So either way you look at it your just full of shit.
Right, but he's admitting this. He feels that everyone is full of shit, himself included... he's just trying to see if people would be willing to agree with him.
I'd rather him say that everything is a truthless statment, and rather just an assertion of belief in a myth, but I'm not him.
I've been keeping up with him, and have had a reasonable chance to understand his position.
He believes nothing is fact, everything is "wrong". Although, my opinion being that you can't have "wrong" without "right", then he believes everything is "maybe"... literally, a truthless statement, but rather just an assertion of ones belief in a mythos.
He expressed the opinion that he would have a problem if someone quoted from ANY encyclopedia, and he expressed the refusal of acceptance of expertise for dictionary.com on the meaning of an English word.
He doesn't contest every fact that comes his way, he just knows that they are all stateless propositions.
Argument need not always contain shouting and beligerant berating. I've not attacked you personally (or at least I've not meant to) in anyway during this argument.
I simply disagree.
Then, sadly, you've missed the entire point.
No, quite the opposite, and you're starting to assert that your meta-model is correct, and mine is wrong.
I have evaluated your meta-model, and I find it unsatisfactory at explaining my observations.
You can't argue that I missed your point, because you're making a truth statement with that, and making the statement that I'm wrong. I'm not any more right or wrong than you are.
In fact, I see a perfect resolution to this argument. Within my meta-model your meta-model is insufficient, and unworkable. Thus, I am correct.
Within your meta-model, nothing can be proven, and nothing is right, everything is "wrong". (in a way, "wrong" only exists if there's a "right". In truth, you likely believe that everything is "maybe", which is neither right nor wrong.) So, considering that everything is "maybe", your meta-model works as well as my meta-model.
Your attempt to assert otherwise that your meta-model is correct, is thus inconsistent with your very own policy. You must be willing to accept that people will not accept your meta-model, and that they are not wrong for doing so.
Maybe it's just a myth that everything is a myth, and that perhaps there is actually a real Truth out there, that we can truely get closer to.
If you take the position that "November 9th" is a constructed human meaning and element, then to say that Kristallnacht (the myth or otherwise) happened on November 9th (the myth or otherwise) is valid, and logical, as that is the established date for the occurance of Kirstallnacht.
I've had this issue with Solipsism. I took a philosophy class, and the teacher once used reducum ad absurdium to disprove something by showing it to be Solipsism. "And that's just ridiculous". But in reality, that doesn't work in philosophy. You're making the assumption that the world can't have a solipsistic nature, and that to assert so is an "arrogant" point of view. But people often view people more intelligent than they as arrogant, without that person even showing any arrogant actions, simply because those people feel threatened by the other's intelligence, and thus feel a need to declare them as "arrogant".
As with anything, there are socially constructed meanings and established conventions. If I were to use a word incorrectly or egretibly or just invent something that you wouldn't understand then there would be no advancement of either of our "learnings". We establish a fundamental running point from which we can communicate, and that is the established English usage in this case. If I were to attempt to argue with you in German, then we very likely would not be able to get anywhere as both of us would be working in different spheres of communication.
In the same way, we establish authorities for points of argument where upon we can begin to formulate an argument. If everything is myth, then RUN WITH IT. As long as I'm staying factually and logically consistent with in my mythos then everything's good. Just I choose to call my "mythos" "fact", where as you refuse to make any such assertion.
The point of the matter here is you're arguing the meta-nature of fact. In the same way this is related to arguing metaphysics. Any obvservation you make about metaphysics functionally relates to a moot point in physics itself. To bring back to the point of Solipsism; whether I choose to see this world from a Solipsistic view point, or from a realist standpoint (that everything is real as science understands it, and my senses are not simply a figment of my imagination) has little bearing upon my actions in this world.
Just because I may believe that cars don't exist, doesn't mean that I believe I can walk across the street without looking both ways, nor would I risk that.
Essentially, I establish as an axiom that there exists a "mythos" as you would call it, that is actually related to reality better than any other possible mythos, and this mythos is thus "fact".
Wikipedia has a reasonable number of such "facts" that fit this better "mythos" than what I can myself command.
authority: 4. a. An accepted source of expert information or advice: a noted authority on birds; a reference book often cited as an authority. b. A quotation or citation from such a source: biblical authorities for a moral argument.
OH WAIT A SECOND... that's right... you're arguing that NO ONE can be an authority on ANYTHING. Because no one can be objective about anything.
Sorry, for a second there I thought I was arguing with someone who was willing to accept and an expert source, sorry again.
You know what? You have no authority to say that Wikipedia is even wrong. Is it actually as full of factual misrepresentations as you would like to establish?
I find it convenient that you're nihilistic views of authority and Ethos allow you to win any arguement, simply by saying that no source is credible. I mean, listen to what you're arguing. "Everyone is wrong about something."
How do I know you're not wrong about that? You know what. I've come to the conclusion that you're wrong about Wikipedia. You obviously have far too great of a bias against Wikipedia, and rather than choosing to attack that source of reasonable factuality, you'd rather just argue that nothing and no one is an authority on anything.
I cannot debate with you, as we cannot agree upon common grounds with which to argue.
Groups of human beings are incapable of accuracy; that's the whole problem with peer-reviewed systems to begin with.
Then there's no possible way for anything to meet your exacting standards of accuracy.
Unless of course you're wrong too. In which case you're contributing to the inaccuracy of Wikipedia.
If you have authority, then you have credibility that can be cited elsewhere. When someone tells you that you're wrong in your contribution to Wikipedia, you can then pull up your citations supporting your facts that are not based on Wikipedia, like say you wrote a Mathematics textbook, and you contribute something to Wikipedia based upon information from that textbook. You're going to tell me that it's wrong, because it's suddenly now public information on Wikipedia?
Actually, it's even worse in that case- because it short circuits the learning process.
The same as EVERY authoritive source, and this doesn't "short circuit" the learning process. You may be frustrated that it doesn't involve critical though, but it's still learning!
Which means it's a cop out to actually using thought and logic to support your position.
Sometimes, there are things that need to be given a source and can't be supported by simple thought or logic alone. Not requiring a credible source for information is no better than appealing to common sense, which as in physic, we know cannot be trusted.
I'd rather that people not get as hung up on being "right" or "wrong". No human being is ever capable of being right anyway- the closest we can come is a model based on myth that is sometimes right and sometimes wrong.
So, I'm getting from this post that it's apparent that you don't believe in authority of information in the first place. You're such an anarchist of information that you feel the need to attack the collaboration of anarchists towards information.
It is appearing to me from your responses here that you don't feel that ANYONE has ANY credibility beyond what can be logically established. Well, some arguments just don't work that way, and not all of us have the time to thoroughly prove everything logically. In fact, in mathematical proofs, one often make use of well-known and well-established theories that someone a lot smarter than they have proven to be correct, and which they can then use to "short-circuit" their proofs. So that I don't have to prove that addition is commutative, I can just use the fact that addition is commutative.
You essentially are denying the worth of any authority in an argument, and that everyone should just use logical bases and "learning" to get closer to the truth. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Unfortunately, things don't work that way usually. I never had to prove the communative nature of addition, I just used it in school... damn that short-circuited learning process.
It's not guarenteed fact, but it's still full of facts. Yes, there is opinion in there, and myths, and urban legends, what have you. But the fact still remains that someone just speaking about a topic has NO CREDIBILITY OF HIS OWN, unless he's an authority on the subject.
And supplying as a citation something that's at least mostly fact, is a hell of a lot better than a simple "because I say so."
But you *can* argue with the authority of Wikipedia. You can stipulate with a differing authority that the Wikipedia article is wrong, and you can get on Wikipedia, and actually contribute to the accuracy of Wikipedia by supplying that information.
If you have credibility in a field, and you disagree with something in Wikipedia, and bothering to complain that it's wrong, without contributing to make it better, then that's your own damn fault.
But if neither side of an argument has any credibility in the field of discussion, then Wikipedia is a valid source of support.
Again, the whole PURPOSE of citation is to say that this idea is not my own, and this is the source of my information/position, or this source backs up my personal information/position.
Would you rather everyone not source Wikipedia and just start claiming what Wikipedia states as fact without any citation, so you can't even tell that person that "Wikipedia is an insufficiently credible source." Then you get suck in a pissing match where everyone's right just because they say they are.
Yeah, real good solution for the problem right there.
This is entirely the purpose of citation. I make a claim, here's a supporting authority, or source. You're free to then argue with the credability of my source, but you can't attack my credibility, as I have none in that field. I'm not an authority in that field myself.
So, to take a real example, I personally can assert certain positions concerning the relations and relative strengths and weaknesses between AltiVec and SSE. I have authority there, and I can back up my claims with first hand experience, and those hefty absolute authorities such as specifications and actual implementation variations.
But when I go talking about politics, I don't have a leg to stand on. I'd probably forgotten the name "Bob Dole" a long time ago, if my friend didn't keep using it as a generic pseudonym. In these cases, I need an alternate source to obtain credibility. And I should cite those credible sources.
Otherwise, I'm attempting to gain Ethos on my own credentials, which I do not have any at all. So, either I can take the potentially tainted and arguable authority of Wikipedia, or I can try and drive my point with my own credability in a field that I have no authority at all. I'll take the former choice, and let you know where I'm getting my authority. Then you can argue with the authority, not me.
The particular article for the incorrectly-alledged JFK assassination conspiracist does yet remain in the wikipedia. It has been cleaned up and fixed to be less... factually incorrect.
God, it's like the sibling posts didn't even bother RTPDF.
Forget everything you're thinking that it MIGHT do. It has a centrally located motor, which allows for 360 degrees of rotation of the single camera. it doesn't need to counter balance roll to upright, besides, that would be a bad design, suppose the military is throwing it into a rough surface that will not allow it to roll.
better to have the mechanical rotation mechanism that can rotate at 4rpm, and have a software or mechanical rotation mechanism to get the sensor to point "up".
What's worse is that when a security system is installed, there's an installer password, which can be used to set or turn off the system, but ONLY WITH THAT CODE. If you set the account with your own personal password, then they cannot turn off the system with the installer code.
Also, where I work, services are installed under a lab account, which by company protocol gets refreshed every two months or so.
This guy is paranoid for NOTHING. Any good company policy that will enforce regular password changes for all of this stuff behind the scenes, and if there is an unexpiring password, it's because it has zero access.
Honestly, there's no way to accurately gauge how someone would do in a job except hire them and try them out.
We pick arbitrary reasons to cut the chaff out. We're not really looking for any sort of procedure that produces the best or most successful candidate for a job, we're just trying to find one that's reasonably productive.
Seriously, just about everything sucks for figuring out if someone would be well suited to a job. But if one can dazzle a company with what they know... well, that's just like a magic trick. It's pretty cool, and people fall for it.
Ideally, we could plug people into a VR machine and they could live out 25 years of work in the machine in the blink of an eye, then we'd know if they were worth hiring or not...
9-11 (November 9th, not September 11th) hit a number of significant events in German history. The shooting of Robert Blum in Vienna (1848), the November Revolution (1918), the attempted coup by Hitler (1923), Kristallnacht (1938), and East Germany openning up the Berlin wall border (1989).
I suppose though that a Neo-Nazi would have as much trouble choosing to remember the 9th of November as everyone else does. If you celebrate it as a holiday, you end up celebrating perhaps the most significant event in the reunification of Germany, but also you end up celebrating on the aniversary of Kristallnacht.
Now, it's kind of recognized as a "Day of Destiny" in German history, and it's seen as a day for rememberance, but not a holiday, because they don't want any mistake taken of celebrating the day that Kristallnacht happened.
The thing that I think is really funny about IQ tests is that they correlate well to academic ability, but seem to be unrelated to the real-world success of the individuals tested.
Funny... I had a really high IQ, but I did very poorly in school. Of course, I was lazy and did little homework. Now, granted I always did well on tests (unless I just had no idea at all about anything that the test was asking. This has happened about 2 or 3 times in my life.)
"Academic ability" is more related to the personal drive and ambition of the person, not their actual intelligence. "Academic capability" is definitely more related to their IQ than their personal drive, but that's more of a theoretical capacity than an actual application.
Theoretically, someone with a high IQ is more capable for success in the real world, too, but it doesn't mean that they will apply themselves and actually succeed.
Honestly, we complain that IQ and academic performance don't indicate well the real world success of a person, because of common exceptions, but on the average, these indicators are actually the best indicators we have.
I'm actually more worried that, if this secure and seperate network is easily identifiable, that one could avoid it simply by saying for example: "Don't attempt to infect any machines in the network 128.123.x.x"
The windows DLL manager has been able to clean up after itself. The problem was that until Vista, everything has been tied in tight together, with a lot of integration between components, so it was difficult if not impossible to tell what could be restarted, and avoid the reboot.
Vista now uses much better compontentization, and this allows them to actually know what components were affected by an upgrade, and need to be restarted.
In the *nix world, everything's been compontentized from the start, and so naturally you were able to restart services instead of the whole machine fro mthe beginning.
Ich weiß genau was "Gesundheit" bedeutet, denn ich spreche AUCH Deutsch.
The point of it is not what you're saying, but rather the reason you're saying it. If you're wishing one good health after they sneeze you're in one of two states: they're already sick, and the statement is worthless, and will not impact their health, or they're not already sick, and the statement is worthless, because they're not even sick.
It's a socialized response to sneezing, and is based on the superstition that you can make someone healthy just by wishing that they were healthy.
Honestly, I think the only reasonable non-superstitious response to a sneeze would be "Be quiet."
Hinweis: vielleicht sollst du in der Zukunft es nicht vermuten, dass jemand das Wort "Gesundheit" nicht versteht, nur weil er dir mitgeteilt hat, dass es abergläubisch ist.
now i may have misunderstood what the whole jist of what YOUR view was, but if your mother and father raped and beat you, they are not your parents, i dont care what dna they have, they are NOT YOUR PARENTS. even so no person that abuses deserves the respect of the victim, and the victim has every right to hate and despise every bit of that person's soul. anyone who think's there is no reason, is...*insert vulgar disparinging terms*. i'd like to leave you in a room with my friends whos mothers and fathers raped them and see what your view is after 5 minutes.
Yes, that's the way the world works. And the Bible tells us to be above such "petty matters", and to love all humanity equally and without condition.
There are people that I don't like, and I in fact could be said to hate. But the Christian doctrine tells me that it's wrong, and I shouldn't feel that way.
How much more so does it say for a man's character if he can forgive, and love. Hell, everyone can hate someone for doing something wrong or stupid. Who though do you think has the balls to look into the eyes of a father that raped them and tell them, "I love you, dad."
Slashdot Mirror
So either way you look at it your just full of shit.
Right, but he's admitting this. He feels that everyone is full of shit, himself included... he's just trying to see if people would be willing to agree with him.
I'd rather him say that everything is a truthless statment, and rather just an assertion of belief in a myth, but I'm not him.
I've been keeping up with him, and have had a reasonable chance to understand his position.
He believes nothing is fact, everything is "wrong". Although, my opinion being that you can't have "wrong" without "right", then he believes everything is "maybe"... literally, a truthless statement, but rather just an assertion of ones belief in a mythos.
He expressed the opinion that he would have a problem if someone quoted from ANY encyclopedia, and he expressed the refusal of acceptance of expertise for dictionary.com on the meaning of an English word.
He doesn't contest every fact that comes his way, he just knows that they are all stateless propositions.
We're having a learning process here, please be respectful and not cause distractions that do not pertain to our learning here.
Argument need not always contain shouting and beligerant berating. I've not attacked you personally (or at least I've not meant to) in anyway during this argument.
I simply disagree.
Then, sadly, you've missed the entire point.
No, quite the opposite, and you're starting to assert that your meta-model is correct, and mine is wrong.
I have evaluated your meta-model, and I find it unsatisfactory at explaining my observations.
You can't argue that I missed your point, because you're making a truth statement with that, and making the statement that I'm wrong. I'm not any more right or wrong than you are.
In fact, I see a perfect resolution to this argument. Within my meta-model your meta-model is insufficient, and unworkable. Thus, I am correct.
Within your meta-model, nothing can be proven, and nothing is right, everything is "wrong". (in a way, "wrong" only exists if there's a "right". In truth, you likely believe that everything is "maybe", which is neither right nor wrong.) So, considering that everything is "maybe", your meta-model works as well as my meta-model.
Your attempt to assert otherwise that your meta-model is correct, is thus inconsistent with your very own policy. You must be willing to accept that people will not accept your meta-model, and that they are not wrong for doing so.
Maybe it's just a myth that everything is a myth, and that perhaps there is actually a real Truth out there, that we can truely get closer to.
If you take the position that "November 9th" is a constructed human meaning and element, then to say that Kristallnacht (the myth or otherwise) happened on November 9th (the myth or otherwise) is valid, and logical, as that is the established date for the occurance of Kirstallnacht.
I've had this issue with Solipsism. I took a philosophy class, and the teacher once used reducum ad absurdium to disprove something by showing it to be Solipsism. "And that's just ridiculous". But in reality, that doesn't work in philosophy. You're making the assumption that the world can't have a solipsistic nature, and that to assert so is an "arrogant" point of view. But people often view people more intelligent than they as arrogant, without that person even showing any arrogant actions, simply because those people feel threatened by the other's intelligence, and thus feel a need to declare them as "arrogant".
As with anything, there are socially constructed meanings and established conventions. If I were to use a word incorrectly or egretibly or just invent something that you wouldn't understand then there would be no advancement of either of our "learnings". We establish a fundamental running point from which we can communicate, and that is the established English usage in this case. If I were to attempt to argue with you in German, then we very likely would not be able to get anywhere as both of us would be working in different spheres of communication.
In the same way, we establish authorities for points of argument where upon we can begin to formulate an argument. If everything is myth, then RUN WITH IT. As long as I'm staying factually and logically consistent with in my mythos then everything's good. Just I choose to call my "mythos" "fact", where as you refuse to make any such assertion.
The point of the matter here is you're arguing the meta-nature of fact. In the same way this is related to arguing metaphysics. Any obvservation you make about metaphysics functionally relates to a moot point in physics itself. To bring back to the point of Solipsism; whether I choose to see this world from a Solipsistic view point, or from a realist standpoint (that everything is real as science understands it, and my senses are not simply a figment of my imagination) has little bearing upon my actions in this world.
Just because I may believe that cars don't exist, doesn't mean that I believe I can walk across the street without looking both ways, nor would I risk that.
Essentially, I establish as an axiom that there exists a "mythos" as you would call it, that is actually related to reality better than any other possible mythos, and this mythos is thus "fact".
Wikipedia has a reasonable number of such "facts" that fit this better "mythos" than what I can myself command.
OH WAIT A SECOND... that's right... you're arguing that NO ONE can be an authority on ANYTHING. Because no one can be objective about anything.
Sorry, for a second there I thought I was arguing with someone who was willing to accept and an expert source, sorry again.
You know what? You have no authority to say that Wikipedia is even wrong. Is it actually as full of factual misrepresentations as you would like to establish?
I find it convenient that you're nihilistic views of authority and Ethos allow you to win any arguement, simply by saying that no source is credible. I mean, listen to what you're arguing. "Everyone is wrong about something."
How do I know you're not wrong about that? You know what. I've come to the conclusion that you're wrong about Wikipedia. You obviously have far too great of a bias against Wikipedia, and rather than choosing to attack that source of reasonable factuality, you'd rather just argue that nothing and no one is an authority on anything.
I cannot debate with you, as we cannot agree upon common grounds with which to argue.
Groups of human beings are incapable of accuracy; that's the whole problem with peer-reviewed systems to begin with.
Then there's no possible way for anything to meet your exacting standards of accuracy.
Unless of course you're wrong too. In which case you're contributing to the inaccuracy of Wikipedia.
If you have authority, then you have credibility that can be cited elsewhere. When someone tells you that you're wrong in your contribution to Wikipedia, you can then pull up your citations supporting your facts that are not based on Wikipedia, like say you wrote a Mathematics textbook, and you contribute something to Wikipedia based upon information from that textbook. You're going to tell me that it's wrong, because it's suddenly now public information on Wikipedia?
Actually, it's even worse in that case- because it short circuits the learning process.
The same as EVERY authoritive source, and this doesn't "short circuit" the learning process. You may be frustrated that it doesn't involve critical though, but it's still learning!
Which means it's a cop out to actually using thought and logic to support your position.
Sometimes, there are things that need to be given a source and can't be supported by simple thought or logic alone. Not requiring a credible source for information is no better than appealing to common sense, which as in physic, we know cannot be trusted.
I'd rather that people not get as hung up on being "right" or "wrong". No human being is ever capable of being right anyway- the closest we can come is a model based on myth that is sometimes right and sometimes wrong.
So, I'm getting from this post that it's apparent that you don't believe in authority of information in the first place. You're such an anarchist of information that you feel the need to attack the collaboration of anarchists towards information.
It is appearing to me from your responses here that you don't feel that ANYONE has ANY credibility beyond what can be logically established. Well, some arguments just don't work that way, and not all of us have the time to thoroughly prove everything logically. In fact, in mathematical proofs, one often make use of well-known and well-established theories that someone a lot smarter than they have proven to be correct, and which they can then use to "short-circuit" their proofs. So that I don't have to prove that addition is commutative, I can just use the fact that addition is commutative.
You essentially are denying the worth of any authority in an argument, and that everyone should just use logical bases and "learning" to get closer to the truth. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Unfortunately, things don't work that way usually. I never had to prove the communative nature of addition, I just used it in school... damn that short-circuited learning process.
Right, because Lord knows, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_9 none of that stuff happened on November 9th...
It's not guarenteed fact, but it's still full of facts. Yes, there is opinion in there, and myths, and urban legends, what have you. But the fact still remains that someone just speaking about a topic has NO CREDIBILITY OF HIS OWN, unless he's an authority on the subject.
And supplying as a citation something that's at least mostly fact, is a hell of a lot better than a simple "because I say so."
Yes, I've definitely found Wikipedia to be an excellent source of information for popular culture.
I also enjoy reading some of the math and physics articles. I look at some of them and go "Uh...... right..."
But you *can* argue with the authority of Wikipedia. You can stipulate with a differing authority that the Wikipedia article is wrong, and you can get on Wikipedia, and actually contribute to the accuracy of Wikipedia by supplying that information.
If you have credibility in a field, and you disagree with something in Wikipedia, and bothering to complain that it's wrong, without contributing to make it better, then that's your own damn fault.
But if neither side of an argument has any credibility in the field of discussion, then Wikipedia is a valid source of support.
Again, the whole PURPOSE of citation is to say that this idea is not my own, and this is the source of my information/position, or this source backs up my personal information/position.
Would you rather everyone not source Wikipedia and just start claiming what Wikipedia states as fact without any citation, so you can't even tell that person that "Wikipedia is an insufficiently credible source." Then you get suck in a pissing match where everyone's right just because they say they are.
Yeah, real good solution for the problem right there.
And whose set of morals are we talking about here?
whose sets of morals. Or are you intending to imply that everyone needs to have one set of morals, you insensitive clod?
This is entirely the purpose of citation. I make a claim, here's a supporting authority, or source. You're free to then argue with the credability of my source, but you can't attack my credibility, as I have none in that field. I'm not an authority in that field myself.
So, to take a real example, I personally can assert certain positions concerning the relations and relative strengths and weaknesses between AltiVec and SSE. I have authority there, and I can back up my claims with first hand experience, and those hefty absolute authorities such as specifications and actual implementation variations.
But when I go talking about politics, I don't have a leg to stand on. I'd probably forgotten the name "Bob Dole" a long time ago, if my friend didn't keep using it as a generic pseudonym. In these cases, I need an alternate source to obtain credibility. And I should cite those credible sources.
Otherwise, I'm attempting to gain Ethos on my own credentials, which I do not have any at all. So, either I can take the potentially tainted and arguable authority of Wikipedia, or I can try and drive my point with my own credability in a field that I have no authority at all. I'll take the former choice, and let you know where I'm getting my authority. Then you can argue with the authority, not me.
The particular article for the incorrectly-alledged JFK assassination conspiracist does yet remain in the wikipedia. It has been cleaned up and fixed to be less... factually incorrect.
I might check it out after work, but I'm way too scared to click on an arbitrary tinyurl link now, too.
Lord knows it's going to be something that I'll regret, and I don't particularly want that on the company web proxy.
God, it's like the sibling posts didn't even bother RTPDF.
Forget everything you're thinking that it MIGHT do. It has a centrally located motor, which allows for 360 degrees of rotation of the single camera. it doesn't need to counter balance roll to upright, besides, that would be a bad design, suppose the military is throwing it into a rough surface that will not allow it to roll.
better to have the mechanical rotation mechanism that can rotate at 4rpm, and have a software or mechanical rotation mechanism to get the sensor to point "up".
What's worse is that when a security system is installed, there's an installer password, which can be used to set or turn off the system, but ONLY WITH THAT CODE. If you set the account with your own personal password, then they cannot turn off the system with the installer code.
Also, where I work, services are installed under a lab account, which by company protocol gets refreshed every two months or so.
This guy is paranoid for NOTHING. Any good company policy that will enforce regular password changes for all of this stuff behind the scenes, and if there is an unexpiring password, it's because it has zero access.
Honestly, there's no way to accurately gauge how someone would do in a job except hire them and try them out.
We pick arbitrary reasons to cut the chaff out. We're not really looking for any sort of procedure that produces the best or most successful candidate for a job, we're just trying to find one that's reasonably productive.
Seriously, just about everything sucks for figuring out if someone would be well suited to a job. But if one can dazzle a company with what they know... well, that's just like a magic trick. It's pretty cool, and people fall for it.
Ideally, we could plug people into a VR machine and they could live out 25 years of work in the machine in the blink of an eye, then we'd know if they were worth hiring or not...
Of course that's just stupid.
Monroe Doctrine? You mean that was just something we boasted, and we don't actually own the western hemisphere?
:(
Shit... I've been living in a cave
Why not pick a day http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/9._November that the Germans can't really pick for either holiday status, or day of infamy.
9-11 (November 9th, not September 11th) hit a number of significant events in German history. The shooting of Robert Blum in Vienna (1848), the November Revolution (1918), the attempted coup by Hitler (1923), Kristallnacht (1938), and East Germany openning up the Berlin wall border (1989).
I suppose though that a Neo-Nazi would have as much trouble choosing to remember the 9th of November as everyone else does. If you celebrate it as a holiday, you end up celebrating perhaps the most significant event in the reunification of Germany, but also you end up celebrating on the aniversary of Kristallnacht.
Now, it's kind of recognized as a "Day of Destiny" in German history, and it's seen as a day for rememberance, but not a holiday, because they don't want any mistake taken of celebrating the day that Kristallnacht happened.
The thing that I think is really funny about IQ tests is that they correlate well to academic ability, but seem to be unrelated to the real-world success of the individuals tested.
Funny... I had a really high IQ, but I did very poorly in school. Of course, I was lazy and did little homework. Now, granted I always did well on tests (unless I just had no idea at all about anything that the test was asking. This has happened about 2 or 3 times in my life.)
"Academic ability" is more related to the personal drive and ambition of the person, not their actual intelligence. "Academic capability" is definitely more related to their IQ than their personal drive, but that's more of a theoretical capacity than an actual application.
Theoretically, someone with a high IQ is more capable for success in the real world, too, but it doesn't mean that they will apply themselves and actually succeed.
Honestly, we complain that IQ and academic performance don't indicate well the real world success of a person, because of common exceptions, but on the average, these indicators are actually the best indicators we have.
I think his comment is just facetious, and that he fully well understands the meaning of irony.
I'm actually more worried that, if this secure and seperate network is easily identifiable, that one could avoid it simply by saying for example: "Don't attempt to infect any machines in the network 128.123.x.x"
The windows DLL manager has been able to clean up after itself. The problem was that until Vista, everything has been tied in tight together, with a lot of integration between components, so it was difficult if not impossible to tell what could be restarted, and avoid the reboot.
Vista now uses much better compontentization, and this allows them to actually know what components were affected by an upgrade, and need to be restarted.
In the *nix world, everything's been compontentized from the start, and so naturally you were able to restart services instead of the whole machine fro mthe beginning.
Ich weiß genau was "Gesundheit" bedeutet, denn ich spreche AUCH Deutsch.
The point of it is not what you're saying, but rather the reason you're saying it. If you're wishing one good health after they sneeze you're in one of two states: they're already sick, and the statement is worthless, and will not impact their health, or they're not already sick, and the statement is worthless, because they're not even sick.
It's a socialized response to sneezing, and is based on the superstition that you can make someone healthy just by wishing that they were healthy.
Honestly, I think the only reasonable non-superstitious response to a sneeze would be "Be quiet."
Hinweis: vielleicht sollst du in der Zukunft es nicht vermuten, dass jemand das Wort "Gesundheit" nicht versteht, nur weil er dir mitgeteilt hat, dass es abergläubisch ist.
now i may have misunderstood what the whole jist of what YOUR view was, but if your mother and father raped and beat you, they are not your parents, i dont care what dna they have, they are NOT YOUR PARENTS. even so no person that abuses deserves the respect of the victim, and the victim has every right to hate and despise every bit of that person's soul. anyone who think's there is no reason, is ...*insert vulgar disparinging terms*. i'd like to leave you in a room with my friends whos mothers and fathers raped them and see what your view is after 5 minutes.
Yes, that's the way the world works. And the Bible tells us to be above such "petty matters", and to love all humanity equally and without condition.
There are people that I don't like, and I in fact could be said to hate. But the Christian doctrine tells me that it's wrong, and I shouldn't feel that way.
How much more so does it say for a man's character if he can forgive, and love. Hell, everyone can hate someone for doing something wrong or stupid. Who though do you think has the balls to look into the eyes of a father that raped them and tell them, "I love you, dad."