. It's a shame people use sound bytes without understanding them.
I will attempt to answer this question. First, I will self identify as a deistic humanist.
Freedom of religion, expression, ideas, are more than idealistic foundations upon which modern liberal demoncracies are built on, they are natural rights. All sorts of moral issues, for a large part of the population, come from the interaction of people with their God. As such, they have the right to act within the bounds of their conscience in the world of public debate, even if that means proposing laws that conflict with your personal views. Abortion, Stem cell research, porn, strippers, prostitution, drugs, you name it, fall into this natural right.
I suggest, rather than attacking the source of this insight (religion) into human law, attack it's validity. Convince more people YOU are right and they are wrong. Ultimately, argueing with a sociological construction of pastors, ministers, and whatnot, is difficult, but not impossible, especially when the actions of these so called men and women of God quite frankly, at least from my point of view, are far more atheistic and materialistic in nature than a pure atheist could ever hope to accomplish. It is this very flaw that will be their down fall.
Perhaps I'm a luddite, but I was one very early on. I've always had the policy of never putting my credit card number online. In the old days (Early 90s), it was because most "retailers" didn't even bother encrypting the numbers in their database. Hell, there was no way of even knowing that the store even existed in the first place, the earliest form of phishing. Now a days, I assume EVERY email I get that asks for any information is from a criminal.
With the advent of temporary credit card numbers, I feel comfortable purchasing online, but only from proven stores.
People want to assume the best of others. Most people want to beleive that most other people are honest. When it comes to an anonymous medium like the internet, the reverse needs to be assumed as a starting place. The worst part of its, it's getting to the point that you don't even have a choice if your information is online. Whether your info is sold, your bank allows "online banking", a physical store you shopped has online "convience", or anything else, you lose the choice. Your entire credit history can be ruined even if you never go near a computer, all because of the convience of the internet. It's reckless, dangerous and eventually modern society will pay for such activities.
New Orleans floating away is a tangible sign that something might be different with the weather; it's something that Joe can get his head around.
While I agree stopping the coming ice age before it starts is a good thing. The science stands behind the climate change, that's a fact. I have to take this to task.
For some time now, that Atlantic has been in a down swing in hurricane activitiy. The past couple years have shown an upswing. It is entirely possible that the past two years are what the Atlantic consider to be normal seasons. That does not mean at all that the decline and/or reemergence of very strong storms over the past decade was not caused by atmospeheric conditions, it merely means the jury is still out on it.
Problem with this is that the state doesn't generate direct revenues from voting, like it does with slot machines. They'll bitch about where the money comes from, who will do the checks, what districts, what time, ect. What's more, there's a fundamental mentality of "trust us, we're the American voting system. What are you so unamerican?" to overcome.
Is it so much to ask that the machine doesn't do any of the counting and merely prints a paper ballot that the voter can hold, look at, walk over to a voting box and put it in themselves? What are they scared of? Why do the companies that make voting machines resist this idea so much?
It looks suspicous to me. They want to make money off more than selling machines. That kind of loss of trust can't be fixed with lip service and "independant" verification.
In this universe, we OBEY THE LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS especially the second one.
You are correct. 2nd Law of of Thermo says that in an isolated system, delta S increases. Note, it does not say that in all cases, delta S increases. Locally, delta S can decrease as long as for the whole system, it increases. It is this fundamental fact that allows things like air conditioners to exist, babies to grow into adults, and evolution to occur. All three of these examples rely on energy to enter the system and some of that engergy to be lost in the form of work. In the case of air conditioners that energy is electricity, in the case of babies growing up to being adults that energy was stored in food, in the case of evolution that energy comes directly from the sun.
Welcome to thermodynamics.
Doing my best to be objective and exact, I will explain why people like YOU are the reason christian fundamentalists attack evolution.
The ultimate problem is not with evolution per se, but with modernism. Higher Criticism (Wellhausen, Noth, et al), Darwinism (biological, sociological), various political paradims, pretty much any naturalistic explaination to the human condition, in their eyes, leads to Atheism. Once a single pillar of Christianity has been destroyed (see: the five fundamentals of faith for a more specific list), in their eyes, ALL of Christianity has been destoryed. Without the Christ, all are damned and there is no hope. That is ultimately the important thing to note.
In their eyes, the Christian Bible is inerrant. As such, all "science" will verify the text of the Christian Bible. If it does not, it because mankind has been lead astray by modernism (read: Satan) and fallen into a realm of logical fallacies.
There is an irony here, Intelligent Design (as they seem to describe it) has been primarily a modernist philosphical invention, until recently. It's roots are pretty much in the deistic prime mover, as such is a naturalistic attempt to talk about God. IMHO, Christian Fundamentalist who has accepted Intelligent Design, as it's described in the public debate, have walked up the first step towards modernism themselves. Early fundamentalist would be disgusted with them and attack them for heresy.
The reason they have accept Intelligent Design is ultimately because of the Founding Father Problem: the foundation of modern america starts with a Prime Move arguement which lead to "natural rights". In the late 19th to early 20th century, a lot of time was spent discussing this problem. This lead to a semi-successful attempt to repaint the founders as Christians and a partial acceptance of their arguements.
Yes, but who really gives a shit? Will dressing up make me code better than if I come in shorts (or sweats)? Will it magicly make me produce fewer bugs? No? Then I'll dress how I want- cheaply and comfortably. You don't like it? Too damn bad. I really don't give a shit.
This misses a very important point. Impressions. I'm up there with you man. I miss having purple hair, but as first boss out of college explained: "I don't care what you look like, your coworkers don't care what you look like, but some of my collabarators will care when they come to visit. I need them more than I need you."
Even if the people you work with and around every day know you're good at your job, in the end that isn't enough. Clients, collabarators, customers, and anyone else from a different work envrioment will take your lack of due care for you appearance and apply it to the entire workplace. That's a real impact. You can wear comfortable cloths that don't look like they came out of a basement for the time your at work, and go back to your t-shirts and hole filled jeans when you get home. They pay you, not the other way around.
The article reads more like they are reverse engineering pattern recongition systems as the brain sees and interperates objects, which sounds closer to the movie Brainstorm.
How exactly is that going to happen? Since this was all written down thousands of years ago, how is someone going to talk to those rabbis?
I think the more compelling question is the author of which creation story, first or second Genesis. One came from Judah, the other from Israel. The question of authorship is more complicated than just a bunch of "rabbis". For a good primer, check out "Who wrote the Bible?" (I can't remember the authors name). For a more detailed view, Wellhausen, Noth, and possibily Gunkle are worth checking out.
"the search for people who care has now begun."
I really don't see a reason for digging this guy up. I wonder how many graves were desecrated to fullfill someones desire to look at his bones and say "yup, that's him". They are going to need DNA of close relatives, they're gonna get dug up too.
Death is a very private experience, one that is between a person and their god(s) (or lack thereof for that matter), and in my humble opinion, there really should be a compelling reason to go digging up someones grave. I don't think seeking conformation of where his bones are centuries after the fact qualifies.
Maybe I'm just a radical, one of those people who think Indian burial sites are sacred ground (someones known religious views override a valid scientific interest). It's a shame someone was so intent on finding his body, they showed no respect for their death.
It seems like this page was thrown togethor pretty quickly. According to a job posting I saw on craigslist this afternoon, MS is looking for Systems Admins/Engineers for Windows Live (with command line experience). The DNS was updated yesterday, the registrar (register.com) still has the owner being some guy named Jack Spurr and not Microsoft. I guess these are two reasons why it's "beta".
Why is it then that the owners of nuclear facilities don't have to fully insure them, and they need laws limiting their liability?
Because no one would insure them in the first place and, as such, no reactor would be built. While outdated and unnecissary, in initial idea behind this in 1957 seems to be on the right track, today, no such limits are necissary.
"Engineers don't get any more say than anybody else what the problem or constraints should be."
You forgot the second half of the equation, scientist. If I were dictator of the world, here's how I would approach the issue.
1. Give a team of engineers from multiple disciplines physical criteria for the storage unit that dicates that x/year of waste will be stored in said facility and ask them to draw up planes (several sets, of course, rough drafts if you will)
2. Take said plans to biologist/ecologist/geologists and ask them what physical place bets suits said plans (getting a list to choose from)
3. Take locations back to engineers and ask them to refine plans for each individual location
4. Take plans back to biologists/ecologists/geologists and ask them if there is now any reason to expand or shorten the previous list (including how to get the waste there, local impact from building, projected population growths over the time of disposal/storage, effects of population growth over distributation of waste to location, etc)
5. Repeat steps 3 & 4 iteratively until the law of diminishing returns kicks in
6. Based on total envriomental impact, population impact, economic impact (which could indirectly affect cost), total cost, and any other factors engineers/scientists can think up, chose a location.